HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix IS
Appendix ,6
Initial Study
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
Initial Study
prepared by
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
City Hall Annex, P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
Contact: Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
May 2020
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
Initial Study
prepared by
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
City Hall Annex, P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
Contact: Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
May 2020
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Initial Study i
Table of Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms.................................................................................................................. v
Initial Study .............................................................................................................................................1
1. Project Title .........................................................................................................................1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address .........................................................................................1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ...................................................................................1
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .................................................................................1
5. Project Location ..................................................................................................................1
6. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................5
7. Zoning..................................................................................................................................5
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ....................................................................................5
9. Project Description ..............................................................................................................5
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required ..........................................................6
11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the
Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21080.3.1? ..........................................................................................................................6
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................................7
Determination ........................................................................................................................................7
Environmental Checklist .........................................................................................................................9
1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................9
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................. 13
3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................ 17
4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 25
5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 33
6 Energy .............................................................................................................................. 41
7 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 49
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 59
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................... 69
10 Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................................................................... 75
11 Land Use and Planning ..................................................................................................... 83
12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................... 85
13 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 87
14 Population and Housing ................................................................................................... 93
15 Public Services .................................................................................................................. 95
16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 99
17 Transportation ............................................................................................................... 101
18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................... 103
19 Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................................... 105
20 Wildfire .......................................................................................................................... 113
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
ii
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................................... 117
References ......................................................................................................................................... 121
List of Preparers ......................................................................................................................... 126
Tables
Table 1 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants ............................... 18
Table 2 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 19
Table 3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 21
Table 4 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................. 22
Table 5 Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 mile of the Project Site ......................... 34
Table 6 Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 mile of the Project Site ................................ 35
Table 7 2018 Annual Electricity Consumption .............................................................................. 42
Table 8 2017 Annual Natural Gas Consumption ........................................................................... 43
Table 9 Proposed Project Construction Energy Usage ................................................................. 43
Table 10 Proposed Project Operational Energy Usage ................................................................... 44
Table 11 Project Compliance with Energy Efficiency Goals and Policies ........................................ 46
Table 12 Active Fault Zones Near the Project Site.......................................................................... 51
Table 13 GHG Significance Thresholds ........................................................................................... 62
Table 14 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions .......................................................................... 63
Table 15 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ........................................................ 64
Table 16 Project Consistency with City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan Development
Review Checklist .............................................................................................................. 65
Table 17 Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage ........................................................ 89
Table 18 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre feet) ............................................ 106
Table 19 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (acre feet) .................................. 106
Table 20 Estimated Landfill Capacities and Closure Dates ........................................................... 107
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................3
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ..............................................................................................................4
Table of Contents
Initial Study iii
Appendices
Appendix AQ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
Appendix ARB Arborist Report
Appendix CSP Construction Site Plan
Appendix CUL Cultural Resources Report
Appendix GEO Geotechnical Report
Appendix HAZ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix TRA Access and Circulation Memo
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Initial Study v
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AF acre-feet
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AQMP air quality management plan
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BMP best management practices
BTP Business Technology Park
Btu British thermal units
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFP California Fully Protected
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted sound pressure level
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
vi
DOC Department of Conservation
DOF California Department of Finance
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gases
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HMCD Hazardous Materials Compliance Division
IPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBtu thousand British thermal units
kWh kilowatt-hours
Ldn Day-Night Average (noise) Level
Leq single steady A-weighted (noise) level
Lmax highest root mean squared sound pressure level
Lmin lowest root mean squared sound pressure level
LOS level of service
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mgd million gallons per day
MMBtu million British thermal units
MMcf million cubic feet
MW megawatts
N2O nitrous oxides
NAAQS national ambient air quality standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Initial Study vii
NRHR National Register of Historic Places
O3 ozone
Pb lead
PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PFC perfluorocarbons
PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of up to 2.5 microns
PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of up to ten microns
R&D research and development
ROG reactive organic gases
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFO San Francisco International Airport
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SMP Site Management Plan
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department
SSFMC South San Francisco Municipal Code
SSFPD South San Francisco Police Department
SSFSC South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc.
SSFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District
SSFWQCP South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB California State Water Resources Control Board
TDM Transportation Demand Management
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
viii
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VdB vibration decibels
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Initial Study
Initial Study 1
Initial Study
As the Lead Agency, the City of South San Francisco prepared this Initial Study for the 499 Forbes
Boulevard Office Project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et. seq.), and the regulations and
policies of the City of South San Francisco, California.
1. Project Title
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of South San Francisco
Planning Division
City Hall Annex
315 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, California 94083
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
(650) 877-8535
Christopher.Espiritu@ssf.net
4. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Aralon Properties
Colum Regan
482 Bryant Street
San Francisco, California 94107
5. Project Location
The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Forbes Boulevard and
Allerton Avenue, at 499 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco. The site, which totals 2.96 acres
(128,737 square feet), consists of one roughly rectangular parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN]
015-082-040) and another long, thin parcel extending north from the main parcel and encompassing
part of a decommissioned railroad track (APN to be determined). Figure 1 shows the regional
location of the project site, Figure 2 provides an aerial image of the project site in its neighborhood
context, and Figure 3 provides the proposed site plan.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
2
Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Initial Study 3
Figure 2 Project Location
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
4
Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan
Initial Study
Initial Study 5
6. General Plan Designation
The South San Francisco General Plan designates the project site as Business and Technology Park.
According to the General Plan “this designation accommodates campus-like environments for
corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include
incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas,
shoreline-oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing
and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses only. All development is subject
to high design and landscape standards” (City of South San Francisco 1999).
7. Zoning
The project site is zoned Business Technology Park (BTP). According to South San Francisco
Municipal Code Section 20.110.001, the BTP zoning district “is intended for business and
professional offices, visitor service establishments, and retail uses with an emphasis on larger and
regional-serving uses west of 101. A wide range of nonresidential uses are appropriate including
administrative, financial, business, professional, medical and public offices and visitor-oriented and
regional commercial activities such as warehouse clubs and other large-format retail uses.”
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is near the eastern edge of South San Francisco, at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. The surrounding neighborhood includes all
non-residential uses, including several buildings occupied by Genentech, a biotechnology company,
and office, manufacturing, and warehouse buildings for other commercial businesses. Offices,
warehouses, and distribution centers for food packaging companies occur north of the project site,
across the railroad tracks. A large surface parking lot and bus station serving Genentech abuts the
project site to the east, and the office and warehouses for a food distribution company abut the
project site to the west. A vacant lot is south of the project site, directly across Forbes Boulevard. To
the northeast of the project site, approximately 0.2 mile away, is a U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection building. The project site is approximately 0.5 mile west of San
Francisco Bay.
The project site is developed with an unoccupied one-story, manufacturing and warehouse
structure, a concrete surface parking lot, minimal landscaping around the perimeter of the site, and
a decommissioned railroad track. The site is generally flat and almost entirely paved, with limited
landscaping along its perimeter.
9. Project Description
The project would involve the construction of two new structures, a five-story, 128,737 square-foot
office structure and a five-story, 97,859 square-foot parking structure with 308 parking spaces. The
existing one-story structure would be demolished as a part of project implementation. The new
office structure would be approximately 85 feet in height and would occupy the same general
footprint as the demolished structure. The parking structure would be 60 feet in height. Additional
surface parking spaces (14 stalls) would be located at the western edge of the project site, and
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
6
bicycle parking would be provided throughout the project site. Landscaped area would account for
approximately 42,819 square feet of the project site and would be located mainly along the
perimeter, between the two new structures, and at the rear of the site. A terraced outdoor seating
area would be located at the northwest corner of the site, near the existing rail line.
The project would involve improvement of the existing railroad tracks as part of the City’s Rails-to-
Trails program, for which an approximately 1,500-linear foot, or 0.28-mile, segment of existing
railroad track would be converted to a bicycle and pedestrian trail. The trail would be adjacent to
the project site and would extend northeast, where it would terminate at Forbes Boulevard. The
railroad right-of-way (APN to be determined) would be merged with the parcel for 499 Forbes (APN
015-082-040). A connection would be made between the newly built trail and an outdoor amenity
space at the northwest corner of the site.
Vehicle access to the project site would be provided via a single, 26-foot-wide drive aisle and curb
cut from Forbes Boulevard. The project would also involve modification to an existing roadway
median on Forbes Boulevard for a new left turn lane. The project sponsor has submitted
applications for design review, a conditional use permit, tentative parcel map, and transportation
demand management plan.
For the purposes of this analysis, the project is assumed to be an office structure. The EIR will
discuss alternative uses of the project site.
10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
The City of South San Francisco is the only public agency with discretionary authority to approve this
project.
11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally
and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21080.3.1?
The City has not received any requests from California Native American tribes to be notified of
proposed projects in the city, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study 7
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least
one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
□ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation ■ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Resources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than
significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
8
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Title
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 9
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those
that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is
in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
Setting
The project site is in an urbanized area in the City of South San Francisco’s BTP zone, and is
bordered by an abandoned railroad tracks overgrown with vegetation to the north, a parking and
bus lot for Genentech to the east, Forbes Boulevard to the south, and a meat packing company to
the west. The site is currently unoccupied, with a vacant existing structure, a small accessory
structure that was used for mechanical equipment storage, and landscaped area. The parking area
associated with these uses is situated on the western portion of the site.
Regulatory Setting
South San Francisco General Plan
The following policies are specific to the aesthetics of buildings associated with the BTP land use
designation and apply to the proposed project (City of South San Francisco 1999).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
10
Goal 3.5-G-2. Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and
development uses.
Policy 3.5-I-4. Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East
of 101 area to the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77.
Policy 3.5-I-7. Prepare signage and streetscape plan for the areas designated as Business
Commercial and Business and Technology Park on the General Plan Diagram,
treating the entire area as one large campus, with unified signage and
orchestrated streetscapes that make wayfinding easy and pleasant.
East of 101 Area Plan
Development in the East of 101 Area is subject to the Design Element Goals and Policies set forth in
the East of 101 Area Plan. Design goals applicable to the project are as follows.
Goal 5.1. Promote high quality site, architectural, and landscape design that increases a sense
of identity in the East of 101 Area.
Goal 5.2. Improve the streetscape quality of the East of 101 Area through plantings of street
trees and provision of entry monuments.
Goal 5.3. Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the
Bay and San Bruno Mountain.
Goal 5.4. Minimize the intrusion of unsightly elements such as unattractive signage, overhead
utility lines, chain link fences, barbed wire, and unscreened loading and service
areas in the East of 101 Area.
Goal 5.5. Promote public access to views of the San Francisco Bay and to the Bay Trail.
Goal 5.6. Improve the visual quality of the East of 101 Area as seen from Highway 101, and
the visual experience of motorists on Highway 101 along the perimeter of the Area.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
San Bruno Mountain State and County Park is located north of the project site, and views of the
mountaintop are available from Forbes Boulevard. The project involves the construction of a new,
five-story structure, 100 feet in height, and a four-story parking structure, 60 feet in height, which
would replace the existing one-story structure and surface parking lot.
Current conditions with the existing structures on the site and those surrounding the site limit views
of San Bruno Mountain. The project would increase the massing and intensity of development on
the project site compared to existing conditions, but views of San Bruno Mountain would remain
approximately the same. Project implementation would continue to limit public views from Forbes
Boulevard, but it would not increase the impact currently in place from the existing development.
Project implementation would have a less than significant impact on a scenic vista. This impact will
not be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 11
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The nearest designated state scenic highway is Interstate (I-) 280 (California Department of
Transportation 2019), which stretches from the Santa Clara County line to the northern city limit of
San Bruno. The scenic corridor of I-280 is approximately 3 miles southwest of the project site; the
site would not be visible from I-280 at this distance. The site contains no historic buildings, rock
outcroppings, or significant scenic resources. Refer to Section 5, Cultural Resources, for a discussion
of historic resources, and Section 4, Biological Resources, for a discussion of trees on site.
Because the site is not visible from the scenic corridor of I-280, the proposed project would not
affect views from a state-designated scenic highway, and the project would have no impact under
this issue area. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are
experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic
quality?
The project site is in an urbanized area surrounded by commercial, industrial, and other campus-like
development. As noted previously, the project site and surrounding land uses carry a BTP zoning
designation in the City’s General Plan, which allows for a maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR)
of 0.5. However, with a conditional use permit, the maximum permitted FAR is 1.0. The BTP land use
designation does limit building height in the area East of Highway 101, except to that permissible
under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 of 2,000 feet in height (City of South San Francisco
1999). The project would have a FAR of 1.0 and a maximum height of 98 feet with structured
parking on-site. Therefore, the project would be consistent with its BTP zoning and land use
designation.
The project would also be consistent with surrounding land uses. Additionally, project design would
be subject to the City’s Design Review Board for final approval to determine its compliance with
South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Section 20.110 which sets forth land use regulations
and development standards for employment districts The BTP land use is classified as an
employment district per the SSFMC. The project’s consistency with the zoning, land use designation,
and review by the City of South San Francisco’s Design Review Board would ensure that impacts to
visual character and quality would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the
EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect
daytime or nighttime views in the area?
The project site is in an urbanized area with relatively high levels of existing lighting created by
existing commercial, office, and industrial uses, along with cars that pass the site in the evenings or
at night. Sources of light from these uses include building-mounted and perimeter lighting, interior
lighting visible through windows, streetlights, and headlights from vehicles on Forbes Boulevard and
other nearby streets and Highway 101, approximately 1 mile away.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
12
New sources of light on the project site would include interior lighting visible through windows,
exterior lighting associated with the parking structure and surface parking, headlights from vehicles,
and exterior building lights to illuminate signage, parking areas, and walkways. There are no light-
sensitive uses such as residences or schools in the immediate vicinity. New sources of light would
not have an adverse effect to day or night views beyond existing conditions. Furthermore, new
sources of light associated with the project would not have a significant impact on the night sky, as
they would only incrementally contribute to the existing light and glare levels already present.
The primary source of glare in the area occurs when sunlight reflects off metallic and glass surfaces,
such as windows of parked or moving vehicles, or windows and surfaces of buildings southeast and
west of the project site. The proposed office building would be constructed with surfaces such as
black corrugated metal panels, white and grey metal panels, and vision glass that would produce
some glare from the project site but are designed to reduce glare to a minimal amount. The project
buildings would contribute to existing conditions by introducing new daytime glare from the
windows of vehicles parked on the site’s limited surface parking and from the sun’s reflection on
glass and metallic surfaces of the proposed building. The proposed project’s landscaping would
include the addition of forty-six (46) new trees along the perimeter of the project site which would
reduce the glare from vehicles parked on the site’s surface parking lot.
The project is not located near light-sensitive receptors and would be consistent with surrounding
land uses. Furthermore, the project would be required to comply with SSFMC Section 15.48.080 for
the lighting related to exterior security for businesses, SSFMC Section 20.120.0008 for the lighting
and illumination of parking and loading areas, and SSFMC Section 20.300.010(G) for lighting and
glare regulations. Consistent with surrounding land uses, the project would use materials that
reduce the amount of glare reflected off the building. The project would minimize glare from
vehicles on the surface parking lot with landscaping along the perimeter of the project site and
incorporation of shrubbery throughout the surface parking lot. Therefore, in its context the project
would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. Impacts related to light and glare would
be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 13
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
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, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The site is in an urban area of South San Francisco, surrounded by development, including roadways
and commercial uses. The project site is currently zoned BTP.
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) manages the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program to assess and record suitability of land for agricultural purposes. In each county, the land is
analyzed for soil and irrigation quality and the highest quality land is designated as Prime Farmland.
The project site and vicinity are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land and the site does not have
any identified agricultural or forest land (DOC 2016).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
14
Regulatory Setting
PRC Section 12220(g) defines forest land as:
land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under
natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including
timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public
benefits.
PRC Section 4526 defines timberland as:
land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as
experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas
trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.
Government Code Section 51104(g) defines a timberland production zone as:
an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used
for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses,
as defined in subdivision (h).
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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?
The project site and surrounding area is located entirely in the Urban and Built-Up Land area (DOC
2016). Project implementation would only modify the project site; therefore, no Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance would be affected by project
implementation and no impact would occur. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?
The project site and surrounding areas are not subject to Williamson Act contracts (DOC 2018). The
project would only involve construction and modification at the project site and immediately
adjacent public right-of-way; therefore, no Williamson Act contracts would be affected by project
implementation and no impact would occur. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 15
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
While some vegetation is present on the project site, the site itself is not forest or timberland. The
project site does not provide forest and timber resources. As such, the project would not convert
forest or timberland uses, and no impact would occur. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
16
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 17
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment 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) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
Setting
Air Quality Background
The City of South San Francisco is in the Peninsula subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
(SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD). Air quality in the SFBAAB is affected by the region’s emission sources and by natural
factors. Topography, speed and direction of wind, and air temperature gradient all influence air
quality. The SFBAAB experiences a Mediterranean climate, with warm, dry summers and cool, damp
winters.
Air pollutant emissions in the SFBAAB are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary
sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at
a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples include boilers or
combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. Area sources are widely
distributed and include sources such as residential and commercial water heaters, painting
operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products. Mobile sources
refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are
classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and
highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction
equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high
winds suspend fine dust particles.
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air
quality standards represent safe levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
18
associated with each pollutant. As the local air quality management agency, BAAQMD is required to
monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that state and federal air quality standards are met and, if
they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards.
The USEPA has set primary national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with a diameter of
up to ten microns (PM10) and up to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). Primary standards are those
levels of air quality deemed necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health.
In addition, California has established health-based ambient air quality standards for these and
other pollutants, some of which are more stringent than the federal standards.
Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SFBAAB is classified as being in
“attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air
quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The BAAQMD is in
non-attainment for the federal standards for ozone and PM2.5 and in non-attainment for the state
standard for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. The health effects associated with criteria pollutants for which
the SFBAAB is in non-attainment are described in Table 1.
Table 1 Health Effects Associated with Non-Attainment Criteria Pollutants
Pollutant Adverse Effects
Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in
humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary
morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied
by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after
long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3)
vegetation damage; and (4) property damage.
Suspended particulate
matter (PM10 and
PM2.5)
(1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in
pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4)
adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased
respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased
hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).
Source: USEPA 2018
Air Quality Management
The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for assuring that national and state ambient air quality
standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD is also responsible for
adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for
stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to
citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants
to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, as well as many other
activities. The BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county Bay Area, including San
Mateo County.
The California Clean Air Act requires each nonattainment district in the State to adopt a plan
showing how the State Ambient Air Quality Standards will be met in their area of jurisdiction. The
BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan) as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The
2017 Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and protect the climate. To fulfill
state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 19
reduce emissions of ozone precursors—reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX)—
and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017
Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter
and toxic air contaminants (BAAQMD 2017a). The 2017 Plan also lays the groundwork for a long-
term effort to reduce Bay Area greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
Air Emission Thresholds
The BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2017 CEQA Guidelines for project
operations are the most appropriate thresholds for use in determining air quality impacts of the
proposed project. The BAAQMD has developed screening criteria to provide lead agencies and
project applicants with a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in
potentially significant air quality impacts. If all the screening criteria are met by a proposed project,
then the lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of
their project’s air pollutant emissions. BAAQMD’s construction-related screening levels for office-
type buildings are 277,000 square feet of new building space. For operational emissions, the
minimum screening levels are 117,000 square feet of new building space (BAAQMD 2017b).
Although the size of the proposed structures is below the construction screening criteria thresholds,
the estimated emissions for construction were analyzed. The project would exceed screening
criteria for operation and, therefore, operational emissions were analyzed.
The BAAQMD has provided numeric thresholds for criteria pollutants for projects that exceed the
screening criteria described above or for projects where the screening criteria do
not apply. Table 2 presents the significance thresholds for criteria air pollutants during project
construction and operation. These represent the levels at which a project’s individual emissions of
criteria air pollutants or precursors would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the
SFBAAB’s existing air quality conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the project would result in
a significant impact if emissions would exceed any of the thresholds shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/ Precursor
Maximum Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
Average Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
ROG 10 54
NOX 10 54
PM10 15 82
PM2.5 10 54
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less;
PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Source: BAAQMD 2017b
BAAQMD also provides a preliminary screening methodology to conservatively determine whether a
proposed project would exceed CO thresholds. Specifically, a project would result in a less than
significant impact related to local CO concentrations if the following criteria are met:
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
20
The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional
transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
44,000 vehicles per hour.
The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than
24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g.,
tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade
roadway).
Methodology
This air quality analysis conforms to the methodologies recommended in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017b). The project’s construction and operational emissions were
estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2, which uses
project-specific information, including the proposed land uses, square footages of each use (e.g.,
research and development and office space), and project location to estimate construction and
operational emissions from new development. The project’s emissions were modeled based on the
project description. The complete CalEEMod modeling output is provided in Appendix AQ.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
To be consistent with an air quality management plan (AQMP), a project must conform to the local
General Plan and must not result in or contribute to an exceedance of the local jurisdiction’s
forecasted future population. A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate
population, housing, or employment growth exceeding the forecasts used in the development of
the AQMP. The most recent and applicable adopted air quality plan is the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant impact if it would conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the 2017 Plan (BAAQMD 2017a).
As stated previously in Project Description, the project site has an existing land use of BTP, which
allows for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Therefore, the
proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use designation of the project site.
The Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) is the regional planning agency used by the
BAAQMD to forecast growth in the area. According to ABAG, the City of South San Francisco is
expected to have 46,365 jobs in 2020, which is estimated to increase to 50,075 jobs by 2025 (ABAG
2017b). According to the project’s Transportation Demand Management Plan (Appendix TDM), the
project could add 451 employees to the city. Since anticipated initial operational year for the project
is 2023, this number represents 12 percent of the expected growth from 2020 to 2025 and would
not cause the city to exceed the AMBAG job forecasts. The project would replace an existing
warehouse, which had originally provided jobs in the city, and some of the project-related job
increases would include this replacement. Therefore, the project would not cause the area to
exceed the regional growth forecasts and would not conflict with the implementation of the AQMP.
This impact would be less than significant and will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 21
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
The project would result in temporary construction emissions, including demolishing the existing
structure, removing the existing on-site paving, site preparation and grading, building construction,
paving, and architectural coating of the proposed structures. Construction activities have the
potential to generate fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) through grading and from the exposure of soil
to wind erosion and dust entrainment. In addition, exhaust emissions associated with heavy
construction equipment and worker vehicles would potentially degrade regional air quality.
Long-term emissions associated with project operation would include emissions from natural gas
and electricity use for space and water heating and landscape maintenance equipment and
architectural coating associated with on-site development (area sources), and mobile emissions
from traffic generated by the project.
Construction
Table 3 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions (pounds) of pollutants associated with
project construction. As shown below, criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction
would not exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Table 3 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/Precursor
Maximum Daily Emissions
(pounds/day)
Significance Threshold
(pounds/day) Significant Impact?
ROG 16.0 54 No
NOX 34.3 54 No
PM10 8.0 82 No
PM2.5 4.6 54 No
Source: Appendix AQ
In addition, the City would impose a standard Condition of Approval on the project, targeting air
quality and implementing related mitigation measures, as detailed below:
Standard Condition of Approval
All proposed projects shall comply with the BAAQMD recommended Basic Construction Mitigation
Measures, listed below to meet the best management practices threshold for fugitive dust:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
22
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
e) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall
be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible
emissions evaluator.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead
agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance
with applicable regulations.
Impacts related to emissions during construction would be less than significant, and the standard
Condition of Approval above would further ensure that air quality impacts related to construction
activities would be further reduced.
Operation
Table 4 summarizes the project’s maximum annual operational emissions for each criteria pollutant,
which includes area, energy, and mobile source emissions. As shown below, the emissions
generated by project operation would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants.
Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation. In addition, because criteria pollutant emissions and regional thresholds are cumulative in
nature, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria
pollutants.
Table 4 Air Quality Thresholds of Significance
Pollutant/ Precursor
Maximum Annual Emissions
(tons/year)
Significance Threshold
(tons/year) Significant Impact?
ROG 0.7 10 No
NOX 0.4 10 No
PM10 0.6 15 No
PM2.5 0.2 10 No
Source: Appendix AQ
CO Hotspots
The SFBAAB is in attainment of federal and state CO standards. As noted above, the BAAQMD
preliminary screening methodology notes that a project would result in a less than significant
impact to local CO concentrations if the following the project:
Is consistent with an applicable congestion management program
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 23
Would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per
hour
Would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per
hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking
garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway).
As described in the Transportation Impact Analysis, the project would be consistent with the
Congestion Management Plan (CMP) of the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG). Moreover, according to the project’s Access and Circulation Memo (Appendix TRA) , most
project trips would use Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue to access and leave the project site.
With the addition of 881 daily trips, the project would not cause significant impacts or delays at the
nearby intersections and would not result in an increase in traffic volumes to more than 44,000
vehicles per hour (Appendix TRA). The project is not located in an area served by a bridge,
underpass or tunnel. The proposed parking structure would not exceed 24,000 vehicles per hour.
Thus, the project would not result in individually or cumulatively significant impacts from CO
emissions.
The project would not create a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants during
construction or operation, and impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be
discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are
particularly sensitive to air pollution. Sensitive receptors are defined as population groups that are
more susceptible to exposure to pollutants and examples include health care facilities, retirement
homes, school and playground facilities, and residential areas. The proposed project is not close to
sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive land use are single-family residences approximately
0.9 mile west of the project site.
A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or
contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present
or potential hazard to human health. In the Bay Area, a number of urban or industrialized
communities exist where the exposure to TACs is relatively high compared to other communities.
However, according to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, the project site is not in an impacted
community (BAAQMD 2017b). Sources of TACs include, but are not limited to, land uses such as
freeways and high-volume roadways, truck distribution centers, ports, rail yards, refineries, chrome
plating facilities, dry cleaners using perchloroethylene, and gasoline dispensing facilities. The project
would not involve any of these uses; therefore, it is not considered a source of TACs. As discussed in
the response to criterion b, the project would not create emissions that would exceed BAAQMD
thresholds. Therefore, it would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the
EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
24
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting
a substantial number of people?
Odors from construction activities are associated with construction equipment exhaust and the
application of asphalt and architectural coatings. Odors emitted from construction activities would
be temporary and cease upon completion of project construction. There are no nearby sensitive
land uses. The proposed project would introduce office space as part of the development, which is
not considered a source of substantial objectionable odors, as listed on Table 3-3 in the BAAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017b). Therefore, the project would have no impact related
to other emissions, including odors. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 25
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) 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? □ □ □ ■
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
26
Setting
The project site is in an urbanized commercial area in South San Francisco, approximately 0.5 mile
west of the San Francisco Bay and 0.75 mile east of Highway 101. Topography on the site is
generally flat and ranges between 18 and 44 feet above mean sea level. The project site has a
single-story warehouse structure that will be demolished. A set of abandoned railroad tracks
(northeast/southwest-running) and a vegetated earthen berm are at the north end of the site. The
project site is surrounded by commercial development (business parks and paved parking lots) to
the north, east, and west, and is bordered by an empty lot to the south.
Except for the area where the existing building is, the project site is paved and has landscaping along
Forbes Boulevard. Ruderal vegetation exists at the periphery of the site, along fences set up to
isolate construction. Vegetation along the railroad tracks is dominated by fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare) and pampas grass (Cortaderia sp.), with scattered coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis); the
site has more ornamental species as it curves south towards Forbes Boulevard at its east end.
Landscaped trees, including pines (Pinus sp.) and black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), occur to the
south of the site, along Forbes Boulevard and at the eastern end where the planned trail would be
located. White-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys), rock doves (Columba livia), and a feral
cat (Felis catus) were observed on the site.
According to the Arborist Report prepared for the project site, four trees exist at the site, including a
red ironbark eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), two Canary Island pine trees (Pinus canariensis),
and a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) (Appendix ARB). The eucalyptus and Monterey pine trees are
protected under the SSFMC.
Regulatory Setting
Federal and State
Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by federal, state, and local agencies under a
variety of laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes. Primary authority for biological resources lies
with the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of
South San Francisco).
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is a trustee agency for biological resources
throughout the state under CEQA and has direct jurisdiction under the California Fish and Game
Code (CFGC). Under the California Endangered Species Act and the federal Endangered Species Act,
the CDFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), respectively, have direct regulatory
authority over species formally listed as threatened or endangered (and listed as rare for CDFW).
Native and/or migratory bird species are protected under the CFGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, and
3511.
Statutes in the Clean Water Act (CWA), CFGC, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) protect
wetlands and riparian habitat. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has regulatory authority
over wetlands and waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. The State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs)
ensure water quality protection in California pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13263
of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The CDFW regulates waters of the State under the
CFGC Section 1600 et seq.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 27
Special-status species are those plants and animals: 1) listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for
listing as Threatened or Endangered by the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act; 2) listed or proposed for listing as Rare,
Threatened, or Endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act; 3)
recognized as California Species of Special Concern by the CDFW; 4) afforded protection under
CFGC; and 5) occurring on Lists 1 and 2 of the CDFW California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) system.
Local
SSFMC Chapter 13.30 provides tree protection requirements that would apply to the project. The
chapter defines a protected tree as “any upright, single-trunked tree not considered to be a heritage
tree…or a tree listed in subsection (2) … with a circumference of forty-eight inches when measured
fifty-four inches above natural grade.” and also lists species that are considered heritage trees with
a diameter of six-inches or more and located on an undeveloped property” (SSFMC 13.30.020).
Heritage trees include mostly native species such as California bay (Umbellaria californica), oak
(Quercus spp.), and California buckeye (Aesculus californica); these are protected when they have a
circumference of 30 inches or more. The trees listed in subsection (2) of the SSFMC code include
introduced species such as Blue Gum (Eucalyptus globulus), Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), or
Glossy Privet (Lingustrum lucidum), and must have a circumference of 75 inches or more to qualify
as a protected tree.
Methods
Literature Review and Desktop Biological Evaluation
Qualified biologists reviewed agency databases, relevant literature, aerial photos, and site photos
for baseline information on special-status species and other sensitive biological resources occurring
or potentially occurring at the project site and in the immediate surrounding area. The following
sources were reviewed for background information:
CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2019a) and Biogeographic Information and
Observation System (CDFW 2019b)
CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2019c) and Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens
List (CDFW 2019d)
California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
(California Native Plant Society 2019)
USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC; USFWS 2019a)
USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2019b)
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2019c)
A review of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2019a) was conducted for recorded
occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife taxa in the region prior to conducting a
reconnaissance-level field survey. For this review, the database search parameters included all
occurrences in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle encompassing
the project site (San Francisco South), and the six surrounding quadrangles (Point Bonita, San
Francisco North, Hunters Point, San Mateo, Montara, and Oakland West).
A final list of regionally occurring special-status plants and animals was compiled, and individual
species were evaluated for potential to occur based on habitat conditions and proximity to known
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
28
occurrences. The NWI (USFWS 2019c) and the National Hydrography Datasets (USGS 2019) were
reviewed for potential aquatic resources, including jurisdictional waters of the United States or
waters of the State.
Biological Survey
On November 21, 2019, a qualified biologist conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the project
site to document site conditions, assess the presence of on-site habitat, and evaluate the potential
for special-status species and other sensitive biological resources to occur on the project site.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Special-Status Plants
Seventy-seven (77) special-status plant species were identified to have occurrence records within
the seven USGS quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site (CDFW 2019a; California
Native Plant Society 2019; USFWS 2019a). All the reported species have specific habitat
requirements (e.g., soil type, elevation, aspect). The existing conditions (developed and disturbed)
and the lack of native vegetation communities or suitable ecological conditions preclude the
occurrence of rare plants on the site, and no special-status plant species are expected to occur.
Because construction activities are limited to previously disturbed, developed, and landscaped areas
with ruderal and ornamental vegetation, impacts to special-status plant species would not occur.
Special-Status Wildlife
Forty-seven special-status animal species were identified with known occurrence records in the
seven USGS quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site (CDFW 2019a; CDFW 2019c;
USFWS 2019a). This list was reviewed and refined according to the potential for species to occur
based on the presence and quality of habitats on the project site. Of these, two species have the
potential to occur on the site: Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) and American peregrine
falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum).
The western bumble bee (state candidate for listing) has a low potential to occur on site. This bee
was once widespread in the northwestern U.S. but is in decline from central California to southern
British Colombia. In California, it has been lost from 53 percent of its historic range and has an 84
percent decline in relative abundance (Xerces Society et al. 2018). Habitat loss and alteration,
pathogens, urban development and fragmentation, and other factors have contributed to their
decline. The most recent of the three occurrence records within 5 miles of the project site is from
1996 (CDFW 2019a). Three unconfirmed sightings have been reported approximately 11 miles north
and east of the project site within the last two years (Xerces Society et al. 2019); however,
confirmed populations are thought to be restricted to higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada since
2012 (Xerces Society et al. 2018). A generalist forager, the western bumble bee nests underground
in cavities or rodent burrows. It requires limited ground disturbance and an abundance of floral
resources, as well as suitable overwintering sites for queens. Given the precipitous decline in
bumblebees over the last two decades, absence of recent confirmed sightings in the project vicinity,
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 29
and the fragmented and disturbed nature of onsite vegetation communities, there is a very low
likelihood that the project site provides suitable habitat for this species. The project would not have
impacts to western bumble bee.
The peregrine falcon (a state fully protected species) has two occurrence records within 5 miles of
the project site (CDFW 2019a). There is potential for the species to forage on site, but there is no
suitable nesting habitat for peregrine falcon (e.g., cliffs or skyscrapers) on or next to the project site.
Impacts to peregrine falcon are not expected.
Despite the lack of robust native vegetation communities, the site could be used by species of
migratory birds that use trees, shrubs, or man-made structures as nesting habitat. Native bird nests
are protected by CFGC Section 3503. The nesting season generally extends from February 1 through
August 31 in California but can vary based upon annual climatic conditions. Construction activities
could result in the mortality of, or injury to birds, or construction activity and noise could produce
disturbance-related nest abandonment. Impacts to most non-listed bird species through nest
destruction or abandonment would not be considered a significant impact under CEQA, but loss of
active nests or mortality would be a violation of CFGC code. Impacts to special-status birds may be
considered significant under CEQA if those impacts would jeopardize the viability of a local or
regional population. Therefore, mitigation measures would be required to avoid or reduce the
proposed project’s potentially significant impacts to special-status wildlife and avoid violations of
the CFGC that protects nesting migratory birds.
Mitigation Measure
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
To the extent feasible, the project applicant shall schedule demolition and construction
activities to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors
in the San Francisco Bay area, extends from February 1 through August 31. If demolition and
construction activities will occur during the breeding season, then a qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction nesting bird survey no more than 14 days prior to initiation of
ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The biologist shall conduct the nesting bird pre-
construction survey in the disturbance footprint and a 50-foot buffer where access can be
authorized. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian
species known to occur in San Mateo County.
If nests are found, the biologist shall determine and demarcate an avoidance buffer (the size of
which depend upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances
associated with land uses outside of the site) with bright orange construction fencing, flagging,
construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be
notified of the existence of the buffer zone and shall be instructed to avoid entering the buffer
zone during the nesting season. No construction activities shall occur inside this buffer, and no
access in the buffer allowed until the avian biologist confirms that breeding/nesting is complete
and the young have fledged the nest, or the nest has become otherwise inactive (e.g.,
depredated). Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified
biologist.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure protection of nesting birds that may be
on-site during construction activities. These measures would reduce the potentially significant
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
30
impact to special-status species to a less than significant level. This impact will not be discussed
further in the EIR, but the mitigation measure will be included in the EIR’s executive summary and in
the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The review of the resource agency databases for sensitive natural communities in the seven USGS
quadrangles containing and surrounding the project site identified four sensitive natural
communities: northern coastal salt marsh, northern maritime chaparral, serpentine bunchgrass, and
valley needlegrass grassland. None of these sensitive natural communities are present on the
project site, nor are any other sensitive natural communities. No substantial adverse effect on
sensitive natural communities would occur as a result of project activities. This impact will not be
discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means?
Based on a review of information on biological resources in the project region and data collected
during the reconnaissance site visit, no vegetated wetlands or potentially jurisdictional features
occur in the project area. No impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or waters would occur. This impact
will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project 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?
The project area consists of developed and disturbed areas with primarily ornamental and ruderal
vegetation. Land use in the vicinity is mostly commercial with no connectivity to natural habitats,
and is therefore not expected to support wildlife movement. No impacts to wildlife movement
corridors would occur as a result of project activities. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As described in the Arborist Report prepared for the project, three of the existing trees on the
project site are protected under the City’s municipal code (Appendix ARB). If project activities result
in tree removal, pruning greater than 30 percent, or construction, excavation, paving, or storage
within the dripline of protected trees in the project site, the applicant would be required to obtain a
permit from the City of South San Francisco’s Park’s Division for all protected trees impacted. The
fee for tree removal or pruning is $100 per tree. If a tree will be removed, an additional $350
refundable deposit is also required and will be returned once replanting conditions are met. To
meet replanting conditions, three 15-gallon size or two 24-inch-box-minimum-size landscape trees
must be planted for each tree removed per SSFMC Section 13.30. Therefore, no conflicts with local
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 31
policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur. This impact will not be discussed
in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
There are no habitat conservation plans, natural community conservation plans, or other similar
plans that govern activities on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved habitat
conservation plan. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
32
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 33
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
The information in this section is based primarily on a Cultural Resources Assessment conducted by
Rincon Consultants in November 2019. This report is included as Appendix CUL.
Setting
The project site lies in the USGS San Francisco South Quadrangle, Township 3 South, Range 5 West
Section 22 (Figure 1). The project site is in the East Side region of South San Francisco, an area
characterized by its industrial buildings and factories. The project site is currently developed with a
single commercial property that is over 50 years of age. At the time of this analysis, the property
was approximately 75 percent demolished (Appendix CUL).
The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) search was completed on November
6, 2019. The search was performed to identify previously recorded cultural resources, as well as
previously conducted cultural resources studies within the project site and a 0.5-mile radius
surrounding it. The CHRIS search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the Office of Historic Preservation
Historic Properties Directory, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, and the Archaeological
Determinations of Eligibility list.
The Northwest Information (NWIC) records search identified 14 previously conducted cultural
resources studies that have been performed within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site; none of the
studies overlap with the project site (Table 5).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
34
Table 5 Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 0.5 mile of the Project Site
Report
Number Author(s) Year Title
Relationship
to Project Site
S-023551 McKale, George
and S. Gillies
2000 Cultural Resources Assessment Golden Gate Power
Project, San Francisco International Airport, San
Mateo County, California
Outside
S-023551a Allen, James 2000 Paleontological Resources Assessment, Golden
Gate Power Project, San Francisco International
Airport, San Mateo County, California
Outside
S-023551b McKale, George
and S. Gillies
2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Phase I, United
Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco
International Airport, San Mateo County,
California
Outside
S-023551c McKale, George
and S. Gillies
2000 Cultural Resources Assessment, Phase II, United
Gold Gate Power Project, San Francisco
International Airport, San Mateo County,
California
Outside
S-023551d McKale, George
and S. Gillies
2000 Paleontological Resources Assessment Phase II
United Golden Gate Power Project, San Francisco
International Airport, San Mateo County,
California
Outside
S-027930 Brown, Kyle, A.
Marlow, J. Allan,
and W. Self
2003 Cultural Resource Assessment of Alternative
Routes for PG&E’s Jefferson-Martin Transmission
Line, San Mateo County, California
Outside
S-030163 William Self
Associates, Inc.
2005 Historic Property Survey Report, San Francisco Bay
Water Transit Authority, South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal Project, Oyster Point Marina and Park,
City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County,
California.
Outside
S-030163a Estes, Allen and
A. Arrigoni
2005 Archaeological Survey Report San Francisco Bay
Water Transit Authority South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal Project Oyster Point Marina and Park,
City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County,
California
Outside
S-035285 Clark, Matthew 2008 Historic Property and Archaeological Inventory
Report for the South San Francisco Gateway
Business Park Project, South San Francisco, San
Mateo County, California
Outside
S-035458 Clark, Matthew 2008 City of South San Francisco East of 101 Sewer
Improvements, Initial CEQA Historic Resources
Research for East Grand, Allerton, Forbes & DNA
Way Sanitary Sewer Project
Outside
S-037275 Billat, Lorna 2010 New Tower (“NT”) Submission Packet, FCC Form
620, East Grandview Water Tank, SF- 53638A
Outside
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 35
Report
Number Author(s) Year Title
Relationship
to Project Site
S-038706 Cohen, David 2011 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit
for T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION a Delaware
Corporation Candidate SF03113-A (Eccles Joint
Pole SSF), R.O.W. In front of 475 Eccles Avenue,
South San Francisco, San Francisco County,
California (letter report)
Outside
S-048738 Jurich, Denise
and A. Grady
2011 California High-Speed Train Project, Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement,
Draft: San Francisco to San Jose Section,
Archaeological Survey Report, Technical Report
Outside
S-048738a Grady, Amber
and R. Brandi
2011 California High-Speed Train Project Environmental
Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement,
Draft: San Francisco to San Jose Section Historic
Architectural Survey Report, Technical Report
Outside
Source: Northwest Information Center 2019
Additionally, the NWIC records search identified two previously recorded cultural resources within a
0.5-mile radius of the project site, neither of which is within the project site (Table 6).
Table 6 Previously Recorded Resources within 0.5 mile of the Project Site
Primary
Number Trinomial
Resource
Type Description Recorder(s) and Year(s)
Relationship
to Project
Site
NRHP/
CRHR Status
P-41-
000043
CA-SMA-
39
Prehistoric Insufficient
information
N. Nelson (ca. 1905) Outside Unknown
P-41-
000884
Multi-
building
resource
Industrial
Complex;
since
demolished
The Firm of Bonnie L.
Bamburg (1986)
Outside Potentially
eligible for
NRHP
Source: Northwest Information Center 2019
Regulatory Setting
CEQA
PRC Section 5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1
were used as the basic guidelines for the cultural resources analysis. CEQA Guidelines Section
21084.1 requires that a lead agency determine if a project could have a significant effect on
historical resources. A historical resource is one listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Section 21084.1), included in a local register
of historical resources (Section 15064.5[a][2]), or any object, building, structure, site, area, place,
record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (Section
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
36
15064.5[a][3]). Resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are automatically
listed in the CRHR.
According to CEQA, impacts that adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for
listing in the CRHR are considered a significant effect on the environment. These impacts could
result from physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its
immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially
impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [b][1]). Material impairment is defined as demolition or
alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of a historical resource that convey its
historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the California
Register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP was established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as “an authoritative
guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify
the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection
from destruction or impairment” (CFR 36, CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are
significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource
must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts,
sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of
location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Properties are eligible for
the NRHP if they:
Criterion A: Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history
Criterion B: Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
Criterion C: Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or
that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction
Criterion D: Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
In addition to meeting at least one of the designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity.
The National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define
historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven
qualities, defined in the following manner:
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the
historic event occurred
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style
of a property
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property
Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 37
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic
property
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR was created by Assembly Bill (AB) 2881, which was established in 1992. The CRHR is an
authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in
identifying the existing historical resources of the state that deserve to be protected, to the extent
prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for
the CRHR are consistent with NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include
a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (PRC 5024.1(b)). Certain
properties are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the CRHR by operation of
law, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP.
According to PRC Section 5024.1(c), a resource may be listed in the CRHR if it meets one or more of
the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria:
Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage
Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important to our past
Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values
Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the
lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be
preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left
undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b]).
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about
which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge,
there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
Criterion 1: Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and
that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information
Criterion 2: Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type
Criterion 3: Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person
City of South San Francisco
Adopted in 1986, the City of South San Francisco Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes the
designation criteria for local historic landmarks and districts. The ordinance was updated in 2011.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
38
Section 1440 of the ordinance identifies historic landmarks as those properties that meet one or
more of the following criteria:
Criterion A: Its character, interest, or value as a significant part of the heritage of the city, the state
or the nation
Criterion B: Its location as a site of a significant historic event
Criterion C: Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture
and development of the city, the state or the nation
Criterion D: Its exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life
Criterion E: Its exemplification of the best remaining example of a particular architectural type in
the city
Criterion F: Its identification as the creation, design or work of a person or persons whose efforts
have significantly influenced the heritage of the city, the state or the nation
Criterion G: Its embodiment of elements demonstrating outstanding attention to artistic,
architectural and/or engineering design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship
Criterion H: Its relationship to any other historic resource if its preservation is essential to the
integrity of the other historic resource (for example, it is a clearly identified element of
a larger cohesive neighborhood or area whose integrity and character should be
protected, such as the civic center, downtown, or a specific residential neighborhood)
Criterion I: Its unique location or singular physical characteristics representing an established and
familiar visual feature of the city
Criterion J: Its potential of yielding significant information of archeological interest
Criterion K: Its integrity as a natural environment that strongly contributes to the well-being of the
people of the city, the state, or the nation. For example, an area retained in or
developed in a natural setting, such as portions of Sign Hill, or some other feature
which contributes to the quality of life in South San Francisco
Methods
On November 22, 2019, Rincon Biologist Anastasia Ennis conducted a pedestrian field survey of the
project site. During the survey, Ms. Ennis examined the area and took extensive photographs
recording the project site including the existing building. As a result of the survey, one built
environment property over 45 years of age was identified in the project area. This resource was
recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 series forms and evaluated for
listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and for local designation. In addition to the survey, as part of the
background research process of identifying cultural resources for this project, Rincon conducted
additional research, contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and requested a
Sacred Lands File search of the project site and vicinity. Additionally, Rincon conducted a records
search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. The results of these searches are discussed
in more detail below.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 39
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
As a result of the field survey, one built environment property was recorded and evaluated to
determine if it qualifies as a historical resource under CEQA. The subject property is a 45,000-
square-foot building located in the Cabot, Cabot & Forbes Industrial Park and designed by architect
Howard A. York in 1968. The building was developed for the San Francisco Sausage Factory, a well-
known San Francisco Bay-area company.
Originally located in San Francisco on Davis Street in 1917, the San Francisco Sausage Factory moved
to Broadway in 1933 where it was in operation until 1968. Originally known as the San Francisco
Sausage Factory, the company was renamed the San Francisco Sausage Company in 1984 and the
Columbus Salame Company by 1997. The company was one of many businesses to move to South
San Francisco, a trend stretching back to the late 19th century, when the area was developed as a
hub for the meat-packing industry. Industrial development in South San Francisco experienced a
boom in the 1950s and 1960s.
Based on available archival materials and research conducted for this report, the subject property
does not meet the applicable criteria of significance to qualify as a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA. Research did not show that the property possessed associations with important
events/persons or was representative of a notable architectural style or the work of a master. In
addition, the near total demolition of the building has resulted in such a loss of physical integrity
that the building is not eligible for local, state, or federal designation. Refer to Appendix CUL for
further discussion.
As a property that is ineligible for federal, state, and local designation, the project site building is not
considered a historical resource under CEQA. There are no other built environment features on the
project site; therefore, the project would have no impact to historical resources under CEQA. This
impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Based on the findings of the cultural resources records search and Native American outreach, no
archaeological resources have been identified within the project site. The results of the NWIC
records search indicate the presence of one prehistoric resource (CA-SMA-39) within the project
vicinity, located approximately 1,640 feet east of the project site. However, the site record for CA-
SMA-39 does not contain any information on the nature or extent of the site. Given the prior
development of the property and level of disturbance, there is low potential for intact subsurface
archaeological deposits to be encountered during construction. However, unanticipated discoveries
during construction are possible and mitigation measures would be required.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
40
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Unanticipated Archaeological Resources
If archaeological resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work within 50 feet
of the find should be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology (National Park Service 1983) should be
contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of
a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If the discovery proves to be
significant under CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work, such as data recovery
excavation, may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to historical resources.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would reduce potential impacts to unanticipated
discoveries during ground-disturbing activities to less than significant. The mitigation measure will
be included in the EIR’s executive summary and in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting
program. This impact will not be further discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Human remains could be discovered during ground-disturbing activities. However, if human remains
are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further
disturbance shall occur until the county coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the
county coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine
and notify a most likely descendant, who must complete the inspection of the site and provide
recommendations for treatment to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. The
project’s compliance with PRC Section 5097.8, the project would have less than significant impacts
on disturbing human remains. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 41
6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to 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? □ □ ■ □
Energy Supply Setting
Energy use relates directly to environmental quality, since it can adversely affect air quality and can
generate GHG emissions that contribute to climate change. Fossil fuels are burned to create
electricity that powers residences and commercial/industrial buildings, heats and cools buildings,
and powers vehicles. Transportation energy use is related to the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks, and
public transportation; choice of different travel modes such as auto, carpool, and public transit; and
miles traveled by these modes. Construction and routine operation and maintenance of
transportation infrastructure also consume energy.
Electricity
The California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are
constantly assessing population growth, electricity demand, and reliability. The CEC is tasked with
conducting assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production,
transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices (CEC 2019a). The CEC uses these
assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the
environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and
safety (PRC Section 25301(a)).
Until 2016, South San Francisco was served solely by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) to meet power
demands; in July 2016, PG&E customers in South San Francisco and San Mateo County were
enrolled with the Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) community choice energy program. PCE enables
communities to choose clean-sourced power at a cost equivalent to PG&E rates. Although PCE will
purchase the electricity, PG&E will continue to deliver electricity to homes and businesses using
existing transmission and delivery lines. PG&E will still handle all trouble calls, issue and collect
monthly utility bills, and offer the same rebate and assistance programs currently available (South
San Francisco 2016).
PCE provides more carbon-free electricity than PG&E and plans for and secures commitments from
a diverse portfolio of energy-generating resources to reliably serve the electric energy requirements
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
42
of its customers. According to PCE’s Integrated Resource Plan, the main strategic goal is to provide a
diverse energy portfolio free from GHG emissions. PCE’s service territory covers the 20 cities located
in San Mateo County, plus the unincorporated areas of the County. Within this service area, PCE
serves approximately 300,000 customer accounts representing approximately 765,000 residents
(PCE 2018). PCE’s electricity load in 2016 was 277 gigawatt hours (GWh) and 3,026 GWh in 2017
(PCE 2018). The projected load for 2018 and the immediate future is approximately 3,700 GWh.
PCE’s 2016 load represented only the first phase of enrollments for 25 percent of the year. Beyond
its current contractual commitments, PCE will procure additional energy products to ensure that the
future energy needs of its customers are met in a reliable, cost-effective manner.
According to the CEC, San Mateo County consumed approximately 4,225.6 GWh in 2018, or
approximately 14,417 billion Btu (CEC 2018a). Table 7 illustrates the County’s 2018 electricity
consumption in comparison to statewide consumption and displays the County’s equivalent per
capita energy consumption from its electricity demand. With a population of 769,545 in 2018, San
Mateo County’s 2018 per capita electricity consumption was approximately 5,491 kWh, or 18.7
million Btu.
Table 7 2018 Annual Electricity Consumption
Energy
Type
San Mateo County
(GWh)
California
(GWh)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per Capita
Consumption
(kWh)
County per Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Electricity
(MWh)
4,225.6 281,120.2 1.5% 5,491.0 18.7
Notes: Electricity consumption volumes for San Mateo County and California are expressed in gigawatt-hours (GWh) while County per
capita consumption is expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh) and millions of Btu (MMBtu).
Source: CEC 2018
Natural Gas
California relies on out-of-state natural gas imports for nearly 90 percent of its natural gas supply.
The CEC estimates that approximately 45 percent of the natural gas burned across the state is used
for electricity generation, followed by residential (21 percent), industrial (25 percent), and
commercial (9 percent) use. Building and appliance energy efficiency standards account for up to 39
percent in natural gas demand savings since 1990 (CEC 2019b).
South San Francisco falls within PG&E’s natural gas service area, which spans central and northern
California (CEC 2018b). In 2018, PG&E customers consumed a total of 4.8 billion therms of natural
gas. Residential users accounted for approximately 40 percent of PG&E’s natural gas consumption.
Industrial and commercial users accounted for another 36 and 20 percent, respectively. The
remainder was used for mining, construction, agricultural, and water pump accounts (CEC 2018c).
According to the CEC, San Mateo County consumed approximately 209.7 million therms of natural
gas in 2018, or approximately 19,493 billion Btu (CEC 2018d). In 2018, San Mateo County users
accounted for approximately 4.3 percent of PG&E’s total natural gas consumption across the entire
service area. Table 8 illustrates the County’s 2017 natural gas consumption in comparison to
statewide consumption and displays the County’s equivalent per capita energy consumption from
its natural gas demand. With a population of 769,545 in 2018, San Mateo County’s 2018 per capita
natural gas consumption was approximately 273 therms, or approximately 25 million Btu.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 43
Table 8 2017 Annual Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type
San Mateo County
(U.S. therms)
California
(U.S. therms)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per
Capita
Consumption
(U.S. therms)
County per
Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Natural Gas 209,663,993 12,638,157,740 1.7% 272.5 25.3
Notes: Natural gas consumption volumes for San Mateo County and California are expressed in U.S. Therms while County per capita
consumption is expressed in U.S. Therms and millions of Btu (MMBtu).
Source: CEC 2018d
Methodology
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 was used to estimate air
quality and GHG emissions resulting from the proposed project. The CalEEMod results (provided in
Appendix AQ) provide the average travel distance, vehicle trip numbers, and vehicle fleet mix during
project construction and operation. The CalEEMod results also provide the estimated gross
electricity and natural gas consumption by land use during project operation. The values contained
therein are used in this analysis to determine the anticipated energy consumption during
construction and operation. In addition, the analysis takes into consideration the daily trips
generated by the project.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
Construction
The project would involve demolition of the existing warehouse structure site preparation and
grading; pavement and asphalt installation; structure construction; architectural coating; and
installation of landscaping and hardscaping. Project demolition and construction would require
energy resources primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty
vehicles, machinery, and generators. Table 9 summarizes the anticipated energy consumption from
construction equipment and vehicles, including construction worker trips to and from the project
site.
Table 9 Proposed Project Construction Energy Usage
Source
Fuel Consumption (Gallons)
Gasoline Diesel
Construction Equipment and
Vendor/Hauling Trips
− 80,303.8
Construction Worker Vehicle Trips 11,311.7 −
Source: Appendix AQ
As shown in Table 9, project demolition and construction would require approximately 11,312
gallons of gasoline and 80,304 gallons of diesel fuel. This energy use would be temporary in nature,
and construction equipment used would be typical of similar-sized construction projects in the
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
44
region. In addition, the project’s construction contractors would demonstrate compliance with
applicable CARB regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern
the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road
equipment. Construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of 13 CCR
Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel
vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, thereby minimizing unnecessary fuel consumption.
Furthermore, the project would comply with the 2019 requirements of the California Green Building
Standards Code (CALGreen) to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition
debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In
addition, in the interest of cost efficiency, construction contractors would not be anticipated to use
fuel in a wasteful or unnecessary manner. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient,
wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and the project’s construction energy
consumption impact would be less than significant.
Operation
Energy demand from the project’s operation would include fuel consumed by passenger vehicles;
natural gas consumed for heating the buildings; and electricity consumed by the proposed
structures, including lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning. Table 10 shows the project’s
estimated total annual gasoline and diesel fuel consumption, as well as electricity and natural gas
use.
Table 10 Proposed Project Operational Energy Usage
Source Energy Consumption
Vehicle Trips
Gasoline 57,212.8 gallons 6,281.2 MMBtu1
Diesel 17,904.7 gallons 2,282.1 MMBtu1
Built Environment
Electricity 1.6 GWh 5,499.6 MMBtu
Natural Gas Usage 26.7 U.S. Therms 2.5 MMBtu
1 CaRFG fuel specification of 109,786 Btu/gallon used to identify conversion rate for fuel energy consumption for vehicle
classes specified above (CARB 2015).
Source: Appendix AQ
As shown in Table 10, the project’s vehicle trips would require approximately 57,213 gallons of
gasoline and 17,905 gallons of diesel fuel, or 8,563.3 MMBtu annually. The fuel consumed by the
project’s vehicle trips is assumed to be typical of similar office development projects in the area. The
project’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan (provided in Appendix TDM) also
includes various measures that would reduce energy use from transportation to and from the
project site that are not incorporated into the totals stated above. The measures within the TDM
plan were designed to create a 35 percent alternative transportation mode-use rate. These
measures include a commuter management program with benefits and subsidies for transit or
carpool users, resources for project commuters to use, such as carpool-matching services, mobile
bicycle repair, and a web portal.
As shown in Table 10, project operation would consume approximately 1.6 GWh of electricity and
26.7 US Therms of natural gas per year. This represents an insignificant increase in the County’s
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 45
existing electricity and natural gas use shown in Table 9 and Table 10. The project would comply
with standards set in California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which would minimize the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during operation. CALGreen (as
codified in CCR Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and
building materials into the design of new construction projects. Furthermore, the 2019 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet
energy performance standards set by the CEC. As the name implies, these standards are specifically
crafted for new buildings to result in energy efficient performance. The standards are updated every
three years, and each iteration increases energy efficiency standards. For example, according to the
CEC, residences built with the 2019 standards will use about 7 percent less energy due to energy
efficiency measures versus those built under the 2016 standards, or 53 percent less energy with
rooftop solar. Nonresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly to lighting
upgrades (CEC 2018e). Furthermore, the project would continue to reduce its use of nonrenewable
energy resources as the electricity generated by renewable resources provided by PCE continues to
increase to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill 100, which requires electricity
providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total
retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.
Project construction would be temporary and typical of similar projects; it would not result in
wasteful use energy. Project operation would increase energy use on the site compared to existing
conditions. However, the energy use would be in conformance with the latest version of CALGreen
and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Additionally, the electricity and natural gas use would
not result in a significant increase for PCE or PG&E. Therefore, the project would not result in
wasteful or unnecessary energy consumption, and impacts would be less than significant. This
impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
As discussed in question (a) of this section, the project would comply with CALGreen and the
Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which specify energy efficiency requirements. The project is
not located on a site identified for renewable resource production. The City of South San Francisco
adopted energy efficiency goals and policies within its General Plan and Climate Action Plan. Table
11 identifies energy efficiency policies provided in the City’s General Plan and its Climate Action Plan
that are applicable to the proposed project and describes the project’s consistency with these
policies.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
46
Table 11 Project Compliance with Energy Efficiency Goals and Policies
Energy Efficiency Goal or Policy Project Consistency
City of South San Francisco General Plan
Implementation Policy 7.3-1-2: Use the City’s
development review process and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate
and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new
development on air quality and GHG emissions.
Consistent. The project’s emissions were estimated and
determined to be less than significant in this Initial Study.
Implementation Policy 7.3-1-10: Facilitate energy
efficiency in building regulations and streamlined review
processes, providing flexibility to achieve specified energy
performance levels and requiring energy efficiency
measures as appropriate.
Consistent. The project includes required energy efficiency
measures. Project site plans show compliance with energy
efficiency measures with the inclusion of electric vehicle
and shared parking requirements, water conservation,
and other CALGreen measures.
Implementation Policy 7.3-1-13: Encourage efficient, clean
energy and fuel use through collaborative programs,
award programs, and incentives, while removing barriers
to the expansion of alternative fuel facilities and
infrastructure.
Consistent. The project would comply with Title 24 of the
California Building Code and all applicable energy
efficiency requirements.
City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
Measure 1.1-3: Continue to enforce the City’s
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to
require employers to demonstrate achieved mode share
and to continually adjust their programs to meeting the
requisite goals.
Consistent. A TDM Plan was prepared for the project
which includes incentives for alternative transportation
modes and on-going monitoring (Appendix TDM).
Measure 2.1-2: Revise parking design guidelines to include
designated spaces for electric vehicles, carpool vehicles,
and other low-emission vehicles.
Consistent. The project would include 20 electric vehicle
ready charging spaces and 37 carpool/vanpool parking
spaces, consistent with CALGreen.
Measure 2.1-5: Require new large-scale nonresidential
developments to provide a conduit for future electric
vehicle charging installations, and encourage the
installation of conduits or electric vehicle changing
stations for all new development.
Consistent. The project would include 20 parking spaces
with conduit for future electric vehicle charging
installations.
Measure 3.1-3: Encourage the use of CALGreen energy
efficiency measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP
streamlining.
Consistent. The project would comply with the California
Green Building Standards Code.
Measure 3.4-2: Continue to require tree planting in new
development in accordance with Chapter 13.30 of the
Zoning Code, and encourage tree placement to maximize
building shading.
Consistent. The project would be required to comply with
Chapter 13.30, and includes 40 trees along the perimeter
of the proposed buildings.
Measure 4.1-2: Require the construction of any new
nonresidential space 5,000 square feet or more, or the
conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or
more, to comply with one of the following standards:
Meet a minimum of 50 percent of modeled building
electricity needs with on-site renewable energy
sources.
Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a
minimum of 50 percent of modeling building electricity
use.
Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency
requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency
requirements by 20 percent or more.
Consistent. See discussion in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, under Impact GHG-2.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 47
Energy Efficiency Goal or Policy Project Consistency
Measure 4.1-3: Require all new development to install
conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
Consistent. The project would be required to show
compliance with this measure upon building permit
application.
Measure 5.1-2: Continue to enforce the existing
construction and demolition recycling ordinance, requiring
100 percent of inert waste and 65 percent of non-inert
waste to be recycled from all eligible projects.
Consistent. The project would be required to prepare a
Waste Management Plan to show compliance with waste
diversion requirements.
As shown in Table 11 the project would be consistent with applicable energy efficiency goals and
policies. Therefore, potential impacts associated with renewable energy and energy efficiency
would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
48
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 49
7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. 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? □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ ■ □ □
4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ ■ □ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property? □ ■ □ □
e. Have soils 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
geologic feature? □ □ ■ □
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
50
The analysis below is based primarily on a geotechnical investigation prepared for the project by
Rockridge Geotechnical in May 2019 (Appendix GEO).
Setting
Active faults are defined by the State of California to be a fault that has surface displacement within
the Holocene time (approximately the last 10,000 years). Potentially active faults as defined by the
State of California to be a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the
Quaternary (last 1.6 million years). Any fault that is sufficiently active describes a fault that has some
evidence of Holocene displacement on one or more of its segments or branches. Associated issues
with earthquakes include liquefaction, which is the rapid transformation of sediment to a fluid-like
state. It occurs when water-saturated, loose to medium dense, relatively clay-free sands and silts
are subjected to earthquake ground motion.
The project site is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province, which is characterized by
northwest-southeast trending valleys and ridges. These are controlled by folds and faults that
resulted from the collision of the Farallon and North American plates and subsequent shearing
along the San Andreas fault system. Movements along this plate boundary in the Northern
California region occur along right-lateral strike-slip faults of the San Andreas Fault system
(Appendix GEO).
The Bay Area contains both active and potentially active faults. Major active faults in the area are
the San Andreas, San Gregorio, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. However, the project site itself is not
located within a State of California Earthquake Hazard Zone (DOC 2019). The nearest active fault is
the North San Andreas fault, approximately 3.5 miles away from the project site. See Table 12 for
the faults in the area surrounding the project site and the strength of their shaking. Strongest
ground shaking anticipated to occur in the project vicinity would be triggered by the North San
Andreas fault.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 51
Table 12 Active Fault Zones Near the Project Site
Fault Segment
Distance to
Project Site
(miles) Direction from Site
Mean Characteristic
Moment Magnitude
N. San Andreas – Peninsula 3.5 West 7.2
San Gregorio Connected 9 West 7.5
N. San Andreas – North Coast 13 Northwest 7.51
Total Hayward 14 Northeast 7.0
Total Hayward – Rodgers Creek 14 Northeast 7.3
Monte Vista – Shannon 16 Southeast 6.5
Total Calaveras 23 East 7.0
Mount Diablo Thrust 24 Northeast 6.7
Green Valley Connected 27 Northeast 6.8
Rodgers Creek 29 North 7.1
1Moment magnitude is an energy-based scale and provides a physically meaningful measure of the size of a faulting event. Moment
magnitude is directly related to average slip and fault rupture area.
Notes: Faults were tabulated above and numerous other faults in the region are sources of potential motion. However, earthquakes
that might occur on other faults throughout California are also potential generators of significant ground motion and could subject the
site to intense ground shaking.
Source: Appendix GEO
Expansive soils are soils that swell in density and volume as they absorb water and contract as they
lose water. Associated problems include cracking and deterioration of roadway surface, as they
expand and contract during seasonal wet and dry cycles.
The project site is underlain by early Pleistocene-age alluvium. The northeastern corner of the
project site is underlain by hillslope deposits; the center and southwestern corner of the site are
underlain by artificial fill. In general, the site is underlain by heterogeneous alluvial sediments that
consist predominantly of medium stiff to hard clays and silts interbedded with discontinuous dense
to very dense granular (sand and/or gravel) layers to the maximum depth explored of about 81 feet
below ground surface (Appendix GEO).
The project site sits atop silty clay. The native clay material has a slight to moderate swelling
potential (USGS 1989). The project site is relatively flat, bordered by a relatively step slope down to
the railroad tracks. The steepest portion of the slope is approximately 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) at
the northeastern corner of the site with approximately 7 feet of elevation change.
Regulatory Setting
Federal and State
ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT
Following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was passed
by the California legislature in 1990. The SHMA (PRC Chapter 7.8, Section 2690-2699.6) directs the
Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to
liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground shaking. It also requires that
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
52
agencies only approve projects in seismic hazard zones following site-specific geotechnical
investigations to determine if the identified hazard is present and the inclusion of appropriate
mitigation to reduce earthquake-related hazards.
SEISMIC HAZARDS MAPPING ACT
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 was enacted, in part, to address seismic hazards not
included in the Alquist-Priolo Act, including strong ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction.
Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the State Geologist is responsible for identifying and mapping seismic
hazards. CGS Special Publication 117, adopted in 1997 by the State Mining and Geology Board,
constitutes guidelines for evaluating seismic hazards other than surface faulting and for
recommending mitigation measures as required by PRC Section 2695(a). In accordance with the
mapping criteria, the CGS seismic hazard zone maps identifies areas with the potential for a ground
shaking event that corresponds to 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years.
The purpose of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to reduce the threat to public health and safety
and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating seismic hazards. Cities,
counties, and state agencies are directed to use seismic hazard zone maps developed by CGS in their
land-use planning and permitting processes. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires site-specific
geotechnical investigations prior to permitting most urban development projects in seismic hazard
zones.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, provides building codes and standards for the
design and construction of structures in California. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum
standards to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare through structural strength,
means of egress facilities, and general stability by controlling the design, construction, quality of
materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of building and structures. The CBC
contains specific requirements for seismic safety, excavation, foundations, retaining walls, and site
demolition. It also regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. Chapter 16 of
the CBC contains definitions of seismic sources and the procedure used to calculate seismic forces
on structures.
The CBC is updated every three years by order of the legislature, with supplements published in
intervening years. State law mandates that local governments enforce the CBC. In addition, a city
and/or county may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of
local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The 2016 CBC is based on the 2015
International Building Code with the addition of more extensive structural seismic provisions.
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
The federal government administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit program, which regulates discharges into surface waters under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The primary regulatory control relevant to the protection of water quality is the NPDES permit
administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, which establishes requirements
prescribing the quality of point sources of discharge and water quality objectives. These objectives
are established based on the designated beneficial uses (e.g., water supply, recreation, and habitat)
for a particular surface waterbody. The NPDES permits are issued to point source dischargers of
pollutants to surface waters pursuant to Water Code Chapter 5.5, which implements the federal
CWA. Examples include, but are not limited to, public wastewater treatment facilities, industries,
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 53
power plants, and groundwater cleanup programs discharging to surface waters (State Water
Resources Control, Title 23, Chapter 9, Section 2200). The Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) establishes and regulates discharge limits under the NPDES permits.
Construction projects which disturb one or more acres of soil or are part of a larger common plan of
development that disturbs one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the statewide
NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). In order to obtain coverage under the
Construction General Permit, a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must
be prepared. The SWPPP outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs)to reduce stormwater and
non-stormwater pollutant discharges, including erosion control, minimizing contact between
construction materials and precipitation, and strategies to prevent equipment leakage or spills.
Regional and Local
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The City of South San Francisco is under the jurisdiction of RWQCB Region 2, the San Francisco Bay
RWQCB. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB provides permits for projects that may affect surface waters
and groundwater locally and is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the San
Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and
establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The Basin Plan serves as the basis for
the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s regulatory programs and incorporates an implementation plan to
ensure water quality objectives are met.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Goal 8.1-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from seismic activity and geologic hazards in
South San Francisco.
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
Policy GEO-1 The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations on a project-by-
project basis on sites in areas of fill shown on Figure 17 and shall require such
investigations where needed.
Policy GEO-2 Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design
and construct appropriate foundations.
Impact Analysis
a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
The project site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, and no known active or potentially active faults exist on the site. In a seismically
active area, the remote possibility exists for future faulting in areas where no faults previously
existed; however, the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure from
previously unknown faults is also very low (Appendix GEO). Therefore, the risk of loss, injury, or
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
54
death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant. This impact will
not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
The nearest mapped active fault, the North San Andreas Fault, is approximately 3.5 miles west of
the project site (Appendix GEO). The seismicity of the site is governed by the activity of the San
Andreas, San Gregorio, and Hayward faults. During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the
nearby faults, strong to very strong ground shaking would occur at the project site.
Project construction would be required to comply with the seismic safety requirements in the
International Building Code, the CBC, and the City of South San Francisco Building Code. Compliance
with such requirements would reduce seismic ground-shaking impacts to the maximum extent
practicable with current engineering practices. Furthermore, the project would not increase ground-
shaking hazards at adjacent properties. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking
would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The project site has thin layers of potentially liquefiable soil between depths of approximately 8 and
38 feet below ground surface. The localized potentially liquefiable layers on the project site are
generally less than 4 feet thick, and most of the material identified as potentially liquefiable in the
liquefaction analyses generally consists of silty and sandy clay, as well as silty sand to sandy silt
(Appendix GEO). Soil makeup would not change as a result of project implementation. The
preliminary analysis found that the potentially liquefiable layers are sufficiently thin and/or have a
sufficient amount of plastic fines such that the potential for surface manifestations from
liquefaction, such as sand boils,1 and loss of bearing capacity for shallow foundations are low
(Appendix GEO). The thin layers of potentially liquefiable layers would not incur significant ground
motion during strong ground shaking. Some potential exists for lateral spreading of the project site
due to the potentially liquefiable soils and the topographic conditions. Mitigation measures would
be required for the horizontal and vertical support of the proposed building to prevent damages
from potential liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. Project implementation would not add any
further risk associated with liquefaction induced lateral-spreading.
Due to the presence of potentially liquefiable soils and the topographic conditions, liquefaction-
induced lateral spreading may be of significant impact on the project site. Therefore, mitigation
measures would be required.
1 A sand boil is sand and water that come out onto the ground surface during an earthquake as a result of liquefaction at shallow depth
(USGS 2019).
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 55
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1 Seismic Design
As recommended by the project’s Geotechnical Investigation (Rockridge Geotechnical 2019), a
geotechnical engineer shall collect shear wave velocity measurements and use such information for
final project design. Final project design shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of
earthquake motions and in compliance with the American Society of Civil Engineers, Chapter 12,
Seismic Design Requirements for Building Structures. Alternatively, Site Class D shall be used for
project design if shear wave velocity measurements are not taken. A seismic design classification of
Site Class D corresponds to buildings and structures in areas expected to experience severe and
destructive ground shaking but are not located near a major fault. Project design of a Site Class D
project shall also comply with the requirements as set forth by the American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts related to lateral spreading to
less than significant levels. The mitigation measure will be included in the EIR’s executive summary
and in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program. This impact will not be further
discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Earthquakes can trigger landslides that may cause injuries and damage many types of structures.
Landslides are typically a hazard on or near slopes or hillside areas, rather than on generally level
areas, like the project site and vicinity. The City of South San Francisco is not in a landslide hazard
zone per the County of San Mateo’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of San Mateo 2016).
Impacts related to landslides would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the
EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Project construction, particularly demolition, grading, and site preparation, could result in erosion
and loss of topsoil from the project site. The project would be required to obtain coverage under
the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for
Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Construction General Permit
Order 2009-0009-DWQ (Construction General Permit), administered by the SWRCB. Coverage under
the NPDES Permit would require implementation of a SWPPP and various site-specific BMPs to
reduce erosion and loss of topsoil during site demolition and construction. Compliance with the
NPDES permit and BMPs during demolition and construction such as straw wattles, silt fencing,
concrete washouts, and inlet protection during construction would reduce impacts resulting from
loss of topsoil. The project would be required to comply with SSFMC Section 15.56.030, which
would require the development of the project site to control filling, grading, and dredging which
may increase flood damage.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
56
Compliance with state and local requirements would reduce impacts from soil erosion and the loss
of topsoil to less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Expansive soils are those that have a potential to undergo significant changes in volume, either
shrinking or swelling, due to their composition and moisture content. Periodic shrinking and
swelling of expansive soils can cause extensive damage to other structures and roads. The site is
blanketed by material with a soil behavior type of loose to medium dense sand and silty sand, and
medium stiff to very stiff silty clay (Appendix GEO). According to information provided by the USGS,
clay soils found in the project vicinity generally have a slight to moderate expansivity (USGS 1989).
Most of the site is underlain by early Pleistocene-age alluvium. Results from field explorations
indicate the site is generally underlain by heterogeneous alluvial sediments that consist
predominantly of medium stiff to hard clays and silts interbedded with discontinuous dense to very
dense granular sand or gravel layers (Appendix GEO).
Geotechnical concerns related to expansive soils would be foundation settlement due to the
compression of the underlying clay soils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would be
required.
Mitigation Measure
GEO-2 Foundation Settlement
The building shall be supported on a stiffened foundation system, such as conventional reinforced
concrete mat or interconnected continuous footings (i.e., a stiffened grid). If the estimated total
settlements are not acceptable to the project team or the stiffened foundation system cannot be
economically designed to limit differential settlement to a value that can be tolerated by the
structure, then the proposed new structure shall be supported on spread footings bearing on
improved soil provided that the soil improvement extends to a depth that would reduce differential
settlement of the structure under both static and seismic conditions to a tolerable amount. The
foundation system for the project’s garage shall consists of spread footings bearing on improved
ground. Drill displacement sand-cement columns or rammed aggregate piers would be the most
appropriate ground improvement methods for this project.
Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce impacts related to expansive soils on
the project site to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure will be included in the EIR’s
executive summary and in the project’s mitigation monitoring and reporting program. This impact
will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 57
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
The project site would be served by the municipal sewer system and would not require the
installation of an on-site septic tank or alternate wastewater treatment systems. Therefore, no
impacts from septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems would occur. This impact
will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?
The area east of Highway 101 is underlain by deposits of Bay mud up to 80 feet deep in some places
(City of South San Francisco 1999). The City of South San Francisco has some sensitivity for
paleontological vertebrates, but no paleontological resources have been found on the project site
(University of California Museum of Paleontology 2019).
The project site falls within a highly urbanized area and is developed with a manufacturing
structure. The site has been disturbed previously during construction of the existing building. The
project would include grading and excavation limited to ground disturbance for foundations and
utility lines. In addition, project grading for the proposed building and parking lot would generally
not extend substantially below disturbance for prior development at the site. Therefore, the project
has a low potential to directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological resources or a unique
geologic feature. Impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
58
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 59
8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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? □ □ ■ □
Setting
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the
term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it more broadly encompasses other
changes in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured
originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the past, such
as during previous ice ages. The global climate is continuously changing, as evidenced by repeated
episodes of substantial warming and cooling documented in the geologic record. The rate of change
has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of
thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming,
as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration
in the rate of warming during the past 150 years. According to the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the understanding of anthropogenic warming
and cooling influences on climate has led to a high confidence (95 percent or greater) that the global
average net effect of human activities has been the dominant cause of warming and that the rate of
increase is unprecedented over decades to millennia since the mid-twentieth century (IPCC 2014).
GHGs are gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere. The gases that are
widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of
GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely
determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.
GHGs are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are
emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of
fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off gassing associated with agricultural practices
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
60
and landfills. Observations of CO2 concentrations, globally averaged temperature, and sea-level rise
are generally well within the range of the extent of the earlier IPCC projections. The recently
observed increases in CH4 and N2O concentrations are smaller than those assumed in the scenarios
in the previous assessments. Each IPCC assessment has used new projections of future climate
change that have become more detailed as the models have become more advanced.
Man-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include
fluorinated gases and SF6 (California Environmental Protection Agency [CalEPA] 2006). Different
types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWPs). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of
a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years).
Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the
amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emissions, referred to as “carbon dioxide
equivalent” (CO2e), and is the amount of a GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. CO2 has a 100-year
GWP of one. By contrast, CH4 has a GWP of 25, meaning its global warming effect is 25 times greater
than carbon dioxide on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2007). Emissions from human activities,
particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, have
elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of naturally occurring
concentrations.
Most individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to have a substantial influence on
climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to
cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are
limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution
towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064[h][1]).
Regulatory Setting
In response to an increase in man-made GHG concentrations over the past 150 years, California
implemented AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 codified the
statewide goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15 percent reduction
below 2005 emission levels) and adopted regulations to require reporting and verification of
statewide GHG emissions. In 2007, the governor similarly signed into law SB 97, which requires the
California Office of Planning and research to develop and transmit to the California Natural
Resources Agency CEQA guidelines relating to mitigating GHG emissions including those GHG effects
associated with transportation or energy consumption.
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, which requires the State to
further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 extends AB 32, directing the
CARB to reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. In response, on December 14, 2017,
CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target.
The 2017 Scoping Plan does not give project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it
recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds
consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalents
(CO2e) by 2030 (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for
plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level) but not for individual projects
because they include all emissions sectors in the state.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 61
Pursuant to the requirements of SB 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted
amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and analysis of
the effects of GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and
mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set
quantitative or qualitative thresholds for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate
change impacts.
Most individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to directly influence climate
change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative
effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue
of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an
impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15064[h][1]).
City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
The City of South San Francisco adopted its Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2014 to address GHG
emissions in the City. The CAP meets the qualifications for a qualified CAP and includes a clear path
for the City to implement its proposed policies, programs, and activities that will reduce GHG
emissions. Consistent with AB 32, the CAP includes targets to reduce emissions to 15 percent below
2005 baseline levels by 2020. The CAP sets a 2020 service population threshold of 3.58 MT CO2e per
service population per year. However, the proposed project would be operational after 2020 and
the 2020 service population threshold would not apply as the CAP is not a qualified GHG reduction
strategy for post-2020 projects (i.e., the CAP does not establish a 2030 GHG emissions reduction
target consistent with SB 32). Therefore, the significance thresholds in the BAAQMD’s May 2017
CEQA Guidelines for project operations within the SFBAAB are the most appropriate thresholds for
use to determine the GHG impacts of the proposed project.
Plan Bay Area 2040
SB 375, signed in August 2008, requires the inclusion of Sustainable Communities’ Strategies in
Regional Transportation Plans to reduce GHG emissions. The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission and ABAG adopted a Sustainable Communities’ Strategies that meets the GHG
reduction targets set forth by CARB. Plan Bay Area 2040 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range
transportation, land-use, and housing plan that supports a growing economy, provides more
housing and transportation choices and reduces transportation-related pollution in the nine-county
San Francisco Bay Area (ABAG 2017). Plan Bay Area 2040 builds on earlier efforts to develop an
efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan
Bay Area 2040 will be updated every four years to reflect new priorities. The goals of Plan Bay Area
2040 related to GHG emissions include (ABAG 2017):
Climate Protection. Reduce per capita CO2 emissions.
Healthy and Safe Communities. Reduce adverse health impacts.
Open Space and Agricultural Preservation. Direct development within urban footprint.
Transportation. Increase non-auto mode share.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
62
BAAQMD Screening Criteria
In the 2017 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the BAAQMD outlines an approach to determine
the significance of projects. The BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies determine appropriate
GHG emissions thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. The
BAAQMD’s significance thresholds in the updated May 2017 CEQA Guidelines for project operations
within the SFBAAB are the most appropriate thresholds for use in determining GHG emission
impacts of the proposed project. The BAAQMD developed screening criteria to provide lead
agencies and project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in
potentially significant GHG emission impacts. If all screening criteria are met by a project, then the
lead agency or applicant would not need to perform a detailed assessment of their project’s GHG
emissions. These screening levels are generally representative of new development on greenfield
sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consideration (BAAQMD 2017b).
The screening criteria for operational GHG emissions of office buildings is 53,000 square feet. The
proposed project would exceed the screening threshold and, therefore, the project’s GHG emissions
are compared in this Initial Study to the BAAQMD’s significance thresholds shown in Table 13 below.
It should be noted that the BAAQMD’s thresholds were established based on achieving the 2020
GHG emission reduction targets set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Therefore, because the project
would have a post-2020 buildout year, the efficiency threshold of significance (4.6 MT of
CO2e/SP/year) was adjusted based on the SB 32 target of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions
below 1990 levels (Association of Environmental Professionals 2016). Since the 2020 GHG targets
set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan are designed to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels, it follows
that the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 MT of CO2e/SP/year must decrease by 40 percent by 2030 to
meet the statewide 2030 GHG emission reduction targets. Therefore, for the purposes of this
analysis, the project’s year 2030 GHG emissions would be significant if they would exceed 2.8 MT of
CO2e/SP/year.
Table 13 GHG Significance Thresholds
GHG Emission Source Category Operational Emissions
Non-stationary Sources 1,100 MT of CO2e/year
or
4.6 MT of CO2e/SP/year (residents + employees)
Stationary Sources 10,000 MT/year
Plans 6.6 MT of CO2e/SP/year (residents + employees)
Notes: SP = Service Population; MT – metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalents
Project emissions can be expressed on a per-capita basis as MT of CO2e/Service Population/year, which represents the project’s total
estimated annual GHG emissions divided by the estimated total number of new residents and/or employees that would result from
development of a project.
Methodology
GHG emissions for project construction and operation were calculated using CalEEMod, Version
2016.3.2. The model calculates emissions of the following GHGs: CO2, N2O, and CH4, reported as
CO2e. For the purposes of the GHG analysis, mobile trips from the project’s new office building were
included in the model, per the project’s Access and Circulation Memo (Appendix TRA), which
included trip reduction estimated from the project’s TDM Plan.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 63
Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the
utility district per kilowatt hour (CAPCOA 2017). The project would be served by PCE, which has two
utility options, ECOPlus and ECO100. Since ECO100 is optional, ECOPlus carbon intensity factors
were utilized. In addition, PCE did not provide CO2e factors for CH4 or N2O and, therefore, PG&E’s
factors were used.
The project’s energy use was reduced by 30 percent to account for the requirements of 2019 Title
24 standards for non-residential projects (CEC 2019). In addition, CalEEMod does not incorporate
water use reductions achieved by 2016 CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11). New development would be
subject to CalGreen, which requires a 20 percent increase in indoor water use efficiency. Thus, to
account for compliance with CalGreen, a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use was included in
the water consumption calculations.
The project’s service population was determined based on the estimated number of employees that
would work at the project site. According to the project’s TDM Plan (Appendix TDM), the project could
add 451 employees. Therefore, the service population was assumed to be 451.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Construction Emissions
Project construction would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily from construction
equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the
project site and heavy trucks to export earth materials on-site. Site preparation and grading typically
generate the greatest amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling.
The project’s construction GHG emissions are shown in Table 14 below. Construction emissions
would generate an estimated 974.6 MT of CO2e per year, or 32.5 MT of CO2e per year when
amortized over a 30-year period. The construction emissions are combined with the project’s
estimated operational emissions below.
Table 14 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions
Year Project Emissions (MT/yr CO2e)
Total 974.6
Total Amortized over 30 Years 32.5
Source: Appendix AQ
Operational Emissions
Project operation would generate GHG emissions as a result of energy use, area emissions from
landscaping equipment and consumer products, waste generation and water consumption, and
from mobile sources from vehicle trips generated by the project. Table 15 combines the amortized
construction, operational, and mobile GHG emissions associated with the project.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
64
Table 15 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source
Annual Emissions
MT CO2e
Construction 32.5
Operational
Area
Energy
Solid Waste
Water
<0.1
314.9
60.2
45.1
Mobile
CO2 and CH4 495.1
N2O 4.3
Total Emissions 952.1
Service Population (employees) 451
Emissions per Service Population (MT CO2e/SP/year) 2.1
Project-specific Efficiency Threshold 2.8
Exceeds Threshold? No1
1 Emissions greater than 2.8 MT CO2e per service population per year may conflict with substantial progress toward GHG reduction targets;
as the project does not exceed this number, it would not exceed the threshold.
See Appendix AQ for CalEEMod results and N2O mobile emissions modeling.
As shown in Table 15, the project would result in approximately 2.1 MT CO2e per service population
per year. These emissions would not exceed the 2.8 MT CO2e per service population per year
threshold. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions would have a less than significant impact. This
impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The project would be infill redevelopment accessible by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit
users. The nearest bike lane is a Class II bike lane on Allerton Avenue and the nearest transit stop
are South San Francisco BART shuttles approximately 0.2 mile from the project site. Increased
alternative transportation options would reduce vehicle trips and average vehicle miles travelled,
thereby reducing mobile source GHG emissions and contributing to achieving the GHG emissions
reduction goals set forth by AB 32, SB 32, and SB 375. The project site is approximately 0.8 mile
from the Caltrain South San Francisco Station, and the project would provide a commute shuttle
option for employees under the TDM Plan (Appendix TDM). Therefore, given the viable public
transit and alternative transportation options, future guests and employees would be able to use
non-auto modes to access the project site, which would reduce per capita CO2 emissions and
associated adverse health impacts related to mobile source air pollutant and GHG emissions. (As
described in Section 17, Transportation, the project may conflict with applicable policies related to
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 65
circulation and traffic, not greenhouse gas emissions. Impacts specifically related to transportation
will be analyzed further in the EIR.)
City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
The City of South San Francisco CAP includes a Development Review Checklist with CAP criteria that
are applicable to new development. Measures in the Development Review Checklist should be
included in the project design as feasible (City of South San Francisco 2014a). Table 16 summarizes
the project’s consistency with the Development Review Checklist. As shown therein, the project
would be inconsistent with several of the Development Review Checklist criteria, including those
pertaining to water-efficient fixtures, green building practices, and renewable energy. Therefore,
impacts related to consistency with GHG emission reduction plans would be potentially significant;
however, the project would be subject to a standard Condition of Approval that would reduce this
impact.
Table 16 Project Consistency with City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
Development Review Checklist
Goals, Targets, and Policies Consistency
Does the project include bicycle facilities
(e.g., bicycle lanes, parking, lockers)?
Consistent. The project would include 108 bicycle parking spaces, including
at least 48 secured and covered spaces.
Will the project support bike
sharing/rental programs?
Consistent. Although it would not directly implement bike sharing/rental
programs, the project would not conflict with or impede such programs.
Will there be a commute shuttle or
public transit stop on-site or within 500
feet?
Consistent: The project would provide a shuttle service through
participation in Commute.org, as detailed in the TDM Plan (Appendix TDM).
In addition, the project is located less than 0.25 mile from
BART/Caltrain/Ferry shuttle stops.
Is the project within ¼ mile of a Caltrain
or BART stop?
Consistent. Although the project site is located approximately 0.8 mile east
of the South San Francisco Caltrain station, the project is located less than
0.25 mile from Caltrain shuttle stops that would take employees to this
station.
Will the project include high-density
housing and a diverse range of housing?
Not applicable. The project does not include housing.
Will the project provide traffic calming
treatments?
Consistent. A TDM Plan was prepared for the project and includes traffic
calming measures for the area. This will be further discussed in the EIR.
Is the project paying a traffic impact fee
to fund bicycle and pedestrian
improvements?
Consistent. Per SSFMC Section 8.68, the project would be required to pay a
bicycle and pedestrian impact fee.
Will the project provide shared or
reduced parking?
Consistent. The project would include 29 designated carpool parking
spaces.
Will the project provide designated
parking spaces for electric vehicles,
carpool vehicles, or other low-emissions
vehicles?
Consistent. The project would include one clean-air parking space and five
EV-charging spaces.
Will the project have any ground-level
commercial space?
Not applicable. The proposed project is an office building.
Does the project include any alternative-
fuel stations?
Consistent. The project would include five electric vehicle charging stations.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
66
Goals, Targets, and Policies Consistency
Will the project have any pre-wiring or
conduit construction to easily add
electric vehicle charging stations or
alternative energy facilities at a later
date?
Consistent. The project would include five electric vehicle charging stations.
If this project is replacing an existing
building, is the building being replaced
more than 30 years old?
Consistent. The existing building on-site was constructed in 1968 and is
therefore 51 years old.
Will certification of the building be
sought under LEED or other green
building criteria?
Inconsistent. The project does not include certification of the building under
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or other green
building criteria.
Will the project include any high-
reflectivity (“cool”) roof or surface
paving?
Consistent. The project would include corrugated metal roofing panels, and
most parking spaces would be located within an enclosed parking garage.
Will there be a net increase in the
number of mature trees on-site once the
project is completed?
Consistent. The project site currently contains one ornamental tree. The
project would add approximately 45 trees.
Will any renewable energy system be
installed as part of this project?
Inconsistent. The project would be required to provide conduit for future
solar installation. However, the project does not include installation of
renewable energy systems.
Is the project a new nonresidential
conditioned space of 5,000 square feet
or more?
Inconsistent. The project is a new nonresidential development with more
than 5,000 square feet of conditioned space. Therefore, Measure 4.1 of the
City’s CAP requires implementation of one of three alternative energy
measures, none of which are included in the proposed project.
Will this project use renewable energy
generated off-site?
Consistent. Electricity for the proposed project would be supplied by PCE,
which currently has a portfolio with 51 percent eligible renewable energy
sources (PCE 2018).
Will there be composting collection on-
site?
Consistent. AB 1826 requires commercial developments to subscribe to
organics recycling services. Therefore, the project would include composting
collection on-site.
Will any water fixtures exceed CALGreen
standards?
Inconsistent. The project would not include water fixtures that exceed
CALGreen standards.
Will the project incorporate low-impact
development (LID) practices?
Consistent. The project would replace over 10,000 square feet of
impervious surfaces. Therefore, the project would be required by the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional
Stormwater Permit to include LID practices per SSFMC Section 14.04.134.
Will any xeriscaping be installed? Consistent. The project would include landscaping with a low Water Use
Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS).
Will captured rainwater or graywater be
used for irrigation?
Inconsistent. The project would not use captured rainwater or graywater
for irrigation.
Source: City of South San Francisco 2014
As shown in Table 16, the project as currently proposed would not be consistent with all measures
in the CAP Development Review Checklist. However, the City would impose a standard Condition of
Approval on the project, as detailed below:
For Commercial Projects: Prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, the
developer shall revise the development plans to include the following Climate Action Plan
requirements, subject to review and approval by the Chief Planner or designee:
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 67
a) Electric Vehicle Charging Installations Measure 2.1, Action 5: Require new large-scale
nonresidential developments to provide conduit for future electric vehicle charging
installations, and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle charging
stations for all new development.
b) Heat Island Reductions Measure 3.4, Action 1: Encourage the use of high-albedo
surfaces and technologies as appropriate, as identified in the voluntary CALGreen
standards.
c) Alternative Energy Facilities Measure 4.1, Action 2: Require the construction of any new
nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of
unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following
standards:
i. Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on-site
renewable energy sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity needs for the
new conditioned space, the applicant shall calculate building electricity use as part
of the Title 24 compliance process. Total electricity use shall include total use for
the new conditioned space excluding process energy.
ii. Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50% of modeled
building electricity use. Building electricity use shall be calculated using the method
identified above.
iii. Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory
energy efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For additions to existing
development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be calculated as
part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already permitted
shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
d) Solar Wiring Installation Measure 4.1, Action 3: Require all new development to install
conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
e) Water Demand Reduction Measure 6.1, Action 2: Revitalize implementation and
enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following:
i. Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features.
ii. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after
sunrise.
iii. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
iv. Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
v. Installing drip irrigation systems.
vi. Reducing impervious surfaces.
With the implementation of this standard Condition of Approval, the project would be consistent
with all measures in the CAP Development Review Checklist, and impacts would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
68
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 69
9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 handle
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 material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ □ ■ □
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project 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? □ □ □ ■
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
70
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Setting
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared by Clayton Group Services, Inc. in
March 2006 (Clayton Group Services Inc.) (Appendix HAZ). As part of the 2006 Phase I ESA,
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to provide a database search of public lists
of sites that generate, store, treat, or dispose of hazardous materials or sites for which a release or
incident has occurred for the project site and surrounding area. Federal, state, and county lists were
reviewed as part of the research effort.
Adjacent Properties
Four adjacent properties were listed in the databases searched by EDR:
501 Forbes Boulevard. 501 Forbes Boulevard is the eastern abutting property. It is listed in the
HAZNET for the generation of metal sludge and photochemicals/photoprocessing waste, which
was disposed of offsite. It is also listed in the San Mateo Business Inventory as a generator of
special wastes. None of the listings indicate that hazardous materials have been released.
477 Forbes Boulevard. 477 Forbes Boulevard is the western abutting property. The site is
identified in the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and Cortese databases and is listed
as an active LUST site for a release in 1986. Recent samples indicate that the highest levels of
contamination are present near the location of the UST. According to current file information,
further delineation of the groundwater plume will be conducted to define the extent of
contamination.
500 Forbes Boulevard. 500 Forbes Boulevard is southeast of the project site, across Forbes
Avenue. It is listed on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act – Small Quantity Generator
database as a small generator with no violations. It is also listed as a LUST; the LUST status was
granted closure in 1999.
485-489 Cabot Road. 485-489 Cabot Road is located approximately 0.2 mile southwest of the
project site. It is listed in the LUST and HAZNET databases as “pollution characterization.”
Project Site
Based on the EDR report and a review of available documents, the project site is identified in the
Historical UST Database, SWEEPS UST Database (former UST database), and the California Facility
Inventory Database because of the presence of four historical USTs. Those USTs have been
removed. Closure was granted for the USTs in 2004; however, residual contamination was detected
in soil and groundwater in the vicinity.
The project site is also listed in the San Mateo Business Inventory as a site with an above-ground
storage tank, a generator and recycler of waste oil/solvent, and the storage of hazardous materials
no greater than 1,199 gallons. This storage of hazardous materials was associated with the food
processing company that occupied the project site; however, the existing building is currently
vacant, and the hazardous materials are no longer stored at the project site. Despite stained and
cracked pavement, soil sampling in 2004 determined that subsurface impacts did not exceed
acceptable levels.
The Phase 1 ESA concludes that no known recognized environmental condition is associated with
the project site, except the potential contamination of soil and groundwater from historical USTs at
the project site. However, given that the site has been granted regulatory closure, the ESA
concludes that no further investigation or remediation is recommended.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 71
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project 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?
Project construction may include the temporary transport, storage, use, or disposal of potentially
hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, solvents, or contaminated soils. If
spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health. However, the
transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to federal, state, and
local regulations, which would assure that risks associated with hazardous materials are minimized.
The transport of any hazardous materials would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations,
which would assure that risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials are minimized.
In addition, the existing structure, which was constructed in 1968, may contain asbestos and/or
lead-based paint due to their age. Structures built before the 1970s were constructed typically with
asbestos containing materials (ACM). Because the building was constructed before the federal ban
on the manufacture of PCBs, it is possible that light ballasts in the structures contain PCB. While
demolition is mostly complete, completion of demolition could result in health hazard impacts to
workers if not remediated prior to construction activities. However, demolition and construction
activities would be required to adhere to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which governs the proper
handling and disposal of ACM for demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities in the Bay
Area, and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) regulations regarding
lead-based materials. The California Code of Regulations Section 1532.1, requires testing,
monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure levels do not
exceed CalOSHA standards. DTSC has classified PCBs as a hazardous waste when concentrations
exceed 50 parts per million in non-liquids, and the DTSC requires that materials containing those
concentrations of PCBs be transported and disposed of as hazardous waste. Light ballasts to be
removed would be evaluated for the presence of PCBs and managed appropriately. With required
adherence to BAAQMD, CalOSHA, and DTSC regulations regarding ACM, lead-based paint, and PCBs
impacts would be less than significant.
The project would involve the construction of an office building and an associated parking garage.
Office uses typically do not use or store large quantities of hazardous materials. In addition, use,
storage, and disposal of hazardous materials are regulated through the Resources Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible
for implementing the RCRA program, as well as California’s own hazardous waste laws. DTSC
regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to control and
reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. It does this primarily under the authority of
RCRA and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and
Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, CCR,
Divisions 4 and 4.5). DTSC also oversees permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action
programs to ensure that hazardous waste managers follow federal and State requirements and
other laws that affect hazardous waste, particularly its handling, storage, transportation, disposal,
treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Finally, storage of any hazardous materials
at or above State-defined thresholds makes a facility subject to a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
(HMBP). The Hazardous Materials Compliance Division is responsible to the HMBP program for San
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
72
Mateo County. A HMBP must be submitted if these thresholds for hazardous materials are met.
Compliance with these regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with the routine
transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials to less than significant. This impact will
not be addressed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
There are no schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. However, it is possible that the hauling of
hazardous materials during construction activities and building operation could occur within 0.25
mile of a school. As outline above under criteria (a) and (b), transport and storage of such materials
would be regulated by existing federal, state, and local regulations. Impacts would therefore be less
than significant. This impact will not be addressed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As described above, the Phase I ESA included a database search to evaluate if the project site is
included on a list of hazardous materials sites. This included a request to San Mateo County
Department of Environmental Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a review of the
DTSC EnviroStor database. The project site was listed as having a closed LUST case from the release
of oil and impacted soil and groundwater. However, the LUST case has been closed on GeoTracker
(Appendix HAZ; SWRCB 2015), and the Phase I concludes that no further investigation or
remediation is needed at the project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. This
impact will not be addressed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The project site falls within the Airport Influence Area A designated in the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). However, the project
site is located outside the identified noise compatibility zones, which limit uses that could create
excessive noise. Moreover, as described in Section 13, Noise, the project would not result in
excessive noise near the project site. In addition, the project site is not within the safety
compatibility zones, which limit uses that could pose safety hazards to the airport. The nearest
safety compatibility zone is Zone 3, which identifies incompatible uses as critical public utilities,
hazardous uses, children’s schools, large child day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums,
and arenas. The proposed project would not involve uses identified as incompatible with the
nearest ALUCP zone. Therefore, there would be no safety hazard impacts. Impacts would be less
than significant. This impact will not be addressed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 73
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed project would not obstruct existing roadways or require the construction of new
roadways or access points. Therefore, the proposed project would not block emergency response or
evacuation routes or interfere with adopted emergency response and emergency evacuation plans.
No impact would occur. This impact will not be addressed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
The project site is in a developed, urbanized area surrounded by commercial development and
roadways. No adjacent wildlands or densely vegetated areas are located nearby that would
represent a significant fire hazard. Additionally, the project does not fall within in a Fire Hazard
Severity Zone or Very High Hazard Severity Zone for wildland fires (Cal Fire 2007). Therefore, the
project would not expose people or structures to significant hazards related to wildland fires and
there would be no impacts. This impact will not be addressed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
74
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 75
10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water 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 which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ ■ □
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
76
Setting
The project site is 2.96 acres and generally flat (USGS 2018). Water drains from the northern
boundary to the south of the site. The nearest downstream creek is Colma Creek, approximately 1
mile from the project site; Colma Creek outfalls into the San Francisco Bay. The City of South San
Francisco receives approximately 23 inches of rain annually, with rainfall concentrated in the winter
months (Cal-Adapt 2019d).
Regulatory Setting
Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the CWA, formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, with the
intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of
the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water
quality through the regulation of point source and non-point source discharges to surface water.
The NPDES permit process regulates those discharges (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting
authority is administered by the SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs. The project site is in a watershed
administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2017).
Individual projects in the city that disturb more than one acre are required to obtain NPDES
coverage under the California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with
Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction
General Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP describing BMPs the
discharger would use to prevent and retain storm water runoff. The SWPPP must contain a visual
monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented
if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a
waterbody listed on the 303(d) list for sediment.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that any activity that would result in a discharge into waters of the
U.S. be certified by the RWQCB. This certification ensures that the proposed activity does not violate
state and/or federal water quality standards. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material to the waters of the U.S. and
adjacent wetlands. Discharges to waters of the U.S. must be avoided where possible and minimized
and mitigated where avoidance is not possible. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to
establish total maximum daily load programs for streams, lakes, and coastal waters that do not
meet certain water quality standards.
California Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1967 requires the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to
adopt water quality criteria to protect state waters. These criteria include the identification of
beneficial uses, narrative and numerical water quality standards, and implementation procedures.
The criteria for state waters in the region are contained in the Water Quality Objectives Chapter of
the Basin Plan for the San Francisco Bay RWQCB (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2017). The Water
Quality Control Plan, or Basin Plan, protects designated beneficial uses of state waters through the
issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements and through the development of total maximum daily
load standards. Anyone proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of
the state must make a report of the waste discharge to the RWQCB or SWRCB as appropriate, in
compliance with Porter-Cologne.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 77
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
The City of South San Francisco is a contributing city to the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SMCWPPP), which was established in 1990 in response to federal stormwater
NPDES regulations. Per the SMCPPP Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (SMCWPPP 2013), projects that
create or replace 2,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are C.3 regulated
projects. The Stormwater C.3 Guidebook for San Mateo County requires the implementation of one
or more of the following actions: (1) direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse; (2)
direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas; (3) direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios
onto vegetated areas; (4) direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto
vegetated areas; (5) construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces; or (6)
construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element, Open Space and Conservation Element, and
Health and Safety Element of the General Plan address hydrology and water quality issues. The
following policies and programs relate to the proposed project:
Goal 5.3-G-2. Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed
development.
Policy 5.3-I-2. Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote
the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and
major alterations and additions to existing buildings.
Goal 5.3-G-6. Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices.
Policy 5.3-I-7. Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to generate large
quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling,
pretreatment, or other means necessary.
Goal 7.2-G-1. Comply with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB regulations and standards to maintain
and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.
Goal 7.2-G-2. Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination.
Policy 7.2-I-1. Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of
the NPDES, and continue participation in STOPPP 2 for the protection of surface
water and groundwater quality.
Policy 7.2-I-2. Review and update the Best Management Practices adopted by the City and in
STOPP as needed.
Goal 8.2-G-1. Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco.
Policy 8.2-I-1. Continue working with RWQCB in the implementation of the San Mateo
Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP).
2The program has since been renamed and is now referred to as the San Mateo County Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
78
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Project construction has the potential to impact water quality through erosion and through debris
carried in runoff. Because the project would involve disturbance of more than one acre of land
surface, it would be subject to the State of California General Stormwater Permit for Construction
Activities. Compliance with the permit would require the applicant to file a Notice of Intent with the
SWRCB. Permit conditions also require the development of a SWPPP. Project construction would
involve heavy equipment that could result in an increase in fuel, oil, and lubricants in stormwater
runoff due to leaks or accidental releases. To minimize these impacts, the project would be required
to comply with SSFMC Section 14.08.100 and obtain a wastewater discharge permit prior to
discharging to any public sewer (City of South San Francisco 2014b). Furthermore, the County of San
Mateo’s Water Pollution Prevention Program would require the project site to implement BMPs
during project construction to reduce pollution carried by stormwater such as keeping sediment on
site using perimeter barriers and storm drain inlet protection and proper management of
construction materials, chemicals, and wastes on site. Additional BMPs required by SSFMC Section
14.04.180 would also be implemented during project construction.
Project operation could create potential sources of stormwater pollutants such as oil, grease, and
debris to stormwater drainage flowing over roadways and other impermeable surfaces and entering
the city’s stormwater system. Stormwater would flow generally south through the project site and
would enter the City’s storm drain system on Forbes Boulevard, which outfalls into Colma Creek and
ultimately outfall into the San Francisco Bay. The project would connect to the city’s existing storm
drainage and sewer facilities served by the City of South San Francisco’s Public Works Department,
Maintenance Division. Runoff on-site would be treated and infiltrated by four bioretention areas
and two flow-thru planters totaling approximately 0.8 acre before discharging into the storm drain
system on Forbes Boulevard. Each of the bioretention facilities would be sized appropriately to
accommodate surface runoff from eleven drainage management areas. In addition, the project
would be required to apply for a grading permit application with the City of South San Francisco and
provide a winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution control plan conforming to ABAG Manual
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. .
Project compliance with applicable State General Permit requirements, City ordinances, County of
San Mateo’s guidelines, and General Plan policies would not result in significant impacts on water
quality and would not result in a violation of water quality standards. Impacts would be less than
significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 79
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
The California Water Service (Cal Water) supplies water to the City of South San Francisco and
would serve the project site. Cal Water’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) anticipates future
growth in the region that includes the project, as allowed under existing land use and zoning
designations (Cal Water 2015). Cal Water currently uses groundwater extracted from the Merced
Formation of the Colma Creek Basin, a sub-basin of the Merced Valley Groundwater Basin,
commonly referred to as the Westside Basin, purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission (SFPUC [Cal Water 2015]). The Westside Basin is the largest groundwater basin in the
San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region. It is separated from the Lobos Basin to the north, the San
Bruno Mountains on the east, and the San Andreas Fault and Pacific Ocean on the west. Its southern
limit is defined by bedrock high that separates it from the San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin (Cal
Water 2015). Groundwater supplies approximately 10 to 15 percent of Cal Water’s Bayshore
District’s water demand. Cal Water has an active role in local groundwater management planning to
continue the sustainable use of groundwater in the area. Cal Water has offered to limit its planned
production of groundwater from the Westside Basin to 1.37 million gallons per day (mgd), which at
1,535 acre-feet per year aligns with the current pumping capacity and historical production from the
basin (Cal Water 2015). Cal Water’s groundwater supplies will need to be supplemented by other
water supplies.
The existing impervious area on the project site totals 86,581 square feet. According to the project
plans, the proposed project would involve approximately 77,062 square feet of new impervious
surfaces. Therefore, implementation of the project would result in a net reduction of approximately
9,519 square feet of impervious surface. In addition, the project would also involve the installation
and maintenance of four bioretention basins, two flow-thru planters, and pervious surfaces. The
facilities would aid in capturing increased stormwater runoff on-site and would allow for
groundwater recharge within the bioretention facilities. Water that does not recharge into the
groundwater would be released into the City’s existing storm drain system. The project would not
extract groundwater or directly interfere with the groundwater table through construction activities
on the site, as ground disturbance would not occur below the water table. Furthermore, because
groundwater was not observed in past geological investigations of the project site, the project
would not directly interfere with the groundwater table (Appendix GEO).
Impacts related to depletion of groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would be less than
significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
80
c.(i) Would the project 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 which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project 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 which would substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
c.(iii) Would the project 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 create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Colma Creek is located approximately 1 mile southwest of the project site and does not flow
through or adjacent to the site. Existing development between the project site and Colma Creek
includes roadways, commercial, office, and industrial developments. Project construction would not
alter the course of this creek or any other streams or rivers. The project site currently is and would
be predominately paved with impermeable surfaces. The project would introduce new impermeable
areas such that the rate or amount of surface runoff would increase. However, the project would
also include bioretention areas to promote filtration and infiltration of stormwater from the project
site. Stormwater control measures incorporated in the project’s site design include roof drains
directed to bioretention areas and permeable pavers. Landscaping would be used on the site to
minimize irrigation, runoff, pesticides, and fertilizers that could contribute to runoff and to promote
treatment of runoff. Although an increased amount of impervious surfaces would be introduced to
the project site, the stormwater control measures used would reduce the amount of runoff that
would enter the storm drain system compared to existing conditions.
The East of 101 Area Plan has accounted for the increase in development of the area. Therefore, the
project would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain facilities, given that those facilities
are prepared to accommodate the additional stormwater runoff per the East of 101 Area Plan (City
of South San Francisco 1994). The project site would connect to the City’s storm drain system, which
delivers stormwater and other runoff into local streams and creeks and ultimately to San Francisco
Bay. The project site is currently developed with predominantly impermeable surfaces. The addition
of the impermeable pavement would not alter drainage substantially from the project site or
increase stormwater runoff to the extent that it would result in flooding. Therefore, the project
would not result in flooding on or off site or substantial erosion or siltation of a creek or river.
Impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 81
c.(iv) Would the project 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 which would impede or redirect flood flows?
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, the project
site is located in Zone X, which is characterized as an area of minimal flood hazard and having a less
than 0.2 percent annual chance to be inundated by flood waters as a result of a storm event (Map
#06081C0042F, April 5, 2019) (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2019). According to the
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) MyHazards online database, the
project site is not located in a 100-year floodplain (Cal OES 2015).
Site drainage facilities currently direct flow to the south of the project site toward Forbes Boulevard
and outfalls in the City’s current storm drain system. The proposed stormwater control plan includes
eleven drainage management areas, which would be sized to accommodate runoff from increased
impervious surfaces on the project site and would direct runoff toward bioretention facilities. Of the
eleven drainage management areas, four would be bio-retention basins and two would be flow-
through planters. The remaining drainage management areas would be self-treating landscaping.
These facilities would treat stormwater runoff before entering the City’s storm drain system. The
project would not alter the course of a stream or river as a result of an alteration of the existing
drainage pattern. Therefore, impacts regarding drainage and flood flows would be less than
significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
The project site is located approximately 0.7 mile west of the San Francisco Bay, and is not located
in a tsunami or seiche zone, as show in the Tsunami Inundation Maps for San Mateo County, San
Francisco South Quadrangle (DOC 2009). The nearest body of water that could experience seiche
(water level oscillations in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water) is the San Francisco Bay
located approximately 0.7 mile east of the project site. No other large bodies of water with the
potential to inundate the project site by a seiche are located near the site. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in the risk of release of pollutants due to inundation by a tsunami, seiche,
or flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management plan?
The project would be served by Cal Water, which maintains an UWMP and releases annual water
quality reports (Cal Water 2018b). Cal Water utilizes purchased water and the South San Francisco
Water Quality Control Plant (SSFWQCP) to ensure water quality standards and goals are met. The
project would not interfere with the ability of Cal Water to maintain water quality standards, as
described in the 2018 Water Quality Report (Cal Water 2018b).
Cal Water provides additional water to South San Francisco via five groundwater wells. The SFPUC
and Cal Water have voluntarily adopted the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan
as of July 2012. However, all nine groundwater basins within San Mateo County are designated as
Very Low Priority and are not required to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management
Act (San Mateo County Office of Sustainability 2019). The project site is estimated to contribute up
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
82
to 4 inches of recharge annually per the Groundwater Management Plan (SFPUC 2018). The site
itself does not directly extract groundwater nor would it recharge a substantial amount of
groundwater for the basin. Because the project would not conflict or obstruct the implementation
of the South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, and the project would not introduce
more intensive uses or more water-demanding uses than allowed under existing conditions, impacts
would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 83
11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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? □ □ ■ □
Setting
As stated in the Project Description, the project site currently has a BTP land use designation in the
City’s General Plan). The project would replace a food manufacturing warehouse with office uses
and a parking structure. Surrounding land uses in the project vicinity are similar commercial and
industrial uses. Additionally, the project would include adaptive reuse of a strip of land with existing
railroad tracks, north of the project site, as part of the City’s Rails-to-Trails program.
Uses allowed under the BTP zoning designation include a mix of corporate headquarters, research
and development facilities, and other offices in campus-like environments. The maximum allowed
FAR is 0.5. However, a total FAR of 1.0 is allowed for research and development establishments or
development that meets specific TDM, off-site improvement or design standards (SSFMC Section
20.110.001).
Regulatory Setting
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Section 20.110.003 (A) Maximum Heights East of 101. Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific
plan, building heights east of 101 are allowed the maximum height limits
permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.
Section 20.110.003 (C) Increased FAR. Increased FAR may be permitted with a Conditional Use
Permit in accordance with Table 20.110.003 (C).
1. Projects that include high quality, innovative design and product
type, and maximum provisions for pedestrian and bicycle use.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
84
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
Project implementation would continue the existing BTP development pattern in the area and
would not divide connected neighborhoods or land uses. No new roads, linear infrastructure, or
other development features are proposed that would divide an established community or limit
movement, travel, or social interaction between established land uses. Project construction would
not physically divide an established community. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project 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?
The project would be consistent with the designated land use and zoning as set forth by the General
Plan and zoning. Surrounding and adjacent parcels are also developed as BTP in compliance with the
designated land use and zoning district. Given the project’s compliance with the designated land use
and with the City’s zoning regulations, the project would have a less than significant impact
regarding conflicts with land use plans, policies, or regulations. The project includes a request for a
conditional use permits to allow for a greater FAR of 1.0 from the allowed 0.5 for a BTP designation
and to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces; with approval of this request, the
project would be consistent with the designated land use and zoning for the site. This impact will
not be discussed in the EIR.
The other sections of this Initial Study analyze the project’s consistency with applicable plans and
regulations related to mitigating environmental effects. As described in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, the project would not be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan. However, the
project would be subject to a standard Condition of Approval that would require that the new
structure be consistent with the Plan. In addition, as described in Section 17, Transportation, the
project would only be partially consistent with applicable plans and policies related to traffic and the
circulation system. Impacts related specifically to transportation will be analyzed further in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 85
12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
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? □ □ □ ■
Setting
Major mineral resources recovered in the San Francisco Bay Area include limestone and shells,
salines, sand and gravel, crushed and broken stone, and oil and gas (County of San Mateo 1986).
Pursuant to the mandate of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975, the State Mining and
Geology Board requires all cities incorporate into their general plans mapped mineral resources
designations approved by the State Mining and Geology Board. Some mineral resources can be
found within San Mateo County. However, there are no mineral resources in the South San
Francisco area subject to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (DOC 1996).
Regulatory Setting
County of San Mateo General Plan
Chapter 3, Mineral Resources, of the County of San Mateo General Plan sets forth goals and policies
for the county’s mineral resources. None of the mineral resources related goals, policies, or
implementation measures are relevant to the project.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project 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?
Some mineral resources are located within the City of South San Francisco, but mineral resources
were not identified on the project site (USGS 2019). The City’s General Plan and County General
Plan do not identify any significant mineral resources or mining operations within the City (City of
South San Francisco 1999; County of San Mateo 1986). The project would not require the uses of
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
86
substantial mineral resources during construction or operation and would not involve construction
in a mineral resource site. Therefore, no impact would occur. This impact will not be discussed in
the EIR.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 87
13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of 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. Generation of 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 two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ ■ □
Noise Fundamentals
The unit of measurement used to describe a noise level is the decibel (dB). However, the human ear
is not equally sensitive to all frequencies within the sound spectrum. Therefore, a method called “A-
weighting” is used to filter noise frequencies that are not audible to the human ear. A-weighting
approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary
everyday sounds. When people make relative judgments of the loudness or annoyance of a sound,
their judgments correlate well with the “A-weighted” levels of those sounds. Therefore, the A-
weighted noise scale is used for measurements and standards involving the human perception of
noise. In this analysis, all noise levels are A-weighted, and the abbreviation “dBA” is understood to
identify the A weighted decibel.
Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to
the Richter scale used for earthquake magnitudes. A 10 dB increase represents a 10-fold increase in
sound intensity, a 20 dB increase is a 100-fold intensity increase, a 30 dB increase is a 1,000-fold
intensity increase, etc. Similarly, a doubling of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume,
would increase the noise level by 3 dB; a halving of the noise source would result in a 3 dB decrease.
Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with acoustical energy. The perception of
noise is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of acoustical energy. Two equivalent noise sources
combined do not sound twice as loud as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy
ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA (increase or decrease); that a change of 5 dBA is readily
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
88
perceptible; and that an increase or decrease of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (California
Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013a).
Descriptors
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the
duration of the noise are also important. In addition, most noise that lasts for more than a few
seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors has been developed.
The noise descriptors used for this analysis are the one-hour equivalent noise level (Leq) and the
community noise equivalent level (CNEL).
The Leq is the level of a steady sound that, in a specific time period and at a specific location, has the
same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound. For example, Leq(1h) is the equivalent
noise level over a 1-hour period and Leq(8h) is the equivalent noise level over an 8-hour period. Leq(1h)
is a common metric for limiting nuisance noise, whereas Leq(8h) is a common metric for evaluating
construction noise.
The CNEL is a 24-hour equivalent sound level. The CNEL calculation applies an additional 5 dBA
penalty to noise occurring during evening hours (between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.) and an
additional 10 dBA penalty to noise occurring during the night (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.).
These increases for certain times are intended to account for the added sensitivity of humans to
noise during the evening and night.
Propagation
Sound from a small, localized source (approximating a “point” source) radiates uniformly outward as
it travels away from the source in a spherical pattern, known as geometric spreading. The sound
level decreases or drops off at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance.
Traffic noise is not a single, stationary point source of sound. Over some time interval, the
movement of vehicles makes the source of the sound appear to emanate from a line (line source)
rather than a point. The drop-off rate for a line source is 3 dBA for each doubling of distance.
Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that
move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of
oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of hertz (Hz). The frequency of a
vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most
groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body is from a low of less than 1 Hz up to a
high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).
While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are
most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction
activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building
components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as
groundborne noise. Groundborne noise may result in adverse effects, such as building damage,
when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range
(60 to 200 Hz). Vibration may also damage infrastructure when foundations or utilities, such as
sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (FTA 2018).
Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 89
never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be
intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.
Vibration energy spreads out as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration level to diminish
with distance away from the source. High-frequency vibrations diminish much more rapidly than
low frequencies, so low frequencies tend to dominate the spectrum at large distances from the
source. Discontinuities in the soil strata can also cause diffractions or channeling effects that affect
the propagation of vibration over long distances (Caltrans 2013b). When a building is impacted by
vibration, a ground-to-foundation coupling loss will usually reduce the overall vibration level.
However, under rare circumstances, the ground-to-foundation coupling may actually amplify the
vibration level due to structural resonances of the floors and walls.
Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (ppv) or RMS vibration velocity.
The ppv and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). The ppv is defined as
the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal (Caltrans 2013b).
Caltrans developed a guidance manual for specifically assessing vibration impacts associated with
construction and also compiled vibration research and recommended limits for vibration based on
the source. Table 17 summarizes the vibration limits recommended by the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials for structural damage to buildings.
Table 17 Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage
Type of Situation In./sec. ppv
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5
Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
Source: Caltrans 2013b
Regulatory Setting
California Code of Regulations
The CCR, Title 24, Section 1207.4 requires interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources to be
at or below 45 dBA in any habitable room of a development based on the noise metric used in the
noise element of the local general plan. All residential windows, exterior doors, and exterior wall
assemblies would be required to have sound transmission class ratings that would ensure adequate
attenuation of noise at a range of frequencies. The Noise Element of the City of South San Francisco
General Plan uses a noise metric of CNEL, consistent with the reference level for State noise law.
Therefore, interior noise levels of the project would need to be at or below 45 dBA CNEL to be
compliant with CCR requirements.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The City’s General Plan Noise Element identifies noise sources and areas of noise impact to achieve
and maintain noise control and land use compatibility in the City. Noise sources in the City are
primarily from vehicular traffic, railroad noise, and industrial noise. The BART is also a source of
noise. High altitude aircraft are also a source of noise within the city (City of South San Francisco
1999). The following policy from the Noise Element apply to the proposed project:
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
90
Policy 9-I-8. Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design,
landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be
noise generators.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 Area is exposed to noise from a variety of sources, including aircraft, surface
transportation, and various industrial uses of the area (City of South San Francisco 1994). The
following goals and policies from the Noise Element apply to the proposed project:
Policy NO-2. Office and retail developments in the East of 101 Area shall be designed so that the
calculated hourly average noise levels during the daytime do not exceed an Leq of 45 dBA, and
instantaneous maximum noise levels do not exceed 60 dBA.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The City of South San Francisco regulates noise through the City’s Zoning Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter
8) and the City’s General Plan. SSFMC Chapter 8.32.030 establishes a maximum noise level of 65
dBA between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. (SSFMC
2019). For areas where the measured ambient noise level exceeds these thresholds, the threshold is
raised in 5-dBA increments until it encompasses or reflects the ambient noise level (Section
8.32.030[a]).
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The project setting is composed of industrial and office uses with regular traffic. The primary noise
surfaces in the vicinity are from overhead aircraft, surface transportation, and industrial uses in the
surrounding area (City of South San Francisco 1994). The East of 101 Area Plan estimates the
ambient noise level to be at CNEL 74 at the following site: 53 feet from the centerline of E. Grand
Ave. and 110 feet east of the centerline of Forbes Ave (City of South San Francisco 1994).
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated
with those uses. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the project site are existing multi-family
residences across Highway 101, approximately 1 mile west of the project site. Surrounding uses in
the project vicinity are commercial, office, or industrial. There are no sensitive receptors in the
immediate project vicinity.
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in generation of 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?
Construction Noise
Temporary noise levels would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the
location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of noise-generating
activities. There are no sensitive receptors close to the project site. The nearest sensitive receptor is
approximately 1 mile east of the project site, across Highway 101.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 91
However, there are no sensitive receptors within 1 mile of the site; therefore, impacts would be less
than significant because high levels of noise would not be perceptible by sensitive receptors at that
distance. This impact will not be addressed in the EIR.
Operational Noise
Project operation would generate noise typical of an office campus environment such as noise from
private vehicles (doors opening/closing, brakes, etc.), circulation walkways, and/or heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. However, these noise-generating sources would be
typical of the existing commercial and industrial area and would not result in a substantial increase
in ambient noise levels.
Other sources of noise from the proposed project include traffic noise from vehicles that would use
area roadways. According to the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition (ITE 2017), the project,
would generate 1,356 daily trips (Appendix TRA). The project would also be subject to South San
Francisco’s TDM program which requires per City Ordinance, a 35 percent trip reduction for a FAR of
1.0. With this trip reduction, the project is estimated to generate 881 daily trips under South San
Francisco’s TDM (Appendix TRA). As a general rule, a doubling of traffic would result in a 3 dBA
increase in off-site traffic noise levels. The project would not result in a doubling of traffic volumes
on off-site roadways, therefore the project would not result in a 3 CNEL increase in off-site traffic
noise levels.
Cumulative traffic in the area would increase due to general growth in the area that is not directly
related to the project. Project related traffic increases in the project area would increase noise
levels minimally, less than 3 CNEL, due to the site’s location within a commercial and industrial area.
Additionally, any increase would not impact sensitive receptors because of their location 1 mile
away from the project site.
Because project operation would not be near sensitive receptors and sensitive receptors are located
1 mile from the site, impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be addressed in the
EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
Project construction would create groundborne vibration from the use of heavy construction
machinery such as rollers, dozers, and loaded trucks. Project operation would not generate
significant groundborne vibration because offices or R&D buildings do not require the use of heavy
industrial machinery. Therefore, this analysis considers vibration impacts only from project
construction. Groundborne vibrations from construction are generally limited to 100 feet from
significant sources. Groundborne vibration impacts would affect sensitive receptors the most. The
nearest sensitive receptor is 1 mile away, across Highway 101.
Groundborne vibration would not reach levels that could cause building damage to fragile buildings
(100 VdB; FTA 2018) in the project vicinity and would have no effect on sensitive receptors. The area
surrounding the project site includes primarily modern commercial and industrial buildings, which
are not especially sensitive to vibration. Moreover, construction activities would be limited to the
City’s allowable construction hours. Therefore, vibration caused by project construction would
result in a less than significant impact. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
92
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 two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
The project site is approximately 3.5 miles north of SFO and is located in Airport Influence Area A
designated in the ALUCP. However, the project site is located outside the identified noise
compatibility zones, which limit uses that could create excessive noise. There are no private airstrips
in the project vicinity. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels associated with airports or a private airstrip. Impacts would be
less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 93
14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
Setting
According to the California Department of Finance, South San Francisco has an estimated population
of 67,078, with 22,059 estimated housing units (DOF 2019). The average number of persons per
household is estimated at 3.15. The California Department of Finance projects the population of San
Mateo County to be 838,724 by 2040 (DOF 2019).
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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)?
The project would not involve the construction of any dwelling units. Therefore, the project would
not induce localized residential growth. The project would create jobs that could indirectly cause
population growth through employee relocations to the project area. The project would be
consistent with the land use and zoning designations for the site and could result in an incremental
increase in population in the City. The project is estimated to introduce 451 new jobs to the City of
South San Francisco (Appendix TDM). Plan Bay Area estimates a total addition of 4,698,375 total
jobs to the entire Bay Area by 2040 (ABAG 2017b). The project’s addition of 451 employees would
increase jobs in the city incrementally. Compared to the total jobs projection for the entire Bay
Area, the addition of 451 jobs would be a minimal amount. Project implementation would be within
the projected growth of the Bay Area. This impact would be less than significant and will not be
discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
94
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
The project site does not currently contain housing, and the project would not result in the removal
of housing. Therefore, the project would not displace existing people or housing and there would be
no impact. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 95
15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
Setting
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD) provides fire and emergency medical services to
the City of South San Francisco. SSFFD operates five stations in South San Francisco (Fire Stations 61,
62, 63, 64, and 65). The project site is serviced by Fire Station 62, which receives approximately
1,280 calls annually (City of South San Francisco 2017).
The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD) provides police protection services to the City,
with the exception of the Sierra Point area. SSFPD operates one police station in the City,
compromised of 83 sworn positions and 35 civilian positions, divided into two divisions (City of
South San Francisco 2019). The operations division of the SSFPD includes patrol, criminal
investigations, downtown bike patrol, K-9, neighborhood response team, SWAT/hostage
negotiations, and traffic/motors. The services division of the SSFPD includes communication,
community relations, property and evidence, records, planning, and recruiting (City of South San
Francisco 2019b). SSFPD is generally able to respond to high-priority calls within 2 to 3 minutes (City
of South San Francisco 1999).
The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) serves the City’s K-12 student population
and adult education students. SSFUSD’s public institutions include nine elementary schools, three
middle schools, three high schools, and one adult education center. Private schools within SSUFD
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
96
include three K-8 schools and one K-12 school (City of South San Francisco 2019c). The total number
of K-12 students attending schools within the SSFUSD is 8,485 (CDE 2018).
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department administers and maintains parks
and recreation facilities including mini parks, linear parks, specialty parks, open space, and common
greens (City of South San Francisco 2015b). South San Francisco currently offers 270 acres of parks
and open space (City of South San Francisco 2019d). This includes 93.7 acres of community parks,
neighborhood and mini parks; 28 acres of linear parks; 2 acres of specialty parks; 78.4 acres of open
space; and 49.1 acres of common greens (City of South San Francisco 2015b). The Parks and
Recreation Department provides parkland at an average of 4 acres per 1,000 residents (City of South
San Francisco 2019d).
Regulatory Setting
City of South San Francisco
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
The Health and Safety Element and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element of the South San
Francisco General Plan address and establish goals, policies, and programs related to public services
and recreation. The applicable goals, policies, and programs for the proposed project are as follows
(City of South San Francisco 1999):
Goal 5.1-G-3. Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space: improve
access to existing facilities where feasible.
Goal 5.1-G-5. Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and
along existing public utility and transportation rights-of-way.
Policy 5.1-I-1. Maintain the PROS Master Plan as the implementing tool for General Plan park
and recreation policies and proposals.
Policy 5.1-I-2. Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks
per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees,
to be located in employment areas.
Goal 5.2-G-1. Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and
improve educational facilities and services.
Goal 8.4-G-2. Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens’ needs.
Goal 8.5-G-1. Provide police services that are responsive to citizen’s needs to ensure a safe and
secure environment for people and property in the community
Policy 8.5-I-1. Ensure adequate police staff to provide rapid and timely response to all
emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response
times.
Policy 8.5-I-5. Continue to coordinate law enforcement planning with local, regional, State and
federal plans.
PARKS & RECREATION MASTER PLAN
Goal 1. South San Francisco should provide a minimum of three acres of developed
parkland per 1,000 residents, and 0.5 acre of parkland per 1,000 employees.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 97
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1 Fire protection?
2 Police Protection?
3 Schools?
4 Parks?
5 Other public facilities?
The SSFFD is located approximately 1.9 miles southwest of the project site. The project would be
required to comply with applicable fire code standards. In addition, the project site is located within
a developed area. The project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, which has
accounted for an increase in employee population in the project area. Therefore, the project would
not generate the need for new or expanded fire department facilities.
The SSFPD is located approximately 3.1 miles west of the project site. Project implementation would
create a new building, which could generate the need for new or expanded police response.
However, the project would replace an existing meat-packing industrial use building, and no
substantial increase in service demand for police would be anticipated. The project would not
directly result in an increased population in the SSFPD service area. Therefore, the number of calls
to the police department would not change significantly. The project would not trigger the need for
new or expanded facilities.
All Souls Catholic Schools is located approximately 1.7 miles west of the project site, and Martin
Elementary School is located approximately 1.9 miles northwest of the project site. As discussed in
Section 14, Population and Housing, because the project would not include the construction of new
dwelling units. Furthermore, the project would not directly contribute to an increase in permanent
residents in the City of South San Francisco, and the project would not substantially affect school
classroom demand or result in the need for new or expanded school facilities.
Oyster Point Park is located approximately 0.7 mile northeast of the project site, Point San Bruno
Park is located approximately 0.9 mile west of the project site, and Bay Trail, Point San Bruno is
located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site. As discussed in Section 14, Population
and Housing, the project would not directly increase the City’s population and thus would not
substantially affect use of the existing or planned parks. Project employees may use the City’s parks
and recreation sources. Project construction would include the addition of open space for employee
use which would total 10,184 square feet (approximately 0.2 acre). The addition of the open space
would satisfy the Parks and Recreation Master Plan goal of 0.5 acre per 1,000 employees. The
project would not result in population growth in the City, would not alter citywide demand for
parks, and would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of existing recreational facilities.
The project would not result in significant impacts to public services within the City of South San
Francisco. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
98
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 99
16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project 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. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City of South San Francisco provides 270 acres of parks and open space (City of South San
Francisco 2019d). City parklands are managed by the park division of the Parks and Recreation
Department. Recreational activities and centers are managed by the recreation division of the Parks
and Recreation Department (City of South San Francisco 2015b).
Parks nearest the project site include Oyster Point Park, approximately 0.7 mile to the northeast,
Point San Bruno Park approximately 0.9 mile east, and Bay Trail, Point San Bruno approximately 1.2
miles southeast of the project site. To the north of the project site is a strip of land with existing
railroad tracks that would be re-used as part of the City’s Rails-to-Trails program as a result of
project implementation. The City of South San Francisco has drafted the Mobility 20/20 Plan in an
effort to improve mobility in the East of 101 area. The project’s conversion of existing railroad tracks
to recreational trail use would provide active transportation improvements to the area (City of
South San Francisco 2019e)
Regulatory Setting
Please see Section 15, Public Services, subsection Regulatory Setting.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
100
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project 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. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project would include construction of new recreational facilities. As part of the City’s Rails-to-
Trails program, the project would convert a segment of an old railroad track to the north of the site
into a new trail for recreational use. The trail would include the addition of trees, benches, and light
poles. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the development of the trail would not impact
biological resources and the existing railroad tracks north of the site do not provide habitat for
special-status species.
As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the project would not directly increase the
City’s population and would not substantially affect the use of existing or planned parks. Project
employees may use the City’s parks and recreation resources. Therefore, the project would not
affect the City’s parkland ratio goals for residents established in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan.
The project would construct 10,184 square feet (approximately 0.2 acre) of open space within the
project site, which would be used by employees as gathering spaces. The gathering spaces would be
comprised of benches, seat pads, and decomposed granite paving walkways interspersed
throughout the site and a bocce ball court in the site’s northwest corner. Project operation would
comply with the Parks & Recreation Master Plan goal of achieving 0.5 acre of parkland per 1,000
employees. No impacts to parks or recreational facilities would occur. This impact will not be
discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 101
17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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 use (e.g., farm equipment)? ■ □ □ □
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ■ □ □ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)?
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The proposed project would increase traffic compared to existing conditions. Trips generated as a
result of the proposed project have the potential to impact area intersections and roadway
segments and contribute to cumulative traffic increases. The proposed project also has the potential
to conflict with applicable plans and policies addressing the circulation system. Traffic impacts
would be potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
102
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 103
18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or
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:
a. 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 □ □ □ ■
b. 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
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ □ ■
Enacted in 2015, California AB 52 expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal
cultural resources.” AB 52 states that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states the lead agency shall establish
measures to avoid impacts altering the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource when
feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places,
cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe”; in addition, tribal cultural resources are:
1. Resources listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in PRC section 5020.1(k), or
2. Resources 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 PRC Section
5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American tribe.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
104
AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.
The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified or adopted.
Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American
tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.”
Native American tribes to be included in the process are those having requested notice of projects
proposed in the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
On December 31, 2019, the City sent a notice to representatives of Native American Tribes that may
have an interest in development of the project site. The City did not receive any replies requesting
further consultation regarding the proposed project.
Impact Analysis
a., b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a 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 (a) 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
(b) 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 Resources
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe?
The topic of Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) considers the value of a resource to tribal cultural
tradition, heritage, and identity, to establish potential mitigation options for TCRs and to recognize
that California Native American tribes have expertise concerning their tribal history and practices.
On October 31, 2019, Rincon contacted the NAHC and requested a search of the Sacred Lands File
and a contact list of Native Americans culturally affiliated with the project area. The NAHC emailed a
response on November 13, 2019 stating that the Sacred Lands File search returned with negative
results. Rincon sent letters to the NAHC-listed contacts on November 14, 2019, inquiring about
potential cultural resources within the project’s vicinity that may be impacted by the project. No
responses from these contacts have been received prior to the publication of the EIR. Appendix CUL
provides the full results of the outreach effort. Additionally, no cultural resources of Native
American origin were identified that would be impacted by the project and the site is considered to
have low archaeological sensitivity (see Section 5, Cultural Resources). Therefore, it is assumed that
no tribal cultural resources are present on the project site and no impacts would occur to tribal
cultural resources through project implementation. See Section 5, Cultural Resources, for mitigation
measures related to the unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources. This impact will not be
discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 105
19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
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 which
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? □ □ ■ □
Setting
Potable Water
The City of South San Francisco’s East of 101 Area is served by Cal Water. The East of 101 area is
included in the Bayshore District and is part of the South San Francisco System of the Bayshore
District. Water served by the district consists of a combination of local groundwater and water
purchased from SFPUC’s Hetch Hetchy System (Cal Water 2015). The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir supply
comes from the Tuolumne River, which accounts for 85 percent of the City’s water. The other 15
percent comes from local watersheds through the San Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal Springs, Pilacitos,
and San Andreas reservoirs.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
106
The Bayshore District operates 5 groundwater wells, 21 booster pumps, 12 storage tanks, and 144
miles of pipeline. The City of South San Francisco has 16,302 municipal connections and supplies
7,064-acre-feet of water (Cal Water 2015). Available water supply to the South San Francisco District
in any given year varies somewhat with the availability of local surface water supplies in Cal Water’s
Bear Gulch District. However, during drought years, Cal Water’s expected groundwater supply totals
1,535 acre-feet, which would supplement the amount of water available to the City of South San
Francisco.
Cal Water’s SFPUC supply is shared among three districts on the San Francisco Peninsula, a system
allowing for the operational flexibility to distribute the supply as needed depending on the
availability of local supplies and conditions within each district. Supply and demand, therefore, are
calculated for all three districts. In a normal year, the full Individual Supply Guarantee of 35.68 mgd
is available. Table 18 shows a supply and demand through 2040 of the Individual Supply Guarantee,
together with the South San Francisco District groundwater supply and the Bear Gulch District
surface supply for the combined demands of the three districts. Supply is expected to meet demand
through 2040 based on normal year supply and demand. Table 19 shows project supply and demand
through 2040 under single and consecutive dry years.
Table 18 Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison (acre feet)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Supply Total 40,225 40,280 40,647 41,149 41,767
Demand Total 40,225 40,280 40,647 41,149 41,767
Difference 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Cal Water 2015
Table 19 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Demand Comparison (acre feet)
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
First Year Supply Total 33,836 33,836 33,836 33,836 33,836
Demand Total 41,984 42,041 42,425 42,947 43,591
Difference 8,148 8,205 8,589 9,111 9,755
% Shortage 19% 20% 20% 21% 22%
Second Year Supply Total 34,223 34,223 34,223 34,223 34,223
Demand Total 40,764 40,819 41,192 41,700 42,327
Difference 6,541 6,596 6,969 7,477 8,104
% Shortage 16% 16% 17% 18% 19%
Third Year Supply Total 34,223 34,223 34,223 34,223 34,223
Demand Total 39,758 39,812 40,176 40,671 41,283
Difference 5,535 5,589 5,953 6,448 7,060
% Shortage 14% 14% 15% 16% 17%
Source: Cal Water 2015
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 107
As shown in the tables, Cal Water projects typically have sufficient supplies during normal years.
However, during multi-year droughts, supplies could see a shortfall of up to 20 percent or more.
Under such conditions, Cal Water would implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP).
The WSCP would require District customers to reduce their demand by eight percent. Cal Water has
taken steps to increase the supply in all three districts in the event of a multi-year drought. Cal
Water has also implemented an aggressive conservation program aimed at reducing per-capita
usage and demands on critical water sources. The WSCP includes restrictions and prohibitions on
end uses for water that carry penalties and charges for consumer violations.
Wastewater
Cal Water collects and disposes of South San Francisco wastewater via the SSFWQCP. The SSFWQCP
treats wastewater from South San Francisco and Colma. The system combines both wastewater and
stormwater runoff that undergo primary and secondary treatment before discharging into the San
Francisco Bay. The SSFWQCP has a treatment capacity of 13mgd and 60 mgd of peak wet weather
flow. The SSFWQCP does not experience any major system constraints (Cal Water 2015).
Stormwater
The project site currently drains to storm drains in the adjacent roadways, where the flow joins with
the South San Francisco stormwater system. Stormwater runoff is collected and disposed of by an
integrated system of storm drains, inlets, curbside gutters, catch basins, drainage ditches, and man-
made channels. Ultimately, stormwater that enters the City’s system drains to the San Francisco
Bay. The City of South San Francisco Maintenance Division, Sewer & Storm Maintenance team
inspect, clean, maintain, and repair storm drains within the City, except for Westborough and
unincorporated areas (City of South San Francisco 2019).
Solid Waste
South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. (SSFSC) manages all trash and recycling services in
South San Francisco. SSFSC collects, receives, processes, and recycles (or transfers for landfill
disposal) an average of 220,000 tons of waste a year (SSFSC 2019). In 2018, 46,692 tons of solid
waste was generated in South San Francisco and disposed of at a total of 18 different facilities
(CalRecycle 2019a). Of all solid waste generated, 39,317 tons (approximately 84 percent) were sent
to the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mountain) in Half Moon Bay, California. Table 20 shows the
estimated remaining capacity and anticipated closure dates at Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn)
(CalRecycle 2019b).
Table 20 Estimated Landfill Capacities and Closure Dates
Landfill Facility
Permitted Capacity
(cubic yards)
Remaining Capacity
(cubic yards)
Anticipated Closure
Date
Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) 60,500,00 22,180,000 2034
Source: CalRecycle 2019b
Other Utilities
Gas and electric utilities to the project site would be provided by PG&E supplemented by PCE
community choice energy program. Refer to Section 6, Energy, for a discussion on energy for the
project site.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
108
Regulatory Setting
State of California
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
In January 2010, the state of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code that
establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five
categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material
conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include a
mandatory set of guidelines, as well as more rigorous voluntary measures, for new construction
projects to achieve specific green building performance levels:
Reducing indoor water use by 20 percent
Reducing wastewater by 20 percent
Recycling and/or salvaging 50 percent of nonhazardous construction and demolition debris
Providing readily accessible areas for recycling by occupant
City of South San Francisco
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
The Health and Safety and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Elements of the South San Francisco
General Plan discuss water and waste and establishes goals, policies and programs. Applicable goals,
policies, and programs are repeated below (City of South San Francisco 1999):
Goal 5.3-G-1. Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply
system to meet projected needs.
Goal 5.3-G-2. Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed
development.
Policy 5.3-I-2. Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote
the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and
major alterations and additions to existing buildings.
Goal 5.3-G-4. Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater
system to meet projected needs.
Goal 5.3-G-6. Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices.
Policy 5.3-I-7. Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to generate large
quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling,
pretreatment, or other means necessary.
Goal 8.3-G-1. Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those
materials that are used, to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord
with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 109
Impact Analysis
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 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?
Water
As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site would be served by
adequate water supplies from Cal Water.
Wastewater
The project’s estimated wastewater generation would be approximately 63 million gallons per year
(CAPCOA 2017), or approximately 173,000 gallons per day. The project would be served by
connection to the municipal sewer system. Wastewater would be treated by the SSFWQCP located
in South San Francisco approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site. The SSFWQCP has a total
treatment capacity of approximately 60 mgd and currently treats an average of 9 mgd during
average dry weather flow with a remaining capacity of 51 mgd (City of South San Francisco 2019f).
The project’s anticipated wastewater generation would be less than 1 percent of the SSFWQCP’s
remaining capacity.3 Therefore, the project would not require the construction of new municipal
wastewater treatment facilities or impact the treatment capacity of existing municipal wastewater
treatment providers. Impacts to wastewater treatment facilities would be less than significant. This
impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
Stormwater
The project would continue to connect to the existing storm drain system operated and maintained
by the City of South San Francisco. The project would result in a net reduction of 9,519 square feet
of impervious surface . However, the project would also include 10,184 square feet of pervious
surfaces including four bioretention basins. The project would be designed and engineered with
drainage features appropriate to accommodate the project’s needs. As discussed in Section 10,
Hydrology and Water Quality, the project would be required to comply with City requirements,
including obtaining a wastewater discharge permit and implementing design BMPs. The project
would not require the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in the EIR.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
As discussed in Section 6, Energy, the project would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, the project would not require the construction of
new electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities because it is located in an urban
area already served by those utilities and would not require additional capacity.
3 Calculation: 173,422 gallons of wastewater per day divided by 51 million gallons unused treatment capacity = 0.3 percent.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
110
Therefore, the project would not result in significant environmental impacts due to the construction
of new utility facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. This impact will not be discussed in
the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Based on the project’s estimated wastewater generation, water demand can be estimated using an
industry standard assumption that water use is approximately 120 percent of wastewater
generation. Therefore, the project’s gross water demand would be approximately 208,000 gallons
per day (approximately 0.6 acre-feet per day), or approximately 76 million gallons per year
(approximately 230.2 acre-feet per year). The project would slightly increase demand for water in
comparison to the existing conditions. The proposed project would demand water for faucets,
toilets, and landscape irrigation and additional water use related to office building operations.
As shown in Table 18, according to the 2015 UWMP, the water supply is expected to grow and
would be enough to meet demand out to 2040 under normal year scenarios (Cal Water 2015).
Under normal year scenarios, the project would represent 0.6 percent of annual water demand
forecasted for 2020. 4 Under normal year scenarios, sufficient water supplies would be available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources. As shown in Table 19, according to the
2015 UWMP, the water supply is expected to decrease, and demand is expected to increase
resulting in water shortages within the City of South San Francisco. However, the project would
account for less than 1 percent of the City’s annual water demand and would be required to comply
with the City’s water shortage contingency plan. The water shortage contingency plan would require
the project to incorporate limited landscape irrigation and immediate leak repair per Stage 2 of a
moderate water shortage of 20 percent. Project operation during multi-year drought would be less
than significant with compliance with the water shortage contingency plan. This impact will not be
addressed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project 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. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation. Handling of
debris and waste generated during construction would be subject to SSFMC Section 8.16
coordination with Scavengers Company; and SSFMC Section 15.22.030 diversion of at least 65
percent of construction or demolition waste. The project would not involve demolition activities;
therefore, construction activities would not generate substantial solid waste.
According to CalEEMod default values, the project would generate approximately 10 tons of waste
per year, or approximately 0.03 ton per day (CAPCOA 2017). The estimate is conservative as it does
not factor in any recycling or waste-diversion programs. The 0.03 ton of solid waste generated daily
by the project would represent less than 1 percent of the available surplus capacity of the receiving
4 Calculation: 230.2 acre-feet per year divided by 40,225 acre feet = 0.6 percent.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 111
landfill. The City of South San Francisco is required to meet the statewide waste diversion goal of 50
percent set by AB 939. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste, such as AB 939, the SSFMC, and the City’s recycling program.
Impacts related to solid waste and waste facilities would be less than significant. This impact will not
be discussed in the EIR.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
112
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 113
20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City of South San Francisco is not in a fire hazard severity zone. However, north of the city limits
is the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park. San Bruno Mountain State and County Park is
within a high fire hazard severity zone (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL
FIRE] 2007). The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City of South San Francisco
and is surrounded by existing industrial development. Furthermore, neither the project site nor the
City of South San Francisco is identified as being within a high fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE
2007). The nearest very high fire severity zone is the San Bruno Mountain State and County Park,
located approximately 6 miles from the project site.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
114
Regulatory Setting
City of South San Francisco
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN
Chapter 8, Health and Safety, of the City of South San Francisco General Plan sets forth the goal to
protect lives and property from risks associated with fire-related emergencies at the urban/wildland
interface. Goals and policies relevant to wildfire hazards are as follows:
Goal 8.4-G-1. Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco.
Goal 8.4-G-2. Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens’ needs.
Impact Analysis
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire
risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes
or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes?
The project site is not located in a state or local fire hazard severity zone (CAL FIRE 2007). As
described in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project construction and operation would
not restrict implementation of an emergency plan nor would it obstruct an emergency evacuation
plan. No roads would be permanently closed because of the proposed project, and no structures
would be developed that could potentially impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Motor vehicle and bicycle access are provided via a two-way, two-lane driveway that connects to
Forbes Boulevard. This driveway would provide sufficient ingress and egress for typical passenger
vehicles that would access the project site. Therefore, project implementation and operation would
not interfere with existing emergency evacuation plans or emergency response plans in the area.
The project site and surrounding area are generally flat (USGS 2018). In the project vicinity,
prevailing wind blows to the west-northwest (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
2019). Therefore, the risk of fire carried down slopes by prevailing wind to the site would be
minimal and the project would not expose employees to wildfire impacts. Furthermore, building
code safety requirements, project design review, compliance with SSFFD guidelines and regulations,
and General Plan policies would require the provision of fire suppression and alarm systems, which
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 115
would aid in preventing the spread of wildfires if the project site were exposed to a wildfire.
Required compliance with these policies and the project’s low risk to wildfire hazards would have a
less than significant impact.
The project would not involve the construction of new roads or the extension of utilities that could
exacerbate wildfire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. The project
would be required to comply with building code and fire safety requirements, as well as General
Plan policies. Construction BMPs would aid in preventing that temporary construction does not
exacerbate fire risks in the area.
The project site is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone, is not within a landslide area, and
is generally flat. No impact would occur as a result of project implementation. This impact will not
be discussed in the EIR.
NO IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
116
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 117
21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. 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. 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. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ □ ■ □
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?
As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would
address potential impacts to nesting habitats and migratory birds. Therefore, the project would not
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, or
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, and
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
118
As noted under Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 7, Geology and Soils, no historical,
archeological, or paleontological resources were identified on site. Nevertheless, the potential for
the recovery of buried cultural materials during development activities remains. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 would reduce impacts to previously undiscovered cultural
resources to a less than significant level by providing a process for evaluating and, as necessary,
avoiding impacts to any resources found during construction. Therefore, impacts to important
examples of California history or prehistory would be less than significant with mitigation
incorporated.
As noted throughout the Initial Study, most other potential environmental impacts related to the
quality of environment would be less than significant or less than significant with implementation of
mitigation measures.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
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)?
As defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15355, a cumulative impact consists of an impact that is
created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other
projects causing related impacts. Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects that,
when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental
impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results
from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually
minor but collectively significant projects implemented over time. The cumulative scenario used in
this EIR was the same as that used for the General Plan EIR.
As part of the General Plan, the City of South San Francisco estimated a total of 3.1 million square
feet of growth in the East of 101 area (City of South San Francisco 1999). The City’s estimated
General Plan buildout accounts for 9 million square feet of non-residential space. Cumulative
development in the City is anticipated to consist primarily of development in the Downtown, East of
101, El Camino, and Lindenville sub-areas (City of South San Francisco 2019). The development of
the project site is within the City’s projected growth. The proposed project would not be expected
to result in a substantial direct increase in the local population, since it would not result in the
construction of any new housing units. The proposed project would not require major increases in
the capacity of local infrastructure that might later be used to support new housing development
and would not result in the extension of infrastructure into areas that might ultimately support new
housing.
Cumulative impacts associated with some of the resource areas have been addressed in the
individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Water Supply, and Solid Waste
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][3]) and would be less than significant. Some of the other
resource areas were determined to have no impact in comparison to existing conditions and
therefore would not contribute to cumulative impacts, such as Wildfire, Mineral Resources, and
Agriculture and Forestry Resources. As such, cumulative impacts in these issue areas would be less
than significant (not cumulatively considerable). Other issue areas (e.g., aesthetics, hazards and
hazardous materials) are site-specific by nature and impacts at one location do not add impacts at
Environmental Checklist
Initial Study 119
other locations or create additional impacts. The project would increase traffic compared to existing
conditions and thus, will be discussed in the EIR.
The development of the project site as proposed would contribute to reduced freeway levels of
service, representing potentially significant adverse cumulative impacts. This impact will be fully
discussed in the EIR.
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous
materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in analyses for air quality, hazards and hazardous
materials, and noise, the proposed project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in
substantial adverse hazards related to air quality, hazardous materials, or noise. Compliance with
applicable rules and regulations would reduce potential impacts on human beings to a less than
significant level.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
120
This page intentionally left blank.
References
Initial Study 121
References
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2017a. Plan Bay Area 2040: Final Supplemental
Report. July 2017. http://2040.planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/2017-
07/Land_Use_Modeling_PBA2040_Supplemental%20Report_7-2017.pdf (accessed October
2019).
______. 2017b. Projections 2040: Forecasts for Population, Housing, Household, and Employment
for the Nine County San Francisco Bay Area Region. http://projections.planbayarea.org/.
(accessed November 2019).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017a. Spare the Air Cool Climate: A Blueprint
for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted
April 19, 2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-
clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October
2019).
______. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA. May
2017. http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-
research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October 2019
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2013. Calculation Details for
CalEEMod. July 2013. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/caleemod-
appendixa.pdf (accessed November 2019).
______. 2017. Default Data Tables. October 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed November 2019).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2015. CA-Greet 2.0. September 29, 2015.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/ca-greet/ca-greet.htm. (accessed November 2019).
______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. (accessed December
2019).
______. 2019. Glossary of Terms Used in Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/faq/ghg_inventory_glossary.htm (accessed
November 2019).
______. 2019. EMFAC Web Database v1.0.7. https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2014/ (accessed
November 2019).
California Department of Conservation (DOC). 1996. Generalized Mineral Land Classification Map of
the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. [map] scale 1:125,000.
Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
______. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, San Francisco South Quadrangle.
[map]. Tabular digital data and vector digital data. Division of California Geological Survey.
Sacramento, CA
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Tsunami/Maps/Tsunami_Inundation_So
uthSanFrancisco_SFBay_Quad_SanMateo.pdf (accessed November 2019).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
122
______. 2016. San Mateo County Important Farmland 2018. [map]. Tabular digital data and vector
digital data. Division of Land Resource Protection. Sacramento, CA.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SanMateo.aspx (accessed November
2019).
______. 2019a. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ (accessed October 2019).
______. 2019b. San Mateo County Tsunami Inundation Maps.
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Mateo (accessed November
2019).
California Department of Finance (DOF). 2019. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed November
2019).
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2007. San Mateo County: Fire
Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. [map]. Tabular digital data and vector digital data.
Sacramento, CA. https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6526/fhszs_map41.jpg (accessed
November 2019).
California Department of Education. 2018. 2018-19 Enrollment by Grade: South San Francisco
Unified Report (41-69070).
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrGrdLevels.aspx?cds=4169070&agglevel=distr
ict&year=2018-19 (accessed November 2019).
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2019a. Jurisdiction
Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacilit
y (accessed December 2019).
______. 2019b. SWIS Facility Detail: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-002).
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/41-AA-0002 (accessed December
2019).
California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2019a. EnviroStor database.
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019b. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List).
https://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed November 2019).
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the
Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2) September. Available at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf
______. 2019. Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-
and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed November 2019).
California Energy Commission. 2018a. Electricity Consumption by County [Online Database].
http://ecdms.energy.ca.gov/elecbycounty.aspx. (accessed November 2019).
______. 2018b. California Natural Gas Utility Service Areas.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/maps/serviceareas/naturalgas_service_areas.html (accessed
November 2019).
References
Initial Study 123
______. 2018c. Gas Consumption by Entity. http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx.
(accessed November 2019).
______. 2018d. Gas Consumption by County.http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/gasbyutil.aspx.
(accessed November 2019).
______. 2018e. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Buildi
ng_Standards_FAQ.pdf. (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019a. 2018 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update Vol.2.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/energypolicy/ (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019b. Supply and Demand of Natural Gas in California.
https://listserver.energy.ca.gov/almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html (accessed
November 2019).
______. 2019d. Cal-Adapt. https://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-
averages/#climatevar=pr&scenario=rcp45&lat=37.65335&lng=-
122.40231&boundary=censustracts&units=inches%20per%20day (accessed November
2019).
California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES). 2015. MyHazards database.
http://myhazards.caloes.ca.gov/ (accessed November 2019).
California Native Plant Society. 2019.
California Water Service (Cal Water). 2015. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan: South San
Francisco District. Adopted June 2016.
https://www.calwater.com/docs/uwmp2015/bay/South_San_Francisco/2015_Urban_Wate
r_Management_Plan_Final_(SSF).pdf (accessed November 2019).
______. 2018a. Water Treatment Plant Constructed in South San Francisco.
https://www.calwater.com/latest_news/2018-0123-ssf-treatment-plant/ (accessed
November 2019).
______. 2018b. Water Quality Report: Bayshore District, South San Francisco System.
https://www.calwater.com/docs/ccr/2018/bay-ssf-2018.pdf (accessed November 2019).
Crocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN:
978-0-471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October.
Federal Aviation Administration. 2019. Obstruction Evaluation/Airport Airspace Analysis.
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp (accessed November 2019).
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. Flood Insurance Rate Map 06081C0042F. [map].
Tabular digital data and vector digital data. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (accessed
November 2019).
Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-
90-1003-06. Office of Planning and Environment. Washington, DC. May 2006.
______. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-
innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-
0123_0.pdf (accessed November 2019).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
124
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating
Transportation Impacts in CEQA. December 2018. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-
743_Technical_Advisory.pdf (accessed November 2019).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
______. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers -
Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2019. U.S. Wind Climatology. February 2019 U
Wind and V Wind Components. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/societal-impacts/wind/u-
comp/201902 (accessed November 2019).
National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. Custom Soil Resource Report for San Mateo
County, California: 493 Forbes Boulevard.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed November 2019).
Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE). 2017. Integrated Resource Plan. Approved December 14, 2017.
https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/our-power/integrated-resource-plan/ (accessed
November 2019).
Peninsula Clean Energy. 2018. “Energy Sources.” https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/energy-
sources/ (accessed November 2019).
San Mateo, County of. 1986. General Plan.
https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/SMC-GP%201986.pdf
(accessed November 2019).
______. 2016. Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopted July 2016.
https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/files/documents/files/San%20Mate
o%20HMP%20-%20Volume%20II%20-%20Final%20083016.pdf (accessed October 2019).
San Mateo County Office of Sustainability. 2019. Groundwater.
https://www.smcsustainability.org/energy-water/groundwater/ (accessed November 2019).
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. 2013. C.3 Stormwater Technical
Guidance. Adopted January 4, 2013.
https://www.flowstobay.org/files/privatend/MRPsourcebk/Section4/C3TechGuidanceJan20
13.pdf (accessed November 2019).
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2012. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management
Plan. Adopted July 2012.
https://sfwater.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3104 (accessed November
2019).
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2017. Water Quality Control Plan
(Basin Plan). May 2017.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html (accessed
November 2019).
References
Initial Study 125
South San Francisco, City of. 1999. 1999 General Plan. https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-
community-development/planning-division/general-plan (accessed November 2019).
______. 2014a. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. February 13, 2014.
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-
division/planning-documents/approved-policy-documents (accessed November 2019).
______. 2014b. City of South San Francisco: Sewer System Management Plan.
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=824 (accessed November 2019).
______. 2015. Zoning District Map. [map] Tabular digital data and vector digital data.
https://www.ssf.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=514 (accessed November 2019).
______. 2015b. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Adopted July 22, 2015.
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=498 (accessed November 2019).
______. 2016. Community Choice Energy. https://www.ssf.net/departments/city-
manager/sustainability/community-choice-energy. (accessed November 2019).
______. 2017. Fire Department. Annual Call Volume.
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=11173 (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019a. Water Quality Control Plant. https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-
quality-control-plant (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019b. Police Department: Divisions. https://www.ssf.net/departments/police/divisions
(accessed November 2019).
______. 2019c. Schools in South San Francisco. https://www.ssf.net/our-city/living/schools-in-
south-san-francisco (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019d. Parks Division. https://www.ssf.net/departments/parks-recreation/parks-division
(accessed November 2019).
______. 2019e. Mobility 20/20: East of 101 Transportation Plan. Adopted June 2019.
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=16254 (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019f. Treatment Process. https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-
control-plant/treatment-process (accessed December 2019).
______. 2019g. Existing Conditions Report: Land Use and Community Design. November 2019.
https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SSF_ECR_Ch2_LandUse_final.pdf
(accessed January 2020).
______. 2019f. Grading Permit Application. August 2019.
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=16161 (accessed January 2020).
South San Francisco Municipal Code. 2019. http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/ (accessed
November 2019).
South San Francisco Scavenger Company, Inc. 2019. History. https://ssfscavenger.com/about-
us/history/ (accessed December 2019).
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2019. GeoTracker database.
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed November 2019).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Criteria Air Pollutants. March 8, 2018.
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. (accessed October 2019).
City of South San Francisco
499 Forbes Boulevard Office Project
126
______. 2019. Envirofacts Search Results: 493 Forbes Boulevard, South San Francisco, 94080.
https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/ (accessed November 2019).
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1989. Swelling clays map of the conterminous United
States. [map]. 7500000. Olive, W.W., Chleborad, A.F., Frahme, C.W., Shlocker, Julius,
Schneider, R.R., and Schuster, R.L. 1989.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_10014.htm (accessed October 2019).
______. 2018. San Francisco South, CA. [map]. Tabular digital data and vector digital data.
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/viewer/#12/37.6538/-122.4231 (accessed November
2019).
______. 2019a. U.S. Quaternary Faults.
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0
aadf88412fcf (accessed November 2019).
______. 2019b. Mineral Resources Online Spatial Data. https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-
us.html#home (accessed November 2019).
University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) Online Database. 2019. UCMP specimen
search portal, http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/ (accessed November 2019).
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of South San Francisco.
Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed
below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Abe Leider, AICP CEP, Principal
Darcy Kremin, AICP, Project Manager
Lucy Sundelson, Associate Planner
Ryan Russell, MCRP, Associate Planner
Anastasia Ennis, Associate Biologist
Leslie Trejo, Planning Intern
April Durham, PhD, Quality Control
Chris Thomas, Graphic Illustrator