HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 18-2010RESOLUTION NO. 18-2010
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING AN
ENVIIZONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INCLUDING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR THE GATEWAY BUSINESS PARK MASTER PLAN
PROJECT
WHEREAS, Chamberlin Associates submitted an application requesting approval a General
Plan Amendment, Zoning Text Amendment, a Master Plan, a Phase 1 Precise Plan, a preliminary
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and a Development Agreement, which would
collectively authorize the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-acre
project site and construction of five to six new buildings, six stories in height, and two to four
parking structures, in five phases from 2011 to 2020, to be located at the corner of Gateway and
Oyster Point Boulevards (700, 750, 800, 850, 900, and 1000 Gateway Boulevard), in the Gateway
Redevelopment Project Area and Gateway Specific Plan Area ("Gateway Business Park Master Plan
Project" or "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to
evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Project consists of the Draft EIR, Response to
Comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation was issued on June 16, 2008 and reissued on October
22, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for 45-day public/agency review
period from October 21, 2009 through December 7, 2009; and
WHEREAS, notices of the availability of the Draft EIR were published in the San Mateo
Times, mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and
cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period
on November 19, 2009 to take public testimony on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the following
potential environmental impacts:
• Aesthetics including the visual character of the proposed Project, including lighting;
• Biological Resources;
• Cultural Resources;
• Air Quality, including construction dust;
• Geology/Soils, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading,
liquefaction and expansive soils;
• Hazards/Hazardous materials;
• Hydrology/Water Quality, including water quality degradation;
• Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development
allowed by the General Plan;
• Noise;
• Population and Housing;
• Transportation and Traffic, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to
freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and
restrictions on parking to reduce congestion;
• Utilities/Service Systems;
• Project alternatives; and
• Cumulative impacts
WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the
Draft EIR and made available to agencies and individuals from whom comments on the Draft EIR
were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, "EIR") at a duly noticed public hearing held on
January 21, 2010, and, be resolution, unanimously recommended certification of the EIR, as an
objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the
identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project's environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, where feasible, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to
reduce identified impacts to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, no feasible mitigation exists for the significant and unavoidable air quality,
noise, and transportation impacts that would reduce the impacts to ales-than-significant level; and
WHEREAS, the Proj ect cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations
is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts, and
an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and also applies to the
Project as follows:
The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a statement of
overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the
measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air
pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
2. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan Proj ect would impact some of the same freeway
segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose construction-related
noise and traffic effects could only be partially mitigated.
3 . Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the
General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the Gateway Business Park Master
Plan Project by the City.
4. Additionally, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Project (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which
includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§ 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, l4 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et
seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General. Plan EIR; the South San Francisco
Municipal Code; the Project applications; the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and Phase 1
Precise Plan, as prepared by DGA Architects, Kenkay Associates, BKF Engineers, Surveyors,
Planners; the EIR, including the Draft and Final EIR prepared for the Gateway Business Park Master
Plan and appendices thereto; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted
as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed November 19, 2009, and January 21, 2010,
meetings; and all site plans, reports, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council and
Redevelopment Agency's duly noticed, j oint meeting of February 10, 2010; and any other evidence
(within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the
City South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The EIR for the Gateway Business Park Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan, as well
as the Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), the Statement
of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Exhibit C), are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are
located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
4. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council
makes the findings regarding the Project's significant impacts and Project alternatives, as set forth in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
5. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council
finds that for the reasons set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit
B and incorporated herein by reference, the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant
and unavoidable environmental impacts.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
hereby makes the CEQA findings attached as Exhibit A, and certifies EIR-08-0002, including
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached as Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon
its passage and adoption.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of
February, 2010 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Richard A. Garbarino, and Karyl Matsumoto,
Vice Mayor Kevin Mullin and Mayor Mark Addie~o
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
A
,c;~ty
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Exhibit C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Included in Final EIR (See Exhibit X to Staff Report); Incorporated Here By Reference)
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS
Section I: Introduction
Prior to approving a project for which an EIR has been certified, a lead agency must
make findings as to each significant impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA
Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) As articulated in Section 15091(a) of the CEQA
Guidelines:
(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant
environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes
one or more written findings for each of those significant effects,
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding.
The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency
making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such
other agency or can and should be adopted by such other
agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the
final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.)
A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are
less than significant. (See ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn, v. City of
Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 716.) Pursuant to these requirements, the City
hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potentially significant
impacts of the project.
Section II• General Findines
As required by CEQA, the City, in adopting these CEQA Findings and the Statement
of Overriding Considerations, also adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 2 of 84
Program for the project. The City finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP), which is incorporated by reference and made a part of these
findings included as Exhibit C to the Resolution, meets the requirements of Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6 by providing for the implementation and
monitoring of measures intended to mitigate potentially significant effects of the
project. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopts these
findings as part of the certification of the Final EIR for the project.
For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings
for the City's decision on the project consists of, without limitation: a) matters of
common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and local
laws and regulations; and b) the following documents which are in the custody of
the City, and available for review by the public at the City's Planning Department,
City Hall Annex, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA:
• Notice of Preparation and other public notices issued by the City in
conjunction with the project;
• The Public Review Draft EIR;
• All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public
during the public comment period on the Draft EIR and responses to those
comments;
• The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
• All findings, statements of overriding consideration, and resolutions
adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents
cited or referred therein;
• All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, correspondence, and all
planning documents prepared by the City or the consultants, or
responsible or trustee agencies with respect to: a) the City's compliance
with CEQA; b) the Project site; or c) the City's action on the Project; and
• All documents submitted to the City by agencies or members of the public
in connection with the project.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the
Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as the lead agency for the project.
Section III• Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed
Project
AESTHETICS
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 3 of 84
Impact IV.B-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of
substantial light orglare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area.
Implementation of the proposed project would create new sources of light from
exterior building illumination, lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation. There are
no residential land uses on-site or within the project vicinity in the East of 101 Area
that would be adversely affected by these new light sources. Lighting would be
designed to appropriately illuminate signage and wayfinding system components to
make information clearly legible at night. The project would follow the lighting
levels as recommended by the Engineering Society of North America for all
pedestrian and vehicular circulation systems. This would maintain appropriate
levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots, and private
roads at night consistent with minimum levels required by building codes.
Nighttime security lighting would not be expected to substantially increase over
current conditions.
Lighting would be directed onto the specific locations intended for illumination and
would be characteristic of existing lighting in the surrounding industrial areas.
Preparation of a Lighting Design Plan, which will establish policies required to
reduce light and glare impacts, will be required for the Precise and other
subsequent Precise Plan phases of the project. Overall, lighting would be designed to
avoid unnecessary light pollution by use of "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the
upward cast of light where appropriate and to consider ambient light generated by
buildings in the design of site lighting systems to help prevent over lighting.
Additional lighting would not have the potential to create "spillage" onto sensitive
land uses, as none exist within the area. As the proposed project calls for an increase
in the density and height of development, nighttime light would increase if
inappropriate levels of light are used or inappropriate lighting plans are
implemented. However, the proposed project including the Precise Plan and all
subsequent phases of the Master Plan as they are designed and constructed would
comply with the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan,
including those related to lighting, specifically Guidelines DE-29 and DE-50. Upon
implementation of Mitigation Measure listed below, impacts related to a substantial
increase in light would be less than significant.
Implementation of the proposed project could create new sources of glare from
reflective building surfaces. No residential uses are located within or near the
project site and residential uses are not permitted within the entire East of 101
Area. Land uses in the general vicinity of the project site are mostly limited to office,
R&D, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 4 of 84
light industrial uses. However, the project site is visible from US 101. As the
proposed project calls for an increase in development at the site from one-story
buildings to more visible four- to six-story buildings, daytime glare would increase if
reflective materials were used, which could adversely affect views by distant land
uses, such as motorists traveling along US 1011ooking towards the project site to
views of the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and Mt. Diablo.
Mitigation Measure IU.B-4.1 Lighting
In order to reduce sources of light and glare created by project site lighting, the
applicant shall specify fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light
at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night
consistent with minimum levels detailed in the City's building codes. These fixtures
shall be designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting,
thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution.
Prior to issuance of building permits for buildings constructed for the Precise Plan
and each phase of the Master Plan, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan
for review and approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department for
each phase. The plan shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources with the types of
lighting and their locations.
Typical lighting shall include low mounted, downward casting and shielded lights
that do not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of motion
detection systems where applicable. Fixture types and heights shall conform to the
following styles, as feasible:
• Parking lots and roads-provide round fixtures on 22' poles on raised
concrete footings not to exceed 25' total finished height, appropriately
finished black, or approved equal.
• Sidewalks, pathways, and plazas-provide round hardtop on post top
fixtures not to exceed 15'total finished height, appropriately finished black,
or approved equal.
• Accent pedestrian lighting-provide bollard style fixtures, not to exceed 42"
total height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal.
o No flood lights shall be utilized.
o Lighting shall not "wash out" structures or any portions of the site.
o Lighting shall be limited to the areas that would be in operation
during nighttime hours.
o Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be encouraged.
o On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 5 of 84
o Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not
be permitted except where their need is specifically approved and
their source of light is restricted.
o All light sources shall be fully shielded from off-site view.
o All buildings and structures shall consist ofnon-reflecting material or
be painted with nonreflective paint.
o Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of the
property and should shut off automatically when the use is not
operating. Security lighting visible from the highway shall be motion-
sensoractivated.
o Use "cut-off' fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and
avoid unnecessary light pollution where appropriate.
o All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the building codes
and the approved lighting plan during construction.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4.2 Daytime Glare
In order to reduce sources of daytime glare created by reflective building materials,
the applicant shall specify exterior building materials for all proposed structures
constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan that include the
use of textured or other non-reflective exterior surfaces and nonreflective glass
types, including double glazed and non-reflective vision glass. These materials
would be chosen for their non-reflective characteristics and their ability to reduce
daytime glare. All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all applicable codes
for non-reflective glass and would therefore reduce daytime glare emanating from
the project site.
Finding: Impact IV.B-4: The building design would incorporate a mixture of
materials including glass, stone, pre-cast/GFRC, and painted metal. This mixture of
materials would not create large blocks of glass or reflective materials that would
create excessive glare. Additionally, the proposed project would comply with the
guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan, including those
related to building design, specifically Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42. However, to
further reduce impacts from glare, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.B-2
listed above would reduce impacts related to daytime glare to less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.B-4.1 through IV.B-4.2 identified in this
section would adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to aesthetics. These
impacts would also be reduced to a less than significant level.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 6 of 84
Impact IV.D-1; The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish and
Wildlife Services.
Of the thirty-five (35) special status species that have potential to occur on the
project site, as determined by habitat and the aforementioned criteria, only one (1)
has a low potential to occur, the bank swallow. This California threatened species
would not be expected to nest on site as suitable nesting habitat is not present, but it
is possible the species would be transient through the site during foraging activities;
however, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to this species
as it would avoid construction areas during potential foraging. Project construction
activities associated with implementation of the Precise Plan and Master Plan build
out have potential to result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of
vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests
due to noise and increased activity. These potential impacts to nesting birds maybe
considered significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.D-1.1 Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species
In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, special-status birds and/or raptors
during Phase 1 Precise Plan and Master Plan development, the following shall be
implemented prior to commencement of each phase of the proposed project:
• Project development activities (disturbances to vegetation, structures and
substrates) shall take place outside of the breeding bird season which
generally runs from March 1-August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors)
to assist in the avoidance of take (including disturbances which would cause
abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or young).
OR
• If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, weekly
bird surveys shall begin 30 days prior to disturbance of suitable nesting
habitat to detect any protected native birds in the habitat to be removed and
any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within
500 feet for raptors) as access to adjacent property allows. The surveys shall
be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding
bird surveys. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the last
survey being conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of
clearance/construction work. If a protected native bird is found, the project
proponent shall delay all clearance/construction disturbance activities in
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 7 of 84
suitable nesting habitat or within 300 feet of nesting habitat (within 500 feet
for raptor nests) until August 31 or continue the surveys in order to locate
any nests. If an active nest is located, clearing and construction within 300
feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a
biological monitor shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles
have fledged and when there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting.
Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with
flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be
instructed on the sensitivity of the area. The results of the recommended
protective measures described above shall be recorded to document
compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and
Game Code protecting nesting birds.
Finding Impact IV.D-1: The applicant shall require that the construction contractor
implement mitigation measure MM IV.D-1, which requires avoiding ground
disturbing activities during nesting season or conducting pre-construction bird
surveys prior to each project phase and avoiding nests during the nesting season,
thereby reducing the possibility of disturbing or destroying active bird nests. With
implementation of this mitigation measure, this potential impact will be reduced to
less-than-significant.
Impact IV.D-5: The proposed project would conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance.
A tree survey for the 8.91-acre Phase I Precise Plan was conducted in September
2008, and identified at least 19 treesll within landscaped areas that would be
considered protected under the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance,
Title 13, Chapter 13.3012. In particular, the popular trees along the site boundaries,
which extend from the Oyster Point access driveway behind 180 and 200 Oyster
Point Boulevard, are considered protected as their circumference would be greater
than 48 inches at 54 inches above natural grade. All of the 19 protected trees would
be removed by implementation of the Precise Plan, which would be considered a
significant impact, as it would conflict with the protected tree ordinance.
Detailed tree surveys have not yet been conducted within remaining portions of the
22.6-acre Gateway Business Park Master Plan due to the fact that trees would need
to be surveyed prior to each phase to account for tree growth. Development
activities associated with future project phases could involve "removal" or "pruning"
of additional protected trees that exceed 48 inches in circumference. Prior to the
start of construction, a qualified biologist or arborist will conduct a tree survey, for
the identification of protected trees, followed by permit application to determine
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 8 of 84
requirements for removal and replacement of such trees, thereby reducing the
impact to protected trees.
Mitigation Measure IV.D-5.1 Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological
Resources
In order to minimize impacts to protected trees, the project applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist or arborist to conduct preconstruction surveys of trees within the
project site and provide a map to the applicant and the City prior to initiation of
future Master Plan phases.. Each protected tree identified that will be directly
impacted by removal or pruning shall require a Tree Pruning/Removal Permit per
Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). This
permit application shall be submitted to the City and its approval must be a
condition of issuance of any grading or building permit. The following outlines the
procedures for obtaining a tree removal permit, and procedures for the subsequent
tree replacement pursuant to the City's Protected Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code
Chapter 13.30).
Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected trees shall obtain a permit to
remove or prune a protected tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the
department and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the
tree(s) to be removed or pruned by type and the reason for removal or pruning of each.
The application shall also include a photograph with correct botanical identification
of the subject tree(s). When removal or pruning of a protected tree is proposed as part
of or in conjunction with new development the application shall also include: (1) a site
plan showing the location of buildings, structures and proposed site disturbances; (2)
the location of all protected trees on the site; and (3) the protected trees on the site
that would be removed or pruned. An authorized representative of the department
shall make an inspection of any protected tree or site subject to this section and shall
file a written report and his recommendations to the director.
Prior to removal of trees to be conducted during Precise Plan and Master Plan
development, the required replacement of protected trees shall be determined as
set forth in SSFMC Section 13.30.080. Any protected tree that is removed shall be
replaced as follows, and the method of replacement shall be approved as part of the
protected tree removal permit process:
(a) Replacement shall be three 24-inch box size or two 36-inch box minimum size
landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below. However, the director
maintains the right to dictate size and species of trees in any new developments.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 9 of 84
(b) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 36-
inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree so removed, as determined
below.
(c) The director can waive replacement of a protected tree, if a sufficient number of
trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation
ordinance.
(d) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b) (1) or (2) of this section, as
applicable, cannot be planted on the property, payment of twice the replacement
value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture
Standard shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree
planted fund to be drawn upon for public tree. purchase and planting. (Ord 1271
Section (part), 2000:Ord 1060 Section 1 (part) 1989).
Finding Impact IV.D-5: Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist or
arborist will conduct a tree survey, for the identification of protected trees, followed
by permit application to determine requirements for removal and replacement of
such trees, thereby reducing the impact to protected trees. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure IV.D-2, as described further below, would reduce any significant
project-level and program-level impacts associated with Precise Plan and Master
Plan development to aless-than-significant level.
The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological resources impacts
consists of San Mateo County. All future development that may occur in this
geographic region would be subject to existing federal, state and local regulations.
Land uses and development consistent with the proposed project and additional
twenty cities and cumulative projects, could result in a significant loss of
populations and/or essential habitat for special-status plant and animal species, loss
of sensitive natural communities, and wildlife habitat and result in the obstruction
of wildlife movement opportunities. The proposed project does not involve the loss
of existing natural habitat and future development of such habitat in the area would
be very limited. However, the project many involve the removal of trees and/or
impacts to nesting birds, but with the implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.D-
1.1 and IV.D-5.1 these impacts will be reduced to less than significant. Therefore
cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project would be less than
significant.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 10 of 84
Impact IV.E-1: The proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
A records search for historic resources was conducted at the Northwest Information
Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) to
determine whether the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area or environs had
been previously studied for resources or contained recorded historic resources.
Additional archival research was completed at the San Mateo County Historical
Association Archives, the archives of the City of South San Francisco's Engineering
Division in the Department of Public Works, and by utilizing other published
sources. A pedestrian surface survey of the project area was also completed.
The project area was not found to contain any recorded historic resources. This area
was not part of the historic development either of the residential/commercial
portion of the City (west of Highway 101), nor of the earliest industrial development
east of Highway 101. In addition, this area has been developed and redeveloped
more than once in the twentieth century, processes that have virtually completely
removed potential for and make the property quite unlikely to contain significant
historic resources that would be impacted by the proposed project. Although no
historic resources were found in the project area, the entire project site would be
subject to ground disturbance through various phases of the project and it is
possible that subsurface deposits may exist or that evidence of such resources has
been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and could be uncovered
during construction of the Precise Plan or Master Plan. Historic resources are
protected from unauthorized disturbance by State law and supervisory and
construction personnel should therefore be made aware of the possibility, however
low, of encountering historic materials in this location. Historic materials older than
45 years-bottles, artifacts, privy and disposal pits, structural remains, etc.-may also
have scientific and cultural significance and should be more readily identified.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-1.1 Unknown Historic or Cultural Resources
In order to avoid impacts to unknown historic or cultural resources, if during the
proposed construction of the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the Master
Plan any evidence of or cultural resources is uncovered or encountered, all
excavations within 10 meters/30 feet of the discovery shall be halted. In order to
protect these resources from damage, a qualified archaeologist approved by the City
shall determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under
36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological
resource," the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the
requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 11 of 84
21083.2. Work in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a
mitigation plan and/or recovery of the resource.
If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique
archaeological resource, work can resume, and the archaeologist may record the site
and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information
System Northwest Information Center.
The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part
of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report
shall be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information
System Northwest Information Center.
Finding Impact IV.E-1: Although the potential to impact historic resources is
unlikely, mitigation measures to reduce this impact are required. The construction
contractor will halt surrounding excavation activities if evidence of historic or
cultural resources is discovered and a qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the
site to investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying historic
resources. Upon implementation of these steps as described further in Mitigation
Measure E-1.1 above, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact IV.E-2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.
A records search for archeological resources was conducted at the Northwest
Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS) to determine whether the Gateway Business Park Master Plan area
or environs had been previously studied for resources or contained recorded
archaeological resources. Additional archival research was completed at the San
Mateo County Historical Association Archives, the archives of the City of South San
Francisco's Engineering Division in the Department of Public Works, and by utilizing
in-house resources and other published sources. A pedestrian surface survey of the
project area was completed.
The Gateway Business Park project area was not found to contain any recorded
archaeological resources. Although no archaeological resources were found in the
project area, it is possible that subsurface deposits may exist or that evidence of
such resources has been obscured by more recent natural or cultural factors and
would be uncovered during construction of the Precise Plan or subsequent phases
of the Master Plan since ultimately the entire site would be subject to ground
disturbance. Archaeological resources are protected from unauthorized disturbance
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 12 of 84
by State law and supervisory and construction personnel should therefore be made
aware of the possibility, however low, of encountering archaeological materials in
this location. In this area, the most common and recognizable evidence of
prehistoric archaeological resources are deposits of shell and/or bones, usually in
fragments, and usually in a darker fine-grained soil (midden); chert, obsidian and
other stone flakes left from manufacturing stone tools, or the tools themselves or
ground stone (mortars, pestles, grinding slabs, arrowheads and spear points), other
artifacts (shell beads, bone tools, etc.), and human burials, often as dislocated bones.
Nevertheless, since archaeological resources could be located in the subsurface, and
impacts to these resources would be unknown until encountered during excavation,
impacts to such resources would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-2.1 Unknown Archaeological Resources
If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction of the
Precise Plan or any subsequent phases of the Master Plan, a qualified archaeologist
approved by the project applicant shall conduct further archival and field study to
identify the presence of archaeological resources in the area surrounding the
discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey,
auguring, and monitoring construction activities as well as other common methods
used to identify the presence of archaeological resources in a fully developed urban
area. If an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during any phases of
construction, a qualified archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall first
determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under 36
CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. If
the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource,"
the archaeologist shall formulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of,
36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2. Work in
the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan or
recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological
resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work will resume, and the
archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California
Historic Resources Information System Northwest Information Center. The
archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a
mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall
be submitted to the City and to the California Historic Resources Information
System Northwest Information Center.
Finding Impact IV.E-2: The construction contractor will halt surrounding
excavation activities if evidence of archaeological resources is discovered and a
qualified archaeologist shall be brought to the site to investigate further, thereby
reducing the possibility of destroying unique archaeological resources. Therefore,
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 13 of 84
upon implementation of Mitigation Measure E-2.11isted below, this impact would
be less than significant.
Impact IV.E-4: The proposed project could disturb human remains, including
those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
While there is no evidence that human remains are present on the project site, there
is still the potential that the construction phases of the Precise Plan and subsequent
phases of the Master Plan could encounter human remains, which in turn could
result in a potentially significant cultural resource impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1 Disturbance of Human Remains
In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone
during construction of the Precise Plan or any subsequent phases of the Master Plan,
all excavation or grading within 100 feet of the find shall halt immediately, the area
of the find shall be protected, and the project applicant immediately shall notify the
San Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of PRC
Section 5097 with respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and
re-burial, if necessary. Work may resume once the area is protected or the body is
removed.
Finding Impact IV.E-4: The construction contractor will halt ground-disturbing
activities if human remains are discovered so that the County's Medical Examiner
can investigate further, thereby reducing the possibility of destroying cultural
resources or Native American remains. Therefore, project impacts related to a
disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with implementation
of Mitigation Measure IV.E-4.1.
Impacts related to historical resources tend to be site-specific and are assessed on a
site-by-site basis. The City of South San Francisco would require the applicants of
future development subject to CEQA to assess, determine, and mitigate any potential
impacts related to historical resources that could occur as a result of development,
as necessary. Through compliance with the existing laws and the mitigation
measures listed previously, project impacts associated with historic resources,
archaeological resources, paleontological resources, unique geologic features, and
human remains would be less than significant. The occurrence of these less than
significant impacts would be limited to the project site and would not contribute to
any potentially significant cultural resources impacts that could occur at the sites of
future development subject to CEQA. As such, the proposed project would not
contribute to any potential cumulative impacts related to cultural resources.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 14 of 84
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to cultural resources would be less than
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.E-2.1 through IV.E-4.1
identified in this section would adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to
cultural resources. These impacts would also be reduced to aless-than-significant
level.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impact IV.F-Z: The proposed project would expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death
involving exposure to strong seismicground shaking.
The proposed project is located in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area and
there is a high probability that the proposed development would be subjected to
strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake during its design life. Strong
seismic ground shaking is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.1 California Building Code Requirements
The project applicant shall ensure that the project development during all phases of
the Precise and Master Plan meets requirements of the California Building Code Vol.
1 and 2, 2007 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2007 Edition,
published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by
the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of South San
Francisco, California to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. As new
development occurs over the project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent
phases of the Master Plan, this development would meet the current requirements
existing at each phase of the project. Incorporation of seismic construction
standards would reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking,
such as complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of
seismically induced ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.2 Foundation Engineering and Construction
The project applicant shall ensure that proper foundation engineering and
construction shall be performed during all phases of the Precise and Master Plan in
accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer or
Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical design and a Registered Structural
Engineer or Civil Engineer experienced in structural design to reduce impacts from
strong seismic ground shaking. As new development is proposed over the project
site from the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan, each
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 15 of 84
development would require geotechnical evaluation and the preparation of specific
recommendations for each phase of the project based on the site specific location
and proposed building design. The structural engineering design shall incorporate
seismic parameters as outlined in the 2007 California Building Code. The project
Geotechnical Investigation shall establish the seismic design parameters, as
determined by the geotechnical engineer in accordance with requirements of the
2007 California Building Code.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-2.3 Seismic Design Criteria
The project applicant shall obtain building permits during all phases of the Precise
and Master Plan through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final
Design Review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed
structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned
commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San
Francisco to reduce impacts from strong seismic ground shaking. Buildings shall be
designed in accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element
polices, which state that buildings shall be designed to resist earthquakes so that
they not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and
will allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
As new development is proposed over the project site from the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan, each development shall require Final Design
Review of planned buildings and structures completed by a licensed structural
engineer for each phase of the project based.
Finding Impact IV.F-2: The project applicant shall require that construction of
buildings on the project site adhere to the requirements of building code provisions
and current foundation-engineering principles designed to minimize earthquake-
induced impacts to safety and the structural integrity of buildings. Implementation
of these requirements as described in Mitigation Measures IV.F-2.1 through 2.3
would ensure proper foundation and structural design, thereby decreasing this
impact to a level of less than significant.
Impact IV.F-4: The proposed project would be subject to seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction and landslides or be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable and subject to landslide.
No landslides are mapped across the property. The project site has a naturally
gentle slope, which has been graded to a nearly level pad for the currently existing
development. Due to this grading there is an approximately 1.5:1 (horizontal:
vertical) cut slope along the southeastern border of the project site. There are also
approximately 2:1 (h: v) slopes (likely fill) along Gateway Boulevard. More cuts may
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 16 of 84
be necessary, requiring construction of retaining walls, which could fail if
improperly designed. The impact of landslides is potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure IU.F-4.1 Landsliding
The project applicant shall ensure all phases of the Precise and Master Plan that
proper foundation engineering and retaining wall design shall be performed under
the direction and guidance of the geotechnical engineer of record and in accordance
with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. Geotechnical
Investigations for each phase of the Precise and Master Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the City's Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer for
compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. As new
development is proposed over the project site from the Precise Plan and subsequent
phases of the Master Plan, each development shall require proper foundation
engineering and retaining wall design in accordance with the recommendations of
the Geotechnical Investigation and reviewed and approved by the City's
Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer for each phase of the project
based.
Finding Impact IV.F-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.F-4.1 would
ensure proper design of retaining walls and foundations, thereby reducing the
impact of Landsliding to a level of less than significant.
Impact IV.F-5: The proposed project would result in soil erosion.
All phases of the project would involve mass grading in a sensitive area near the San
Francisco Bay. During construction, grading would disturb soil and displace any
topsoil that could potentially impact vicinity drainages, and would eventually
impact Colma Creek and the Bay. This would be a potentially significant impact
during and following site construction activities. The project applicant will ensure
that dust, erosion, and pollution control measures including soil stabilization
techniques and other best management practices will be followed during
construction activities to reduce the potential for loose soils impacting nearby
drainages.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.1 Soil Erosion
The project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the
City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application for the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Plan shall include winterization, dust,
erosion and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 17 of 84
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with sediment basin design
calculations. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the "best management
practices" (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution
resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include
locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas,
and planned access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques include
placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance
areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm
drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and
construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note
any violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Mitigation Measure IV.F-5.2 Soil Erosion
In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB), thecproject applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction of the Precise Plan and all
subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage
under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Finding IV.F-S: The project applicant will ensure that dust, erosion, and pollution
control measures including soil stabilization techniques and other best management
practices will be followed during construction activities to reduce the potential for
loose soils impacting nearby drainages. Implementation of these practices as
described in Mitigation Measures IV.F-S.1 and 5.2 would ensure that soils disturbed
during construction would not be mobilized by either storm- or construction-
related runoff and therefore reduce the impact of soil erosion to a level of less than
significant.
Impact IV.F-6: The proposed project would be located on expansive soils.
The geotechnical investigation performed by Treadwell and Rollo did not identify
expansive material in the sand and sand with clay native site soils. However, some
of the near surface fill materials consist of sandy clay that may have expansive
properties. This impact would be mitigated through adherence to foundation,
pavement and slabs on grade design recommendations put forth in the Geotechnical
Reports prepared for each phase of the project. Recommendations include: over
excavation of materials two feet below foundations and replacement with
engineered fill compacted to 95 percent relative to maximum dry density under
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 18 of 84
building footprints; floor slabs underneath garages 1 and 2 shall be underlain by 6
inches of
Class II aggregate base compacted to 95 percent relative to maximum dry density;
and the upper 6 inches of soil under pavement areas shall be compacted to 95
percent relative to maximum dry density.
Mitigation Measure (not numbered): Measures as specified in the Geotechnical
Report.
Finding Impact IV.F-6: Incorporation of the measures as specified in the
Geotechnical Report would reduce the impact of expansive soils to a level of less
than significant. Likewise, Geotechnical impacts related to future development in
the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco would involve hazards
associated with site-specific soil conditions, erosion, and groundshaking during
earthquakes. The impacts on each site would be specific to that site and its users
and would not be common or contribute to (or be shared with, in an additive sense)
the impacts on other sites. In addition, development on each site would be subject to
uniform site development and construction standards that are designed to protect
public safety. Therefore, cumulative geology and soils impacts would be less than
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.F-2.1 through IV.F-2.3, IV.F-
4.1, IV.F-5.1, and IV.F-5.2 identified in this section would adequately mitigate all
potential impacts related to geology and soils. These impacts would also be reduced
to a less than significant level.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact IV.G-1: The proposed project would create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.
The proposed project could include construction of office uses, and Class-A office
and laboratory buildings for both the Precise Plan and all subsequent phases of the
Master Plan. Class A refers to a research laboratory, not merely an instructional
laboratory. Depending upon the nature of research planned at the proposed
facilities, for which detailed information has not yet been provided, there are likely
to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on the
site that would eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards, as
well as chemical hazards. There would also likely be transportation of hazardous
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 19 of 84
materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101, Gateway
Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. The impact of routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials is potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.1 Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Businesses occupying the project site through all phases of the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan must complete a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must
include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage
locations of hazardous materials and where they maybe used and transported from,
risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each
material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training
consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses
qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than
the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500
pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for
compressed gases. Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged
consumer goods; medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous
oxide in quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store
or use no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons
of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil
not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not
expected to apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or
operating at the proposed project site through all phases of the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan must submit a business plan prior to the start
of operations, and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once
every two years, or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes
are new emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous
materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program,
which maybe contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at
least once a year to ensure the Business Plan is complete and accurate.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.2 South San Francisco Municipal Code
Building space thorough all phases of the project must be designed to handle the
intended office and laboratory use, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary
containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines laid out in Chapter 15.24
(Fire Code) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Requirements include the
following:
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 20 of 84
• All occupancies and buildings shall be protected throughout by an automatic
sprinkler system installed in accordance with UBC Standard 9-1.
• An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all garbage
compartments, dumb waiter shafts, and storage rooms when located in all
occupancies except Group R, Division 3, detached carports, greenhouses and
Group U occupancies less than 200 square feet. An accessible indicating shut
off valve shall also be installed.
• An approved audible anal visual sprinkler flow alarm shall be provided on the
exterior of the building in an approved location. A single approved sprinkler
flow alarm shall be provided on the interior of the building in a normally
occupied location.
• For buildings more than four stories in height, the following additional
requirements must be met:
o Products of combustion detectors shall be provided in all mechanical
equipment, electrical, transformer, telephone equipment, elevator
machine or similar rooms.
o Detector(s) shall be located in the air conditioning system. Activation
of any detector shall initiate the fire alarm system and place into
operation all equipment necessary to prevent the recirculation of
smoke.
^ A smoke control system meeting the requirements of Chapter 9
and Section 1005.3.3.7 of the Uniform Building Code shall be
provided.
^ A manual fire alarm system shall be provided that will alarm
both audibly/visually throughout the building if activated and
also alert: the Fire Department via an approved monitoring
station. The fire alarm system shall be provided with a public
address system and an outside remote annunciator.
^ Standby power shall be provided and must conform to Section
403.8 of the California Building Code. These systems must pass
plan review through the City of South San Francisco Planning,
Building, and Fire Departments for the Precise Plan and each
subsequent phase of the Master Plan.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1.3 Sprinkler System
During construction of the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master
Plan, the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass pressure and flush tests to
make sure they perform as designed. At the end of construction of each building
constructed under the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan,
occupancy shall not be allowed until a final inspection is made by the Fire
Department for conformance of all building systems with the Fire Code and National
Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The inspection shall include testing of
sprinklers systems, alarm systems, ventilation and airflow systems, and secondary
containment systems. The inspection shall include a review of the emergency
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 21 of 84
evacuation plans. These plans shall be modified as deemed necessary to ensure that
they ensure safety to building occupants.
Mitigation Measure IV,G-1.4 Hazardous Materials Transportation
All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site
will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances
and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. These
regulations shall be followed for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the
Master Plan to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials and waste to and
from the site.
Finding Impact IV G-1: The proposed project would include Class A research
laboratories, which require the use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials.
As described above, registration in the San Mateo County Environmental Health
Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would help to ensure safe and
responsible handling of hazardous materials by site tenants. Construction
inspection for adherence to fire codes would ensure that buildings are equipped
with safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc, to minimize potential
impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. Finally, compliance with DOT
regulations would ensure that all necessary safety precautions would betaken
during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the project. Therefore,
upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-1.1 through IV.G-1.41isted below,
this impact would be less than significant.
Impact IV.G-2: The proposed project would 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.
Existing buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil,
asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic
compounds, and petroleum products. Underlying site soils may contain hazardous
materials including motor oil, gasoline, diesel, other chemicals and toxic heavy
metals related to the history of heavy industry in the area. The historic railroad
grade along the southeast edge of the project site may be a source of additional
hazardous materials, including arsenic, chromium, creosote, zinc chloride, or other
wood preservatives. During demolition operations required for the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the Master Plan hazardous materials could be released from
structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Following construction,
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 22 of 84
operations at the proposed facilities are expected to represent a continuing threat to
the environment through accidental release of hazardous materials since the site is
proposed to include Class A laboratory facilities, where hazardous materials are
likely to be stored, used, and ultimately require disposal. This represents a
potentially significant impact. However, implementation of all of the below
mitigation measures would reduce risks from hazardous materials on the project
site. The project site has a history of hazardous material use, and residual
contamination may remain in the surface soils, and in buildings on-site through all
phases of the Precise Plan and the Master Plan. A demolition plan will ensure any
hazardous materials remaining in buildings or building materials will be properly
disposed of. Site soil testing and a soil management plan will ensure that residual
contamination is not mobilized by site grading activities. The development of risk
management plans through the CaIARPP and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA
standards through all phases of the project would reduce risk of hazardous material
releases related to post construction land uses. Therefore, upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures IV.G-2.1 through IV.G- 2.51isted below, this impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2,1 Demolition Plans
Demolition plans with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South
San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings for
the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Demolition Plans for
safe demolition of existing structures shall include dust control and shall
incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos or lead and
recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous
building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The
Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker Protection and offsite resident
protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building
materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to
appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and
asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, anal ordinances. The Demolition Plans shall include a
program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust
control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the
plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
Additionally, any soil removal plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.2 Soil Sampling
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 23 of 84
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall retain
a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface
and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals,
herbicides, motor oil, other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present
in site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped under that phase of the
project. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site for that
phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to implementation of
any soil removal plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental
Screening Levels for commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation
Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.3 Contaminated Soils
If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise Plan or any subsequent
phase of the Master Plan, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established
procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect
human health and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a minimum the
Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
• Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and
remediation at the site.
• Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be
prepared by all contractors at the project site. This includes a HASP for all
demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future
subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training,
any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of
contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and
approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
• Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project
development, including engineering controls that maybe required to reduce
exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
• Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal. measures for any contaminated groundwater
removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance
with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines.
• Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for
reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 24 of 84
• Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the
subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development.
• The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction
prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the
project.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2,4 Compliance with Local and State Hazardous
Materials Regulations
Future businesses at the development as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent
phases of the Master Plan shall check the state and federal lists of regulated
substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public
health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or
explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the
SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CaIARP
registration form and submit it to the SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall
submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental
releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to
emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses on the site
as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan that store
or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must
develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if a
regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and
childcare facilities. RMPs must: include procedures for: keeping employees and
customers safe, handling regulated substances, training staff, maintaining
equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an
accidental release.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2.5 Compliance with BAAQMD Regulations
Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall obtain necessary
permits and comply with monitoring and inspection requirements of the BAAQMD.
Future operations shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements for
emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for
R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of South San Francisco to
examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other
similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems,
spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory
facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 25 of 84
primarily designed to maintain. worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of
accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions.
Finding Impact IV.G-2: Implementation of all of the above mitigation measures
would reduce risks from hazardous materials on the project site. The project site
has a history of hazardous material use, and residual contamination may remain in
the surface soils, and in buildings on-site through all phases of the Precise Plan and
the Master Plan. A demolition plan will ensure any hazardous materials remaining
in buildings or building materials will be properly disposed of. Site soil testing and a
soil management plan will ensure that residual contamination is not mobilized by
site grading activities. The development of risk management plans through the
CaIARPP and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA standards through all phases of
the project would reduce risk of hazardous material releases related to post
construction land uses. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures
IV.G-2.1 through IV.G- 2.5 listed below, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact IV.G-3: The proposed project could emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-
quartermile of an existing or proposed school.
The nearest school or childcare site to the project is the YMCA of San Francisco
Gateway Childcare center located at 559 Gateway Boulevard, less than aquarter-
mile southwest of the project site. The project site itself also houses Genentech's
Second Generation, a childcare facility serving Genentech's employees that would be
in operation through Phase 1a of the Precise Plan. The project currently contains
hazardous materials that could be released during demolition and site grading
activities thorough all phases of the project. Implementation of the mitigation
measures previously discussed would incorporate management and testing
procedures relating to hazardous materials during the construction and operation
phases of the project, thereby minimizing the potential for the emission of
hazardous materials to nearby school facilities. Therefore, upon implementation of
Mitigation Measures IV.G-3.1 through IV.G-3.71isted below, this impact would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.1 Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Businesses occupying the development through all phases of the Precise Plan and
subsequent phases of the. Master Plan must complete a Hazardous Materials
Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan must
include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage
locations of hazardous materials and where they maybe used and transported from,
risks of using these materials, included in material safety data sheets for each
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 26 of 84
material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training
consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses
qualify for the program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than
the minimum reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500
pounds for solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for
compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods; medical
professionals who Store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in quantities not
more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and whom store or use no other
hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a specific
type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed
275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not expected to
apply to Class A laboratory facilities. Businesses occupying and/or operating at the
proposed development must submit a business plan prior to The start of operations,
and must review and update the entire Business Plan at least once every two years,
or within 30 days of any significant change. Some of these changes are new
emergency contact information, major increases or decreases in hazardous
materials storage and/or changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be
submitted to the San Mateo County Environmental Health Business Plan Program,
which maybe contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The San Mateo
County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) shall inspect the business at
least once a year to ensure the Business Plan is complete and accurate.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.2 Hazardous Materials Transportation
All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site
will be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US
Department of Transportation (DOT), State of California, and local laws, ordinances
and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information. These
regulations shall be followed for the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the
Master Plan to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials and waste to and
from the site.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.3 Demolition Plans
Demolition plans with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South
San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings for
the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Demolition Plans for
safe demolition of existing structures shall include dust control and shall
incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos or lead and
recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 27 of 84
building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The
Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker Protection and offsite resident
protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building
materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to
appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and
asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plans shall include a
program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust
control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the
plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
Additionally, any soil removal plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.4 Soil Sampling
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall retain
a licensed Civil Engineer or Prc-fessional Geologist to complete additional surface
and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals,
herbicides, motor oil, other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present
in site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped under that phase of the
project. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site for that
phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to implementation of
any soil removal plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental
Screening Levels for commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation
Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.5 Contaminated Soils
If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise Plan or any subsequent
phase of the Master Plan, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established
procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect
human health and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a minimum the
Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
• Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and
remediation at the site,.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 28 of 84
• Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be
prepared by all contractors at the project site. This includes a HASP for all
demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future
subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training,
any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of
contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and
approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
• Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project
development, including engineering controls that maybe required to reduce
exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
• Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater
removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering systems in accordance
with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board guidelines.
• Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for
reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
• Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the
subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development.
• The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction
prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the
project.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.6 Compliance with Local and State Hazardous
Materials Regulations
Future businesses at the development as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent
phases of the Master Plan shall check the state and federal lists of regulated
substances available from the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department
(SMCEHD). Chemicals on the list are chemicals that pose a major threat to public
health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable or
explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to use in consultation with the
SMCEHD. Should businesses qualify for the program they shall complete a CaIARP
registration form and submit it to the SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall
submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental
releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to
emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses on the site
as a result of the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan that store
or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ) of a regulated substance must
develop a RMP and follow it. Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment if a regulated substance is released near schools,
residential areas, hospitals and childcare facilities. RMPs must include procedures
for: keeping employees and customers safe, handling regulated substances, training
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 29 of 84
staff, maintaining equipment, checking that substances are stored safely, and
responding to an accidental release.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3.7 Compliance with BAAQMD Regulations
Each independent R&D facility operating on the property shall obtain necessary
permits and comply with monitoring and inspection requirements of the BAAQMD.
Future operations shall comply with all local, state and federal requirements for
emissions. Each facility shall also meet OSHA and California OSHA standards for
R&D facilities. This includes plan review by the City of South San Francisco to
examine if the proposed development plans meet the same standards as for other
similar facilities. Engineering controls, such as exhaust hoods, filtration systems,
spill kits, fire extinguishers, and other controls, shall be incorporated into laboratory
facilities to meet OSHA and California OSHA requirements. These standards are
primarily designed to maintain worker safety, but also function to reduce the risk of
accidental upset and limit potential hazardous emissions.
The project site is located within 1/4 mile of an existing school and has a history of
hazardous material use. Residual contamination may remain in the surface soils and
in buildings on-site. A demolition plan will ensure any hazardous materials
remaining in buildings or building materials will be properly disposed of. Site soil
testing and a soil management plan will ensure that residual contamination is not
mobilized by site grading activities. The development of risk management plans
through the CaIARPP and compliance with BAAQMD and OSHA standards would
reduce risk of hazardous material releases related to post construction land uses to
a level of less than significant.
Finding Impact IU.G-3: ImpleYnentation of the mitigation measures would
incorporate management and testing procedures relating to hazardous materials
during the construction and operation phases of the project, thereby minimizing the
potential for the emission of hazardous materials to nearby school facilities.
Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.G-3.1 through IV.G-3.7
listed above, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact IV.G-4: The proposed project would be located on a site which is included
on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 30 of 84
The site is included on the "Cortese List". Portions of the project site are listed on the
following governmental databases: FINDS, RCRA -SQG, RCRA-LQG, RCRA non-gen,
HAZNET, LUST, Cortese, SWEEPS, and San Mateo County Hazardous Materials
Business Plan. Hazardous materials onsite include batteries, lamps, pesticides,
thermostats, Silver, chlorobenzene, chloroform, potassium cyanide, liquids with
halogenated organic compounds, other organic compounds, halogenated and
nonhalogenated solvents, and waste oil. Additionally, Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks at the Federal Express facility and adjacent parcels have affected
groundwater, and there contamination due to herbicides and wood preservatives
associated with the railroad grade at the southeastern edge of the project site. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.1 Demolition Plans
Demolition plans with permit applications shall be submitted to the City of South
San Francisco Building Department for approval prior to demolition of buildings for
the Precise Plan and subsequent phases of the Master Plan. The Demolition Plans for
safe demolition of existing structures shall include dust control and shall
incorporate measures for the potential release of asbestos or lead and
recommendations from the site surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous
building materials, as well as additional surveys when required by the City. The
Demolition Plans shall address both on-site Worker Protection and offsite resident
protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building
materials shall be tested for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to
appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to building demolition, hazardous
building materials such as peeling, chipping and friable lead based paint and
asbestos containing building materials shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plans shall include a
program of air monitoring for dust particulates and attached contaminants. Dust
control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be addressed in the
plan. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be conducted
in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2.
Additionally, any soil removal plans shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Groundwater Protection Program (SMGPP).
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4.2 Soil Sampling
Prior to site grading activities for all phases of the project, the applicant shall retain
a licensed Civil Engineer or Professional Geologist to complete additional surface
and subsurface soil sampling to determine if elevated levels of toxic metals,
herbicides, motor oil, other petroleum products, or wood preservatives are present
in site soils for the specific area that would be redeveloped under that phase of the
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 31 of 84
project. These tests shall take place within the entirety of the project site for that
phase. Results of testing shall be submitted to SMGPP prior to implementation of
any soil removal plans. If contamination exceeding commercial/industrial
guidelines such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental
Screening Levels for commercial/industrial Sites, USEPA Preliminary Remediation
Goals for commercial/industrial sites, or the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control Human Health Screening Levels is detected, then a Site Soil
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan shall be prepared and implemented.
Mitigation Measure IV,G-4.3 Contaminated Soils
If contamination of site soils is detected for the Precise Plan or any subsequent
phase of the Master Plan, then results shall be reported to the Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and a Site Soil Management Plan shall be prepared in
accordance with recommendations of the environmental consultant and established
procedures for safe removal. Specific mitigation measures designed to protect
human health and the environment will be provided in the Plan. At a minimum the
Plan shall include, but not be limited to the following:
• Documentation of the extent of previous environmental investigation and
remediation at the site.
• Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be
prepared by all contractors at the project site. This includes a HASP for all
demolition, grading and excavation on the site, as well as for future
subsurface maintenance work. The HASP shall include appropriate training,
any required personal protective equipment, and monitoring of
contaminants to determine exposure. The HASP will be reviewed and
approved by a Certified. Industrial Hygienist.
• Description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that could be encountered during project
development, including engineering controls that maybe required to reduce
exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
• Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination found to occur. This shall include
treatment and disposal measures for any contaminated groundwater
removed from excavations, trenches, and dewatering Water Quality Control
Board guidelines.
• Sampling and testing plan for excavated soils to determine suitability for
reuse or acceptability for disposal at a state licensed landfill facility.
• Restrictions (if any) limiting future excavation or development of the
subsurface by residents and visitors to the proposed development.
• The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the responsible jurisdiction
prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and construction permits for the
project.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 32 of 84
Finding Impact IV.G-4: The subject property is listed on numerous government
hazardous material lists as a result of storage and disposal of hazardous materials
including, but not limited to: hE~avy metals, batteries, halogenated and non-
halogenated solvents, organic compounds and motor oil. There may also be residual
contamination related to the removal of leaking underground storage tanks.
Demolition plans would be submitted for the Precise Plan and each subsequent
phase of the Master Plan. The demolition plans would ensure any hazardous
materials remaining in buildings or building materials would be properly disposed
of. Site soil testing and a soil management plan would ensure that residual
contamination is not mobilized. by site grading activities. Implementation of a site
health and safety plan would ensure worker protection, decreasing Impact IV.G-4 to
a level of less than significant.. Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation
Measures IV.G-4.1 through IV.G-4.31isted below, this impact would be less than
significant.
HYDROLOGY
Impact IV.H-1: The proposed project would violate water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements.
The project will involve an intensification of land-use through the gradual increase
in development on the site through construction of the Precise Plan and subsequent
phases of the Master Plan. Development of these phases would result in the
incremental increase in floor area and number of occupants. This increased use may
increase non-point source pollution to receiving waters. Non-point source
pollutants (NPS) are washed by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets
and parking areas into the drainage network. Typical industrial NPS pollutants for
various industrial activities are listed in Table IV.H-1 in the EIR. Development of the
proposed project would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and litter entering
downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS pollutants
could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS pollutants
could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of potential
groundwater drinking sources.
Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.1 SWPPP
Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the project applicant shall develop a SWPPP for
the Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan to protect water
quality during and after construction of each phase. The project SWPPP shall
include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation measures for the construction
period:
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 33 of 84
• Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion
control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall be
utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the ABAG Manual of
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences shall be
installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall be installed in the
flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm
drain inlets.
• "Best management practices" (BMPs) for preventing the discharge of other
construction related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i.e. paint, concrete,
etc) to dovvnstream wat:ers.
• After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for
accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of
debris and sediment. Long-term mitigation measures to be included in the
project SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, he following:
o Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the
project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and
chemicals that could be used at the proposed project site should be
described. This will include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
o Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the project site based on
identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources.
Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment
controls used as needed.
o Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including
vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet
structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media
filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc.
Wastes removed from BMPs maybe hazardous, therefore,
maintenance costs should be budgeted to include disposal at a proper
site.
o The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the
frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San
Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and
submitted annually to the SWRCB. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as
necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs.
o The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions
from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed
to all employees at the project site. At a minimum the information
shall cover: a) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; b)
proper use of landscaping chemicals; c) clean-up and appropriate
disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and d) prohibition of
any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm
drains.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 34 of 84
Mitigation Measure IV.H-1.2 Erosion Control Plans
The applicant shall complete Erosion Control Plans to be submitted to the City of
South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application for the
Precise Plan and each subsequent phase of the Master Plan. The Erosion Control
Plans shall include controls for winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution in
accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control
Measures. The Plans shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following
construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water
runoff. The Plans shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable
restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Public works staff or
representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction of the Precise
Plan and all subsequent phases of the project to ensure compliance with the grading
ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately.
Finding Impact IV.H-1: Implementation of this mitigation measure will be required
and enforced through the MMRP. The implementation of Water Quality BMPs for
stormwater runoff from the loading and trash area, would reduce the level of
potential pollutants that may enter the San Francisco Bay. Implementation of a
SWPPP including BMPs to control erosion and siltation during the construction
phase of the project will reduce erosion and siltation on and off the project site. The
long-term mitigation measures in the SWPPP are important to mitigate the
potentially increased non-point source pollution due to the intensified land-use. The
short- and long-term mitigations and BMPs outlined above will serve to reduce the
potentially significant impacts of increased non-point source pollution and
increased sedimentation to receiving waters during construction activities to a level
of less than significant.
NOISE
Finding Noise-2: Implementation of this mitigation measure will be required and
enforced through the MMRP. 7'he use of best management practices, identified in the
mitigation measure, would ensure that construction-related noise impacts do not
exceed the City-established thresholds. Accordingly, the mitigation measure would
reduce this impact to a level ofless-than-significant.
Impact IV.J-1: The proposed project could result in exposure of persons to or
generation of noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Operational noise
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 35 of 84
at the site, such as that created by HVAC equipment, would exceed the noise
generation standards set forth in the City's Municipal Code.
The heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for the project
buildings will likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. At this time the
details of the HVAC system are not known and therefore, precise predictions can not
be made regarding the noise levvels at the nearby land uses. It is possible that HVAC
noise levels could exceed the limits of the Municipal Code at adjacent noise sensitive
land uses such as the Larkspur Landing Hotel. This is considered to be a potentially
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-1.1 Operational Noise
As the proposed project moves forward an analysis of the noise generated by the
project's mechanical equipment should be conducted to assess the proposed
equipment with respect to the standards of 60 dBA at the property line between the
hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. and 65 dBA at the property line between the hours of 7
a.m. and 10 p.m. The analysis should specify the noise control measures required to
meet these noise levels. Specific measures can not be specified at this time because
of the lack of detailed information on the HVAC equipment design and location.
Typical measures include barriers or enclosures around rooftop equipment. Other
measures include duct silencers and acoustical louvers at the ventilation openings.
Once the noise control measures are included in the design a letter should be
submitted to the City Building Division should require a letter from the designer
stating that the project has been designed to meet the City's Standards.
Finding Impact IV.J-1: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-1.1 would reduce
this impact to a less than significant level by requiring the project's HVAC design to
include noise control measures adequate to meet the City's Noise Standards.
Impact IV.J-2: The proposed project could result in exposure of persons to or
generation of noise in excess of standards established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. The proposed
project could expose persons to traffic-related noise levels greater than the
upper limit of satisfactory noise levels for commercial land use of CNEL 70 dBA.
In the future, the proposed project buildings will be exposed to a CNEL of up to 76
dBA due to traffic along Oyster Point Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. The city
will require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and
noise insulation features be included, as needed, in the design. This is considered to
be a potentially significant impact.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 36 of 84
Mitigation Measure IV.J-2.1 Future Traffic Noise
Prior to the approval of any precise plan for the project site, an acoustical analysis
shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant in order to determine the
measures required to achieve acceptable interior noise levels for the buildings
included as part of the precise plan. The East of 101 Area Plan contains interior
noise level goal of Leq 45 dBA. 'This will require a noise reduction of up to 30 dBA.
This analysis can not be made at this time because of the lack of detailed
information on the glazing typE~ and exterior facade construction. Typical measures
include sound-rated windows and special exterior wall construction.
Finding Impact IV.J-2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-2.1 will reduce
this impact to a less than significant level by requiring sound-rated windows and
special exterior wall construction as necessary to meet the East of 101 Area Plan
interior noise level goal.
Impact IV.J-5: The proposed project could result in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive groundbornevfbration orgroundborne noise levels.
Construction equipment could generate noticeable vibration at adjacent buildings
on and off the site. The greatest potential for vibration generation would be during
the excavation and foundation construction activities. Pile driving often generates
the highest vibration levels at a construction site, however, pile driving would not be
required for the project. Table IV.J-6 shows the vibration levels for different
construction equipment at their closest approach to the Larkspur Landing South San
Francisco Hotel and commercial buildings both on and off the site. As the equipment
moves farther away, the vibration level drops rapidly, due to absorption from the
ground through which the vibration propagates. Construction activities would result
in vibration levels that are generally within the FTA's impact levels of 80 VdB for
residences and hotels and 83 VdB for offices. The vibration level from a vibratory
roller could slightly exceed thE~ impact criteria (by 1 VdB), but only briefly when it is
at its closest point.
Since the project would be constructed in phases, it is possible that onsite office
buildings could be still be occupied and, therefore, potentially affected during the
construction of a project building. There is also the potential for nearby buildings to
contain vibration sensitive research equipment such as electron microscopes. This
equipment could be affected at lower levels that those discussed above. Therefore,
groundborne vibration is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 Groundborne Vibration
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 37 of 84
Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities, the project applicant shall
conduct a
preconstruction survey to determine whether the construction project's activities
would impact vibration sensitive equipment located in adjacent buildings within
100 feet of the construction acl:ivity. If it is determined that no impact would occur
then construction activities shall begin and no further action need be taken. If the
project applicant determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the potential to
be affected, it shall implement .a construction schedule to ensure that construction
activities would occur during tames when vibration sensitive equipment would not
be in use.
Finding Impact IV.J-S: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-5.1 would reduce
the impact of groundborne vibration to a less than significant level by minimizing
the potential for vibration to interfere with vibration sensitive equipment which
maybe located nearby.
Impact IV.J-6: The proposed project could result in exposure of people residing
or working at the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located
within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public or public use airport.
The proposed project site is located within two miles of the San Francisco
International Airport. Noise contours prepared for the airport indicate that the
project site is located 2,700 feet outside the CNEL 60 dBA contour. Therefore, the
proposed office buildings would be exposed to an aircraft generated CNEL below 60
dBA which is considered satisfactory for commercial development by the policies of
the South San Francisco General Plan and the San Mateo County Airport Land Use
Commission. The policies of the East of 101 Area Plan indicate that office and retail
buildings located in the project area are required to provide a minimum exterior-to-
interior noise attenuation of 2'7 dBA to reduce indoor maximum instantaneous noise
levels (Lmax) from aircraft to the goal of 60 dBA (Policy NO-2). Therefore, airport
noise is a less than significant :impact with respect to the City and County criteria but
mitigation is required to be consistent with the local land use plan (East of 101 Area
Plan). Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-6.1 would ensure that impacts
remain less than significant.
Mitigation Measure IV,J-6.1 Aircraft Noise
Prior to approval of submittal of the first building permit, an aircraft sound
attenuation study must be prepared that indicates what measures will be
implemented to achieve the minimum exterior-to-interior noise attenuation of 27
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 38 of 84
dBA from aircraft overflights. The study should review the exterior window/wall
and roof/ceiling construction and specify, if necessary, measures such as sound-
ratedwindows and acoustical treatments to the fresh air ventilation system.
Finding Impact IV.J-6: Airport noise is a less than significant impact with respect to
the City and County criteria bui: mitigation is required to be consistent with the local
land use plan (East of 101 Area Plan). Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-6.1
would ensure that impacts remain less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.J-1.1, IV.J-2.1, IV.J-5.1, and IV.J-6.1
identified in this section would adequately mitigate potential impacts related to
operational noise, future traffic: noise, construction noise impacts to office uses,
groundborne vibration, and aircraft noise. These impacts would also be reduced to a
less than significant level. Ho~Never, construction noise impacts to noise sensitive
uses
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact IV.M-1: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours
The half-developed project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the
AM and PM peak hours (412 t~vo-way [inbound + outbound] trips during the AM
peak hour and 357 two-way trips during the PM peak hour [see Table IV.M-21]).
The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines
for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG
Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or
tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected
to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IU.M-1 Transportation Demand Management Program
The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG.
These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the
development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that maybe
credited for each TDM measure. The project's TDM program is included in Appendix
H to the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 412 total AM peak hour and
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 39 of 84
357 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2015. Impact
reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-1: Implementation of this mitigation measure would address
the City's Transportation Demand Management program goals. The project's TDM
program is included in Appendix H of the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset
the 412 total AM peak hour and 357 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the
project by the year 2015. The impact is reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-ZA: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S. 101
Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 5.0 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 5.2 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IvM-2A ?015 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point
Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-•20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measures.
• Add a fourth through lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
approach. In conjunction with this measure, provide an additional
westbound departure lane, which should extend to the Dubuque Avenue /
U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection.
• Restripe the right turn lane on the U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
intersection approach to also allow through movements. In conjunction with
this measure, provide a third eastbound departure lane.
• Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-
195 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
206 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will
provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation
to LOS E-65.9 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case
operation (LOS F-104 seconds control delay) Impact reduced to a less than
significant level.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 40 of 84
Finding Impact IV.M-2A: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-195
seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-206 seconds
control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-65.9 seconds
control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds control
delay). Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-2B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Entrance
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 7.9 percent at a location
where unacceptable LOS D Base Case operation would be degraded to unacceptable
LOS E operation.
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 9.9 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2B '1015 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point
Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Driveway Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measures.
• Add one additional through lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
approach (and continuE~ to the Dubuque Avenue intersection).
• Restripe the northbound two-lane driveway approach to provide a left turn
lane and acombined lei=t/through/right turn lane.
• Add an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
approach.
• Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C-
29.1 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation PM Peak Hour: The
proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which
will improve operation to LOS E-67.6 seconds control delay, which is better
than Base Case operation (LOS F-104 seconds delay)
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-2B: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C-29.1
seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation PM Peak Hour: The proposed
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 41 of 84
mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve
operation to LOS E-67.6 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case
operation (LOS F-104 seconds delay). Thus the Impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Impact IV.M-2C: Gateway Boulevard /So. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 2.1 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-2C 2015 Intersection Level of Service at Gateway
Boulevard /S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measures.
• Provide a second right turn lane on the southbound Gateway Boulevard
approach.
• Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-
59.1 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
108 seconds delay)
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-2C: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS E-59.1
seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-108 seconds
delay). Thus, the impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-ZD: Oyster Poini: Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101
Northbound On-Ramp
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 4.5 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-ZD 2015 Intersection Level of Service Oyster Point
Boulevard/DubuqueAvenue/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramplntersection (see
Figure IV.M-20 and Table IV.M-24)
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 42 of 84
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measures.
• Add a second right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
intersection approach.
• Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-
87.3 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
271 seconds control delay)
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-2D: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-87.3
seconds control delay, which is; better than Base Case operation (LOS F-271 seconds
control delay). Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-3A; Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 4.9 percent in the through
lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point intersection approach where Base Case
volumes would already be exceeding available storage. PM Peak Hour: The project
would increase volumes by 8.3 percent and 8.2 percent in the westbound Oyster
Point Boulevard approach left and right turn lanes, where Base Case volumes would
already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-3A ~.~015 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at
Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue/ U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
Intersection-Eastbound Approach (see Figure IV.M-ZO)
• See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2D
• Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile
vehicle queuing in the eastbound approach through lanes to 268 feet, which
would be better than B<~se Case queuing of 282 feet. PM Peak Hour: The
proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which
will reduce 95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach right turn
lane to 1,418 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 2,855
feet, and 95th percentile queuing in the westbound approach left turn lane
would be 1,192 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,250
feet.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 43 of 84
Finding Impact IV.M-3A: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile vehicle
queuing in the eastbound approach through lanes to 268 feet, which would be
better than Base Case queuing •of 282 feet. PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation
will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile
queuing in the westbound approach right turn lane to 1,418 feet, which would be
better than Base Case queuing ~of 2,855 feet, and 95th percentile queuing in the
westbound approach left turn lane would be 1,192 feet, which would be better than
Base Case queuing of 1,250 feet. Thus, this impact will be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Impact IV.M-3B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off- Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 7.1 percent in the Oyster
Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes, where Base Case volumes
would already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-3B 2015 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation (see
Figure IV.M-ZO) at Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover Intersection-Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane
• See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A.
• Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will reduce 95th percentile
queuing in the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes to
1,271 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,280 feet.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-3B: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reducE~ delay, which will reduce 95th percentile queuing in
the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes to 1,271 feet, which
would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,280 feet. Thus, this impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-5C: U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive
Drive Intersection
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 44 of 84
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.2 percent (from
2,151 up to 2,284 vehicles) at a location where the two-lane off-ramp diverge
capacity would be 2,300 vehicles per hour. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-50015 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline
Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive
Intersection
Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. The
required improvements are contemplated in and funded in the City's East of 101
traffic program, and by paying the City's East of 101 traffic fee, the project
proponent will be funding its fair share of the required improvements. Planned
provision of a second off-ramp would increase diverge capacity to 2,200 to 2,300
vehicles per hour. This could accommodate the project off-ramp volume of about
2,284 vehicles per hour.
Finding Impact IV.M-5C: Impllementation of this mitigation measure could
accommodate the projected ofF-ramp volume of about 2,284 vehicles per hour. Thus
the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-8: Project Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours
The totally developed project ~NOUId generate more than 100 net new trips during
the AM and PM peak hours (7Ei4 two-way (inbound + outbound) trips during the AM
peak hour and 780 two-way trips during the PM peak hour (see Table IV.M-22)).
The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines
for the implementation of the ;Z003 Draft Congestion Management Program ("C/CAG
Guidelines") specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or
tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected
to be generated by the development. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-8 Transportation Demand Management Program
The project sponsors shall implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program consistent wi1:h the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG.
These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the
development. The C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that maybe
credited for each TDM measure. The project's TDM program is included in Appendix
H to the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 764 total AM peak hour and
780 PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2035.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 45 of 84
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IY.M-8: The p:roject's TDM program is included in Appendix H to
the EIR and will generate trip credits to offset the 764 total AM peak hour and 780
PM peak hour net new trips generated by the project by the year 2035.
Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
Impact IV.M-9A: Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point
Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 3.4 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9A 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Airport
Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard Intersection (see
Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Add a second right turn lane on the Airport Boulevard Southbound approach
to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard intersection. The
applicant should pay a fair share contribution towards this measure (see
Figure IV.M-22).
• Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-
50.0 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-9A: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity
and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-50.0 seconds control
delay, which is acceptable operation. Impact reduced to a less than significant
level.
Impact IV.M-9B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S. 101
Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 6.2 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. PM Peak Hour: The project would increase
volumes by 7.7 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant irripact.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 46 of 84
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9B 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point
Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Same mitigations as for 2015.
• Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-
318 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
381 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will
provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation
to LOS F-138 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation
(LOS F-142 seconds control delay)
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-9B: will improve operation to LOS F-318 seconds control
delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 381 seconds control delay)
PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce
delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-138 seconds control delay, which is
better than Base Case operation (LOS F-142 seconds control delay) Impact reduced
to a less. than significant level.
Impact IV.M-9C: Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Entrance
AM Peak Hour: The project traffic would increase volumes by 5.7 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. PM Peak Hour: The project
would increase volumes by 7.2. percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base
Case operation. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9C 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Oyster Point
Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard /Project Entrance Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Same mitigation as for ;2015.
• Resultant Operation: A1vI Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-
130 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
150 seconds control delay) PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will
provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation
to LOS F-186 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation
(LOS F- 289 seconds control delay)
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 47 of 84
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-9C: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-130
seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 150 seconds
control delay) PM Peak Hour: T'he proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-186 seconds
control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F- 289 seconds control
delay). Thus, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-9D: Gateway Boulevard /So. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 4.5 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9D ~,~035 Intersection Level of Service at Gateway
Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue Intersection (see Figure
IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Same mitigation as for x'.015 and adjust signal timing.
• Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-
39.6 seconds control delay. Operation is improved to an acceptable level.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-9D: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduces delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-39.6
seconds control delay. Operation is improved to an acceptable level. Thus, the
impact would be reduced to a :less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-9E: Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 3.2 percent at a location
where unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation would be degraded to unacceptable
LOS F operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 48 of 84
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9E 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Airport
Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue Intersection (see Figure IV.M-
22 and Table IV.M-25)
• Restripe the Airport Boulevard right turn on the southbound approach to the
Produce Avenue/San Mateo Avenue intersection to allow through
movements. Funding for this measure would be the full responsibility of the
Project sponsor.
• Resultant Operation: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-
54.9 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
141 seconds control delay)
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-9E: Imp:lementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS D-54.9
seconds control delay, which i;> better than Base Case operation (LOS F-141 seconds
control delay). Thus the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-9G: Dubuque Avenue/ U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound
On-Ramp
Intersection
PM Peak Hour: Project traffic would degrade acceptable LOS D Base Case operation
to unacceptable LOS E operation.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9G 2035 Intersection Level of Service at Dubuque
Avenue / U.S.101
Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22
and Table IV.M-25)
• Adjust signal timing.
• Resultant Operation: P1VI Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C-
30.9 seconds control delay
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 49 of 84
Finding Impact IV.M-9G: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity
and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS C-30.9 seconds control
delay. Thus the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-10B: Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off- Rarr,~p Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 5.7 percent in the eastbound
Oyster Point Boulevard approach through lanes, where Base Case 95th percentile
queues would already be exceeding available storage. This would be a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-10B 2035 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at
Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp Intersection (see Figure IV.M-22)
• Same mitigation as for ]level of service (Mitigation Measure IV.M-9B).
• Resultant Operation: A1VI Peak Hour: Oyster Point Boulevard Eastbound
Through Lanes: The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and
reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queue to 1,633 feet, which
would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,650 feet.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-10B: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reducE~ delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queue to
1,633 feet, which would be better than Base Case queuing of 1,650 feet. Thus the
impact will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-10C: Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point
Boulevard Intersection
PM Peak Hour: The project would increase volumes by 2.9 percent in the left turn
lane and by 10.6 percent in the through lanes on the westbound Oyster Point
Boulevard intersection approach where Base Case 95th percentile queues would
already be exceeding availablE~ storage.
This would be a significant irripact.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 50 of 84
Mitigation Measure IV.M-10C'2035 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at
Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard
Intersection
• Same mitigation as for level of service (Mitigation Measure IV.M-9A)
• PM Peak Hour: Oyster F'oint Boulevard Westbound Through Lanes: The
proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which
would reduce 95th pert;entile queuing to 701 feet, which would be better
than Base Case queuing; of 738 feet. Oyster Point Boulevard Westbound Left
Turn: The proposed mittigation will provide additional capacity and reduce
delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 411 feet, which would
be better than Base Case queuing of 486 feet.
Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-10-C: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing
to 701 feet, which would be butter than Base Case queuing of 738 feet. Oyster Point
Boulevard Westbound Left Turn: The proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 411 feet,
which would be better than Base Case queuing of 486 feet, thus will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-16: Pedestrian Circulation
A wide variety of pedestrian walkways are proposed as part of the project. They
would include:
• A central pedestrian spine, which would be the major thoroughfare for
pedestrian movements through the campus. It would be wide enough to also
serve as an emergency vehicle route.
• A secondary network of walkways connecting to the central spine.
• Direct connections bet<Neen the parking structures and the central spine.
• Direct connections bet~Neen the street and the internal campus.
• Anew public sidewalk along the project's Gateway Boulevard and Oyster
Point Boulevard frontages that will connect to the existing sidewalk system
along Gateway Boulevard at the south end of the campus and to the sidewalk
system to be provided lby the 180 and 200 Oyster Point buildings. The
project's new street frontage sidewalk will be utilized to provide access to
two additional shuttle stops, which are being proposed along the site
frontage (one along Oyster Point Boulevard and one near the north end of
Gateway Boulevard).
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 51 of 84
• An existing walkway about 30 feet from Gateway Boulevard (called the
perimeter walk) that is located between hedges of Poplar trees and will be
maintained and utilized. primarily by employees.
While the proposed walkway system will provide acceptable pedestrian circulation
within the majority of the campus, all drivers using any of the four large parking
structures along the east edge of the campus will be required to cross the main
internal circulation road to access any of the project buildings. At full buildout, from
200 to 500 vehicles per hour maybe on various segments of the internal street
providing access to the garages. While speed table and pedestrian crossings of
materials other than asphalt are being considered to slow traffic and highlight
locations with significant pedestrian crossings, the proposed location of the main
internal road (on the west rather than the east side of the garages) could lead to
significant pedestrian/auto conflicts. This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-16 Aedestrian Circulation
Consider relocating the internal roadway running along the west side of the parking
garages to the east side of the garages along the project boundary. This will
eliminate thousands of pedestrian crossings of a busy internal roadway as
employees walk between the €;arages and the office buildings. An emergency access
roadway may still be required between the garages and offices to meet fire
department requirements. Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding Impact IV.M-16: Implementation of this mitigation measure will eliminate
thousands of pedestrian crossings of a busy internal roadway as employees walk
between the garages and the office buildings. An emergency access roadway may
still be required between the garages and offices to meet fire department
requirements. Impact reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact IV.M-17: Site Access and Internal Vehicle Circulation
Primary project vehicle access; would be provided via an existing signalized
intersection along Oyster Point Boulevard (about 850 feet south of Oyster Point
Boulevard and now being used for access to the project site) as well as via the south
leg of the existing signalized Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard
intersection. The south leg of t:he Veterans Boulevard intersection would also be
used for access to the 180 and 200 Oyster Point Boulevard buildings, which are
about to be completed but are not part of the Gateway project. Both major entrances
would connect to an access lane, which would run along the west side of the
project's proposed four parking garages. Two secondary signalized entrances would
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 52 of 84
also be provided to the site. One would be located along Oyster Point Boulevard at
the easterly project boundary, opposite the entrance to the 333 Oyster Point
Boulevard development and in the location of the existing FedEx driveway. The
other would be located along Gateway Boulevard at the south end of the project
frontage at an existing signal. Both secondary entrances would also connect to the
access lane running adjacent to the project's four garages. Supplemental (right turn
in/right turn out) access points would also be provided along the project's Oyster
Point Boulevard frontage (one supplemental access) and Gateway Boulevard
frontage (one supplemental access). These would provide limited pick up/drop off
access to buildings not adjacent to the internal access lane as well as access to
subsurface parking for the Gateway building on the corner of the Oyster Point
Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection. Speed tables are being considered
along all internal streets at major pedestrian crossings in order to slow speeds.
Paving would also be interrupted with contrasting materials at pedestrian crossings
and internal intersections to increase pedestrian safety.
Overall, the proposed project circulation system appears that it will function
acceptably for employees, wha~ will quickly learn which is the most convenient
driveway to use for their assigned parking garage. However, given the size of the
project, its numerous buildings and garages as well as the variety of driveway
connections to Gateway and Olympic boulevards, unless frequent, large and clear
signing is provided, visitors m<~y experience confusion in regards to finding
appropriate parking closest to their final destination. This would be a significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-17~~ccess and Internal Vehicle Circulation
Provide building addresses that can be read easily by drivers on Gateway Boulevard
and Oyster Point Boulevard. Provide easy-to-follow directions for visitors from the
access driveway intersections along Gateway Boulevard or Oyster Point Boulevard
and along the internal driveways to the specific garage associated with each office
building. Impact reduced to a less than significant level,
Finding Impact IV.M-17: Implementation of this mitigation measure will provide
easy-to-follow directions for visitors from the access driveway intersections along
Gateway Boulevard or Oyster Point Boulevard and along the internal driveways to
the specific garage associated with each office building. Impact reduced to a less
than significant level.
UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 53 of 84
Impact IV.N-1: The proposed project would create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of e:~isting or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional ;sources of polluted runoff. Surface and stormwater
runoff in the project area is collected by the City's storm drainage system and is
discharged to San Francisco Bay east of the project area. The existing storm
drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from office
development and the amount of existing impervious surfaces in the area. The
proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the
area with similar uses. The project consists of the phased removal and replacement
of existing buildings on the 22.6 acre project site and construction of five to six new
office buildings and two to four parking structures. As a result of increased traffic,
increased stormwater pollutants, such as copper and zinc from break pads23 or oil
from leaking engines, may result in a potentially significant change in storm water
quality.
To comply with the Clean WatE~r Act (CWA), STOPPP was formed. STOPPP holds a
joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit
includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San
Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo
Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed
projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These
guidelines are regulated by the SSFMC, General Plan, or other best management
practices guidelines. The project site is divided into three separate sub-drainage
areas: North (Portion of Building 1000), Central (Portion of Buildings 800 and 1000)
and South (Buildings 700, 750,, 850, 900 and a portion of Building 800). The on-site
storm drainage system varies :in size from 12-inch to 30-inch in diameter. The three
sub-drainage areas discharge 1:o the City's public storm drainage system as follows:
North Sub- Drainage Area, Central Sub-Drainage Area, and South Sub-Drainage Area.
The North sub-drainage area discharges to the existing 18-inch to 24-inch public
storm drainage system on Oyster Point Boulevard. The Oyster Point Boulevard
storm drainage system outfalls to the San Francisco Bay at the Oyster Cove
Marina (north of the Master Plan Area) via a 24 by 30-inch box storm drain line. The
Central subdrainage area discharges to the existing 18-inch public storm drainage
line on Gateway Boulevard. The existing 18-inch Gateway Boulevard line connects
to the Oyster Point Boulevard public storm drainage system at the intersection of
Oyster Point and Gateway Boulevard. The South sub-drainage area discharges to the
existing 30-inch public storm drain line on Gateway Boulevard. The Gateway
Boulevard public storm drainage system collects and conveys storm runoff from the
site and outfalls south of the sate to Colma Creek. The outfall is located east of the
intersection of Harbor Way anal Mitchell Avenue. The Gateway Boulevard public
system varies in size from 30-inch to 72-inch.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 54 of 84
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.1 l)perational SWPPP
The project applicant shall develop an operational SWPPP for all drainage to the
Central and South Sub-Drainage areas prior to construction of the Precise Plan and
for the North Sub-Drainage area prior to construction of the subsequent phases of
the Master Plan to protect water quality after construction. These project SWPPPs
shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures for project operation:
• Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the project site
for each phase of the
• Master Plan. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that
could be used for each phase of the Master Plan at the proposed project site
shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and
potential pollutant sources.
• Identification of BMPs to be implemented for the Precise Plan and for each
phase of the Master Plan at the project site based on identified industrial
activities and potential pollutant sources.
• Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls
uses as needed.
• Development of a monitoring and implementation plan for the Precise Plan
and for each phase of the Master Plan. Maintenance requirements and
frequency shall be careirully described including vector control, clearing of
clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape
maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots
and other paced areas, •etc. Wastes removed from BMPs maybe hazardous;
therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a
proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared on a daily basis of debris that
may enter the storm drain system.
• The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the
frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco.
Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually in
coordination with the S'~TOPPP. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to
address any inadequaciies of the BMPs.
• The project applicant shhall prepare informational literature and guidance on
industrial and commercial BMPs for the Precise Plan and each phase of the
Master Plan to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed
development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the
project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: (1) proper disposal
of commercial cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping chemicals;
(3) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals;
and (4) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals
into storm drains.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.2 ,Storm Drain Interceptors
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 55 of 84
The project applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor (also known as an
oil/water or oil/grit separator)I on-site to remove oils and heavy particulates from
stormwater at appropriate storm drains for the Precise Plan and each phase of the
Master Plan. Appropriate sizinl; of the unit relative to the impervious surface
drainage area is important and should be taken into consideration when choosing
the interceptor unit model and size.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.3
Impervious Area Drainage Retention Devices The project applicant shall incorporate
alternative drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near large areas of
impervious surfaces such as public plazas to increase pervious surfaces on the site
and increase infiltration. This shall be done for the Precise Plan and each phase of
the Master Plan. Such solutions may include, but are not limited to, vegetated
swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.4 Rooftop Retention Devices
The project applicant shall incorporate rooftop or downspout retention into all
building plans proposed by the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan to
capture all roof runoff.
Finding Impact IY.N-1: ConstY•uction impacts to water quality are mitigated through
soil stabilization and erosion control techniques as described in Mitigation Measure
IV.H-1.1 and IV.H-1.2 in Section IV.H (Hydrology/Water Quality) of this Draft EIR.
However, operation of the proposed project could contribute to polluted
stormwater runoff. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, as
described above, mitigation measures, such as incorporating rooftop downspouts
and the installation of a storm drain interceptor to capture oil and heavy
particulates before entering stormwater drainage systems, would minimize
pollutant contributions to stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, implementation
of Mitigation Measure IV.N-1.9~ would reduce operation impacts associated with
polluted runoff to aless-than-significant level.
Impact IV.N-2: The proposed :project would require or result in the construction of
new water treatment, distribution, or conveyance facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.1 Fire Flow Analysis Report
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 56 of 84
In order to assure that the water system has the ability to serve peak flow demands
including for fire flow, prior to first building permit for all buildings constructed for
the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, the project applicant shall
consult a NCEES certified Fire Protection Engineer to prepare an analysis of the
proposed project and determir.~e the required design fire flow and fire duration. A
certified report shall be submitted to the South San Francisco Fire Department for
review and comment to ensures that all required design fire flow and fire duration
requirements are met.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.2 Fire Flow Testing
In order to assure that the water system has the ability to serve peak flow demands
including for fire flow, prior to receiving a building permit for all buildings
constructed for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan, the project
applicant shall perform fire flow tests for all hydrants within 500 feet of the project
site pursuant to American Water Works Association filed testing standards25 to
verify if adequate fire flows defined in Mitigation Measure N-5 are achieved. Any
deficiency measured shall be corrected and retested prior occupancy.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.3 Fire Protection Water Supply
In order to assure that the water system has the ability to provide water supply for
fire protection, prior to occupancy of all buildings constructed for the Precise Plan
and each phase of the Master Flan, California Water Service Company shall certify
that reservoir storage, beyond their operational and emergency allotments,
required for adequate protection identified in Mitigation Measure IV.N-2.1 will be
maintained at all times.
Finding Impact IV.N-2: The proposed project could have a potentially significant
impact on the water system that delivers the required fire flows. Water for fire flow
would be provided in 12 inch mains that would be constructed with the Precise Plan
and each phase of the project. The water distribution system is owned and operated
by CWSC. The water system consists of a network of 12-and 10-inch lines which
should be adequate to serve tl-ie required flows.24 .To avoid impacts to the water
system's ability to serve peak :flow demands, fire flow testing as well as analysis and
certification by fire protection personnel as described in Mitigation Measure IV.N-
2.1 above would reduce the impacts associated with increased fire flow demands to
a less than significant level.
Impact IV.N-4: The proposed. project would have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources and no new or
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 57 of 84
expanded entitlements are needed. While this is aconsidered aless-than-significant
impact, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1 would further minimize the
impact and ensure that it remains less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measure IV.N-4.1 {Water Conservation
In order to reduce water demands of all phases of the project, the project applicant
shall include methods of water conservation in the proposed project's buildings and
landscaping for the Precise Plan and each phase of the Master Plan. These methods
shall include, but not be limited, to the following:
• Install water-conservin;; dishwashers and washing machines, and water-
efficient centralized coaling systems in all new buildings (this method would
not apply to process development or
• research development laboratory equipment);
• nstall water-conserving; irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and
evaportranspiration-based irrigation controllers);
• Design landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants;
and
• Install water-saving devices such as water-efficient toilets, faucets, and
showerheads.
Finding Impact IV.N-4: The W~SA was prepared using the assumptions that
approximately 40 percent of the proposed new building space will be used for
offices and the remaining 60 percent of space for biotechnology research and
development laboratories. R&]D uses typically consume more water than office uses.
Therefore, the estimated increase in water demand due to the proposed project of
49,411 gpd is more conservative than what would be demanded under full buildout
of the Precise Plan and all sub<.~equent phases of the Master Plan. The project would
employ a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-equivalent
standard for the design of the new buildings and would use water consumption. In
addition, Cal Water concluded that for the next 20 years, the SSF District will have
adequate water supplies to mE~et projected demands associated with the proposed
project along with those of all existing customers and all other anticipated future
users for normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions. Therefore, the
impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
While the proposed project's effect on water supply is not a significant effect under
CEQA, the proposed measures, addressing the installation ofwater-conserving
appliances including dishwasl-iers, washing machines, toilets, and faucets and the
use of drought-resistant plants in landscaping, would minimize the project site's
water demand. Therefore, Mitigation Measure IV.4.1 above would reduce the
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 58 of 84
proposed project's contribution to the total water demand, ensuring that the less-
than-significant impact remains so.
Section IV: Findings Regardine Alternatives
The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of three alternatives to the project. All
alternatives are located on the project site. Differences between the build
alternatives include square footage of development, land uses allowed on the site,
total employees, and the number of parking spaces.
Alternative A: No Project/Buildout Under Existing General Plan. Alternative A
assumes the Applicant's proposal is not approved, but would allow for
redevelopment of the project site under the existing General Plan and zoning
regulations, including at a maximum FAR of 1.0. This alternative assumes that
development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by
2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50
percent each). This alternative would result in the construction of approximately
492,225 sf of office uses and 492,225 sf of R&D uses, for a total of 984,500 sf of
development. Buildout under Alternative A would result in approximately 2,406
employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces
per 1,000 sf of development for a total of 2,835 spaces.
Alternative B: Reduced ProjE:ct Alternative. Alternative B would allow
redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, but developed with Research &
Development (R&D) uses only resulting in a reduced project due to the reduction of
employees on site. This alternative assumes that development on the site could be
phased but that total buildout would occur by 2020. Under Alternative B, buildout
on the site would result in the construction of approximately 1,230,570 sf of R&D
uses. Buildout under Alternative B would result in approximately 2,735 employees
on the project site. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,000 sf
of development for a total of 3,544 spaces.
Alternative C: Reduced Parking Alternative. Alternative C would develop the site
with Office and R&D uses at ari FAR of 1.25. This alternative assumes that
development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by
2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of Office and R&D uses (50
percent each). Alternative C would result in the construction of approximately
1,230,570 sf of development and approximately 3,009 employees on the site. Under
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 59 of 84
Alternative C, parking would bf~ provided at a reduced ratio of 2.3 spaces per 1,000
sf resulting in a total of 2,264 parking spaces on the site.
The City Council hereby concludes that the EIR sets forth a reasonable range of
alternatives to the Project, so as to foster informed public participation and informed
decision making. The City Council finds that the alternatives identified and described in
the EIR were considered and further finds them to be infeasible for the specific
economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section
21081(c).
ALTERNATIVE A: NO-PROJECT
Alternative A - No Project/ Buildout Under Existing General Plan Alternative
As required by CEQA, this subsection analyzes a "No Project" Alternative
(Alternative A). CEQA requires the evaluation of a "No Project" alternative, which
assumes "the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to
occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current
plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (CEQA
Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e] [2]). Evaluation of this alternative allows the City to
compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not
approving the proposed project.
Alternative A assumes that they proposed project would not be approved, but the
Alternative would still allow for the redevelopment of the project site under the
existing General Plan and zoning regulations, including development to a FAR of 1.0.
This Alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that
total buildout would occur by 2020. Buildout on the site would be a combination of
Office and R&D uses (50 percent each). This alternative would result in the
construction of approximately 492,225 sf of office uses and 492,225 sf of R&D uses,
for a total of 984,500 sf of development. Buildout under Alternative A would result
in approximately 2,406 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at
a ratio of 2.83 spaces per 1,OOiD sf of development for a total of 2,835 spaces.
Aesthetics
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 60 of 84
The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative A, a
business park housing Office and R & D uses would be developed on the site. Similar
to the project, no public views Ito scenic vistas would be blocked and impacts to
scenic vistas would be less than significant. Additionally, similar to the project there
would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed at an
FAR of 0.29. Alternative A would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.0, a
higher density. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished
primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the
amount of open space on the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on
the site. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative A would result in
improvements to the visual quality of the site by increasing open space and
pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a cohesive pedestrian-oriented
environment. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative A would
similar to the project and would be subject to the same City standards as the project.
Therefore, impacts to visual character and light and glare under Alternative A would
be less than significant and tree same as under the project. Overall impacts to visual
resources would be the same a.s under the project.
Air Quality
Similar to the project, Alternative A would involve the demolition of the existing
structures on the site. Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with
approximately 984,500 squarE~ feet of Office and R & D uses. Alternative A would be
consistent with the City's General Plan FAR of 1.0. Therefore, unlike the project,
Alternative A would not create a significant unavoidable impact due to
inconsistency with the BAAQN[D's Clean Air Plan. Alternative A would implement
the same construction mitigation measures as the project and this impact would be
less than significant and similar to the project. Alternative A would result in
operational emissions primarily from increased vehicular trips to and from the
commercial development. Altriough Alternative A would result in an approximately
20 percent decrease in square footage of development and proposes 50 percent
R&D uses (which would generate fewer employees), this decrease would not be
enough to reduce the project's significant unavoidable PM10 emissions. Therefore,
air quality impacts PM10 emissions from under Alternative A (both project and
cumulative) would remain significant and unavoidable, similar to the project.
Local CO concentrations would be reduced incrementally, however, impacts would
remain less than significant acid the same as under the project. Assuming that
Alternative A would be constructed in a phased manner and therefore the childcare
facility could remain on site during some phases of the project, the impacts from
TACs would remain the same .as under the project and less than significant. Similar
to the project, there would be less than significant impacts from objectionable odors
under Alternative A and it would not conflict with the State goals in AB 32. Overall
impacts to air quality under Alternative A, although incrementally less than under
the project, would be the same as under the project and remain significant and
unavoidable.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 61 of 84
Biological Resources
The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological
resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative A could potentially
remove fewer trees on the site during construction of new buildings due to the
decrease in FAR on the site. However, under Alternative A, project construction
activities could result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of
vegetation or grading or could potentially result in the abandonment of active nests
due to noise and increased activity. As with the project, mitigation measures would
reduce this impact to less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative A
would have no impact to riparian habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors.
Regarding the removal of trees,, impacts to tree removal and conflict with existing
codes or plans protecting biological resources would be less than significant and
the same under Alternative A ais the project.
Cultural Resources
The project site has been develloped and redeveloped several times in the twentieth
century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make
the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be
impacted by development that: could occur under Alternative A. Similar to the
proposed project, the potential for disturbance of subsurface resources, including
fossilbearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological
sites and sites of cultural signi:Ficance to Native Americans, during ground disturbing
activities still exists under this alternative. Mitigation measures would be expected
to be developed for any future construction at the site, and possible impacts to
historical resources would be ;avoided to the extent feasible. Under Alternative A,
impacts to cultural resources ~NOUId remain less than significant, and similar to the
proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Development of the site under the existing General Plan FAR of 1.0 would result in
slightly less
development (984,500 sf opposed to 1,230,570 sf). Similar to the project, there
would be no impact due to they lack of an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone on the site.
Geologic hazards such as seismic ground shaking would still exist under this
alternative. However, impacts would be lessened due to decreased development
which would directly result in fewer people exposed to ground shaking at the site.
Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil, subsidence, expansive soils,
and landslides would be the same as under the project as this alternative would
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 62 of 84
result in grading and construction over the entire site. Collectively, impacts would
be less than significant, and less than the proposed project due to the presence of
fewer buildings and people on the site.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of Alternative A, as with the proposed project, would likely result in
development of additional labc-ratories and other research facilities that would use,
store, or require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. However, fewer
of these uses would be constructed under Alternative A. As with the proposed
project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state,
and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine
use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than
significant. However, impacts would be incrementally less due to the reduced
development on the site.
Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be demolished
in order to make room for new' development. These buildings potentially contain
hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-
halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum products. During
demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from structures at the
site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would still be included
on government lists of sites containing hazardous materials, and development at the
site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. However, as
projects are reviewed on a situ-by-site basis, mitigation measures would be
identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Impacts associated
with the release of hazards and hazardous materials under this alternative would be
incrementally less due to the smaller amount of development and remain less than
significant. Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also
remain the same, and it is expE~cted That mitigation measures would be identified to
ensure impacts remain less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Qualit~~
Buildout under Alternative A would result in development of 984,456 sf of Office
and R&D uses at the site. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS) pollutants
associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site. Development
of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and Litter
entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS
pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS
pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of
potential groundwater drinking sources. However, mitigation measures would
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 63 of 84
reduce impacts to a less than significant level and this impact would be the same as
under the project.
Alternative A could result in a reduction of impervious surfaces. Approximately 70
percent of the project site is currently covered in impervious surfaces.
Implementation of the project would decrease impervious surfaces from 70 percent
to 61 percent of the project site. Under Alternative A, fewer buildings would be
developed and it is likely, although unknown if, Alternative A would result in a
greater percentage of pervious surfaces. Mitigation measures would be expected to
be developed on a site by site basis, as individual projects are proposed and
reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts would be
less than significant, but not less than the proposed project. Redevelopment at the
project site under Alternative A would involve demolition of existing structures and
paved areas, as well as grading, activities. Construction operations associated with
this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by
subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional forces of runoff during
construction. However, mitigal:ion measures would reduce these impacts to a less
than significant level. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water quality
would, similar to the project, be less than significant under Alternative A.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative A, the project site would be redeveloped with business park uses.
These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area
which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development
activities. Similar to the project, Alternative A would redevelop the project site and
there would be no division or displacement and therefore no impact to existing
residential communities.
Under Alternative A, a General. Plan Amendment would not be required as the FAR
on the site would be consistent with the existing General Plan allowance. However,
the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning allowing an FAR of 1.25 was adopted for
the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway Specific Plan
District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are redeveloped, it is likely
That they may request General Plan Amendments to allow redevelopment at
increased densities. Although density under Alternative A would be consistent with
the General Plan density for the site, it would not be consistent with the City's vision
for development in the area, and this impact would be slightly greater than under
the project and be less than significant. There are no natural community plans or
applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project
site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 64 of 84
project, Alternative A would have no impact to conflict with any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plans.
Noise
Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately
984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning (HVAC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-
tops of the buildings. Similar tc~ the project, mitigation measures would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings on the site
under Alternative A could be e:posed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway
Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would
require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise
insulation features be included., as needed, in the design and this impact would be
less than significant and the same as under the project.
Alternative A would result in an approximately 20 percent decrease in square
footage of development and there would a corollary decrease in employees on the
site, and therefore, traffic generated noise due to the decrease in vehicular trips.
This would further reduce the less than 1.1 dBA increase in noise attributed to
project generated traffic. This iimpact under the project would be less than
significant and would remain the same under Alternative A. However, in the future
cumulative traffic will increasE~ the traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses
along Gateway and Oyster Poirlt Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic
will increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use along Sister Cities
Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the
threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Alternative A would further reduce
noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease in vehicle trips and similar to the
project the contribution to this; increase is generally small (1.4 dBA or less).
However, since Alternative A would contribute the overall increase in traffic noise, it
would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact the same as
the project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant and the same
as under the project. Under
Alternative A, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be
less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project, redevelopment
activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be
operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise
sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant
and unavoidable impact.
Population and Housing
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 65 of 84
Development under Alternative A would result in the employment of 2,406
employees at the project site b~~ 2020. ABAG projects an increase in employment in
the City of South San Francisco of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from
2015 to 2020. Therefore, this alternative's contribution to the increase in
employment in the City would lbe within ABAG's employment projections for the
City for both the years of 2015 and 2020 and would be less than significant. The
proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections. However,
Alternative A would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore,
reduce the demand for housin€; in the City as compared to the demand which would
result from the proposed project. This alternative, as well as the proposed project,
would promote a greater regional jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly
induce substantial population €;rowth and this impact would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed projectt, there would be no impact from the displacement of
existing housing, need for construction of replacement housing, nor displacement of
substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, overall impacts to population
and housing would be less than significant and Incrementally less than the
proposed project.
Public Services
Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced
proportionally with the reduction in development under Alternative A.
Development of this alternative would result in 2,406 employees at the site,
constituting a minor increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population
and would not lead to a changE~ in response times, service ratios, and/or
requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times
and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result
in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public
services would be less than si,~gni~cant, and incrementally less than the proposed
project. No mitigation measures would be necessary.
Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately
984,500 square feet of Office and R & D uses. Alternative A would result in an
approximately 20 percent decrease in square footage of development and would
include R & D uses and a commensurate reduction in the number of employees on
the site. This reduction would result in an approximately 26 percent decrease in the
number of trips generated under Alternative A as opposed to the project.
Alternative A would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation
limits by 2015 and 2035, but similar to the project this impact would be reduced to
less than significant. Similar to the project, Alternative A would result in less than
significant impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Alternative A
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 66 of 84
would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the
project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in
vehicle trips is not enough to rE~duce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to
the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S.
101 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same as under the project,
significant and unavoidable. ,Alternative A would provide parking at a 2.83 ratio
and would, unlike the project, meet code requirements. Assuming that the parking
garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and
vehicular circulation would be the less than significant, and the same under
Alternative A as the project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative A, the project site would be developed with approximately
984,500 square feet of Office a:nd R & D uses. Similar to the project, surface and
stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute
runoff water which would excE~ed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or result in t:he need for construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Alternative A would result in fewer
square feet of development than the project and would result in incrementally less
demand for water supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses.
Additionally, Alternative A would result in reduced wastewater and solid waste
generation due to the smaller :square footage of development. Overall impacts to
utilities and service systems under Alternative A would be incrementally less than
the project and would be less than significant.
Relationship of Alternative A to the Project Objectives
Alternative A would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project
site. Alternative A could potentially meet the project objectives of redeveloping the
project site to create a cohesive working campus environment, emphasizing the
pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture, connecting to
various transit modes, and allowing the incremental and phased redevelopment of
the site. However, this redevelopment would occur at the existing General Plan FAR
of 1.0 and Alternative A would not meet the project's objective to increase the floor
area ratio (FAR) from 0.29 to 1.25. Additionally, the 1.25 FAR proposed by the
project is allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning. This FAR was
adopted by the City for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire
Gateway Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are
redeveloped, it is likely that they will also be developed at increased densities as
well. Therefore, although Alter°native A would be feasible it would not meet the
project's objective to redevelop the site at an FAR of 1.25 nor meet the City's intent
to redevelopment the Gateway Specific Plan District at this FAR.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 67 of 84
Finding: The No Project Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives.
Alternative A would not meet the project's objective to increase the floor area ratio
(FAR) from 0.29 to 1.25. Additionally, the 1.25 FAR proposed by the project is
allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning. This FAR was adopted by
the City for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway
Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are
redeveloped, it is likely that they will also be developed at increased densities as
well. Therefore, although Alternative A would be feasible it would not meet the
project's objective to redevelop the site at an FAR of 1.25 nor meet the City's intent
to redevelopment the Gateway Specific Plan District at this FAR. Likewise,
Alternative A would result in retaining aging and inadequate low-density buildings
on the site. The existing site development would generation fewer employees and
would weaken the City's overall support for the Life Sciences Industry cluster in the
East of 101 Area.
ALTERNATIVE B: REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Alternative B would allow redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, but
developed with Research & Development (R&D) uses only resulting in a reduced
project due to the reduction of employees on site. This alternative assumes that
development on the site could be phased but that total buildout would occur by
2020. Under Alternative B, buildout on the site would result in the construction of
approximately 1,230,570 sf of R&D uses. Buildout under Alternative B would result
in approximately 2,735 employees on the project site. Parking would be provided at
a ratio of 2.83 spaces per1,00C1 sf of development for a total of 3,544 spaces
ImpactAnalysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be
potentially significant under the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts are
discussed only if implementation of the alternative will substantially increase the
impact. Reduced development; intensity proposed under this Alternative would
produce fewer vehicle trips acid less air pollutant emissions. However, the
Alternative's resulting degree of trip generation reduction would not reduce traffic
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 68 of 84
levels sufficiently to reduce either the C/CAG peak hour trip generation limit impact
(Traf-1), nor any off-site traffic impact to a less than significant level.
Reduced square footage would result in a shorter construction phase so a reduced
impact related to construction noise and diesel emissions from construction
vehicles. Reduced square footage would also be expected to result in a reduced
number of workers/level of operations so would translate to a reduction in the
operational use of hazardous materials and potential for hazardous materials-
related impacts. A reduction in the number of workers on site would also slightly
reduce impacts related to geological events that could pose a danger to people as
there would be fewer people ors site.
Aesthetics
The project site is currently developed as a business park. Under Alternative B,
another business park would be developed on the site housing R & D uses only.
Similar to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and there
would be less than significanl~ impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, similar to the
project there would be no impact to state scenic highways.
The site is currently developed at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative B would result in
development of the site at an FAR of 1.25, the same density as the project. Similar to
the project, this increase in FAR could be accomplished primarily by increasing the
height of the buildings on the site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on
the site, which would minimize the feeling of density on the site. Therefore, similar
to the project, Alternative B would result in improvements to the visual quality of
the site by increasing open space and pedestrian-oriented areas and creating a
cohesive pedestrian-oriented environment. Therefore, impacts to visual character
and light and glare under Alternative B would be less than significant and the same
as under the project. Therefore, impacts under Alternative B would be the same as
under the project.
Air Quality
Similar to the project, Alternative B would involve the demolition of the existing
structures on the site and construction of office buildings and would implement the
same construction mitigation measures as the project. Therefore, construction
impacts would be less than significant and the same under Alternative B as the
project. Similar to the project, Alternative B would result in development of the site
at an FAR of 1.25 and would result in the same impact regarding consistency with
BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan. Although Alternative B would result in the same amount
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 69 of 84
of development on the site, it v~~ould result in fewer employees and therefore fewer
vehicular trips. However, although Alternative B would result in an approximately
16 percent decrease in employees on the site, this decrease would not be enough to
reduce vehicle trips significantly enough to eliminate the project's significant
unavoidable PM10 emissions.'Cherefore, air quality impacts PM10 emissions from
under Alternative B (both project and cumulative) would remain, similar to the
project, significant and unava~idable.
Impacts from local CO concentrations would be incrementally less than under the
project and less than significant. Assuming that Alternative B would be constructed
in a phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during
some phases of the project, they impacts from TACs would remain less than
signifTCant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project, Alternative B
would not create any objectionable odors and would not conflict with the State goals
in AB 32.Overall impacts to air quality under Alternative B, although incrementally
less, would be the same as under the project.
Biological Resources
The project site is currently developed as a business park and the only biological
resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative B has the same potential
to remove trees on the site during construction of new buildings as the project.
Under Alternative B, project construction activities could result in the destruction of
active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result
in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. However,
similar to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than
significant. Similar to the project, Alternative B would have no impact to riparian
habitat, wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts
to tree removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological
resources would be the same under Alternative B as the project and less than
significant.
Cultural Resources
The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the past
century. These processes have almost completely removed potential for, and make
the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be
impacted by development. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for
disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities, including
fossil bearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and
archeological sites and sites oI' cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists
under this alternative. Mitigatiion measures would be developed for any future
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 70 of 84
construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be
avoided to the extent feasible, Ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under
Alternative B, impacts to cultural resources would remain the same as under the
proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Development of the site under this alternative would produce the same amount of
development
(1,230,570 sf) as the proposed project. However, restricting uses to R&D would
result in fewer employees at the site. Geologic hazards such as seismic ground
shaking would still exist under this alternative. However, impacts would be lessened
due to decreased employee generation which would directly result in a lower
amount of people that would be exposed to seismic ground shaking and would be
less than significant. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil,
subsidence, expansive soils, anal landslides would remain the same under this
alternative as the same amount of the site area that would be built upon (50 percent
of the total site), and the size of the development (1,230, 570 sf) would remain the
same. Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, and less than the
proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implementation of this alternative could possibly increase impacts related to
hazards and hazardous materials. Development of this alternative would result in
the creation of R&D uses only, which would increase the amount of additional
laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the
transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As with the proposed project,
compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local
laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine use of
hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant.
However, with this alternative, potential for accidental release or upset could
increase with additional chemicals from R&D uses present at the site. Therefore,
hazards to the public or the environment may increase, compared to the proposed
project. Similar to the proposed project, existing buildings at the site would be
demolished in order to make room for new development. These buildings
potentially contain hazardous materials including waste oil, asbestos, lead paint,
halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic compounds, and petroleum
products. During demolition operations hazardous materials could be released from
structures at the site or from the underlying soils. Portions of the project site would
still be included on government lists of hazardous materials sites, and development
at the site could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 71 of 84
However, as projects are revie~Ned on a site-by-site basis, mitigation measures
would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the
same, and it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to ensure
impacts remain less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The reduced project alternative would result in development of 1,230,570 sf of R&D
uses at the site, with a FAR of 1..25. Typical industrial non-point source (NPS)
pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be present at the site.
Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and
litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. An increase in NPS
pollutants could have adverse effects on wildlife, vegetation, and human health. NPS
pollutants could also infiltrate into groundwater and degrade the quality of
potential groundwater drinking sources. However, mitigation measures would be
identified, to reduce possible impacts to a less than significant level.
This alternative would result in similar impacts to impervious surfaces, as those
identified for the proposed project. Approximately 70 percent of the project site is
currently covered in impervious surfaces. This alternative would include a number
of strategies designed to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces.
Implementation of these stratE~gies would decrease impervious surfaces from 70
percent to 61 percent of the project site. Reducing the amount of impervious
surfaces would reduce impacts to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge.
Therefore, it is anticipated that under this alternative, impacts to groundwater
would be less than signi~can~t, and similar to the proposed project.
Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative would involve demolition
of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction
operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion
from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional
forces of runoff during construction. However, it is expected that mitigation
measures would be identified in order to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level. Impacts would be similar to those identified for proposed project. Like the
proposed project, this alternative provides strategies intended to result in a net
benefit to hydrology and water quality. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology
and water quality would be less than significant under Alternative B.
Land Use and Planning
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 72 of 84
Under Alternative B, the project site would be redeveloped with R & D uses. These
uses would be consistent with. existing land uses in the surrounding area which
include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities.
Similar to the project, under Alternative B no existing residential communities
would be displaced or divided..and there would be no impact. Under Alternative B, a
General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to 1.25 would be required. Similar to
the project, once this General Plan Amendment was approved this FAR of 1.25 (and
as allowed under the Gateway Specific Plan District zoning) would be consistent
with the General Plan. Therefore, similar to the project, density under Alternative B
would be consistent with the City's vision for development in the area and would
not be inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the increased density and this
impact would be less than significant. There are no natural community plans or
applicable habitat conservation plans that apply to the project site and the project
site does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Therefore, similar to the
project, Alternative B would have no impact to conflict with any habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plans.
Noise
Under Alternative B, the project site would be redeveloped with R & D uses and the
heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment for buildings would
likely be located on the roof-tops of the buildings. Similar to the project, mitigation
measures would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Similar to the
project, buildings constructed on the site under Alternative B could be exposed to a
CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along (iateway Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point
Boulevard. However, the City would require that an analysis of noise reduction
requirements be conducted anal noise insulation features be included, as needed, in
the design and this impact would be the same as under the project and less than
significant.
Alternative B would result in the same square footage of development as the project.
However, R&D uses require fewer employees and there would a corollary decrease
in traffic generated noise due t;o the decrease in vehicular trips. This would further
reduce the less than 1.1 dBA increase in noise attributed to project generated traffic.
This impact under the project would be less than significant and would remain the
same under Alternative B. Hovvever, in the future cumulative traffic will increase the
traffic noise levels at the commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point
Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA. Cumulative traffic will increase the traffic noise levels
at residential land use along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These
cumulative traffic noise increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant
increase. Alternative B would reduce noise impacts from traffic due to the decrease
in vehicle trips and similar to t:he project the contribution to this increase is
generally small (1.4 dBA or les;s).
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 73 of 84
However, since Alternative B v~~ould contribute to this overall increase in traffic
noise, it would result in a signij~cant and unavoidable cumulative impact the same
as the project.
Impacts from aircraft noise would be less than significant, the same as under the
project. Under
Alternative B, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be
less than significant with mitigation. However, similar to the project,
redevelopment activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility
might still be operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect
the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar
significant and unavoidable impact.
Population and Housing
Development under Alternative B would result in the generation of 2,735 employees
at the project site by 2020. AB,~G projects an increase in employment in the City of
3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this
alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within
ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020.
The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections; however,
Alternative B would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore,
reduce the demand for housing in the City as compared to the proposed project.
This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional
jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population
growth and this impact would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not
displace existing housing, necE~ssitate construction of replacement housing, nor
displace substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, impacts to
population and housing wouldl be less than significant and similar to the proposed
project.
Public Services
Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced
proportionally with the reduc1tion in development under this alternative.
Development of this alternative would result in 2,735 employees at the site. This
alternative would constitute a negligible increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's
daytime population and would not lead to a change in response times, service ratios,
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 74 of 84
and/or requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current
response times and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities
that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the
impact to public services would be less than significant, and incrementally less
than the proposed project. No mitigation measures would be necessary.
Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative B, the same number of square feet of development would occur as
under the project. However this development would be limited to R & D uses only,
which requires fewer workers for the same number of square feet of development.
Therefore, Alternative B would result in approximately 26 percent less employees
on the site and an approximatE~ly 26 percent decrease in the number of trips
generated under Alternative B as opposed to the project.
However, Alternative B would generate enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip
generation limits by 2015 and 2035. Similar to the project this impact would be
reduced to less than significant. Alternative B would result in less than significant
impacts to intersections and vehicle queuing by 2015. Similar to the project,
Alternative B would result in impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015.
Similar to the project, these impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the
reduction in vehicle trips is not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable
impacts. Similar to the project, 2035 intersection impacts would be less than
significant. Impacts to U.S. 10'1 mainline and ramps under 2035 would be the same
as under the project, significant and unavoidable.
Alternative B would provide parking at a 2.83 ratio and would, unlike the project,
meet code requirements. Assuming that the parking garages would be located at the
back of the site, impacts to pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation would be the
same under Alternative B as the project and there would be no impact.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative B, the same number of square feet of development would occur as
under the project. However this development would be limited to R & D uses only,
which requires fewer workers for the same number of square feet of development.
Similar to the project, surface ;and stormwater runoff would be collected on-site and
would not create or contributE~ runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or result in the need for
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. Although Alternatives B would result in the same square footage of
development, the development of R&D only uses would result in fewer employees
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 75 of 84
on the site than the project and would result in incrementally less demand for water
supplies for fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses. Additionally, Alternative B
would result in reduced wastewater and solid waste generation due to the smaller
number of employees on the site. Overall impacts to utilities and service systems
under Alternative B would be incrementally less than the project and would be less
than significant.
Relationship of Alternative B to the Project Objectives
Alternative B would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project
site and would meet all of the project's objectives. This alternative would allow for
redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, however, the use would be
restricted to Research and Development only. Alternative B would be a feasible
alternative to allow redevelop~~nent of the project site and could potentially meet the
project objectives of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working
campus environment, emphasiizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high
quality architecture, connecting to various transit modes, and allowing the
incremental and phased redevelopment of the site. However, Alternative B would
restrict the uses developed on the site and would not allow for varied
redevelopment that the project would provide.
Finding: The Reduced Project Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives.
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a project similar to the proposed
project, but smaller in size. Therefore, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would be
incapable of generating all of tlhe benefits of the proposed Project. It would not for
example, generate as much tax: revenue for the City, or create as many new
employment opportunities. Furthermore, while the Reduced Intensity Alternative
may further minimize some of the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed
Project, the Alternative would be incapable of minimizing the significant and
unavoidable impact to the off-ramp operation at the mainline diverge. For the
reasons stated, the City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative fails to
meet basic project objectives.
ALTERNATIVE C: REDUCED :PARKING ALTERNATIVE
Alternative C would develop the site with Office and R&D uses at an FAR of 1.25.
This alternative assumes that development on the site could be phased but that total
buildout would occur by 2020,. Alternative C would result in the construction of
approximately 984,500 sf of development and approximately 3,009 employees on
the site. Under Alternative C, parking would be provided at a reduced ratio of 2.3
spaces per 1,000 sf resulting irl a total of 2,264 parking spaces on the site.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 76 of 84
Aesthetics
The project site is currently dE~veloped as a business park. Under Alternative C, a
business park would be developed on the site housing Office and R & D uses. Similar
to the project, no public views to scenic vistas would be blocked and there would be
less than significant impacts to scenic vistas. Additionally, similar to the project
there would be no impact to state scenic highways. The site is currently developed
at an FAR of 0.29. Alternative C would result in development of the site at an FAR of
1.25, the same density as the project. Similar to the project, this increase in FAR
could be accomplished primarily by increasing the height of the buildings on the
site, thereby increasing the amount of open space on the site, which would minimize
the feeling of density on the site. However, due to the reduced number of parking
spaces on the site, parking structures under Alternative C could potentially be
smaller in size and there could be more open space areas provided on the site.
However, this increase in open space would be incremental compared to the project
and would only increase the benefits to visual quality already provided by the
project. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative C would
similar to the project, be less than significant, and would be subject to the same
City standards as the project. Therefore, impacts under Alternative C would be the
same as under the project.
Air Quality
Similar to the project, Alternat;ive C would involve the demolition of the existing
structures on the site and con;>truction of office buildings. Similar to the project,
Alternative C would result in development of the site at an FAR of 1.25 and would
result in the same impact regarding consistency with BAAQMD's Clean Air Plan.
Alternative C would implement the same construction mitigation measures as the
project and construction impacts would be less than significant and the same
under Alternative C as the project. Alternative C would result in the same amount of
development on the site, but wrould provide less parking on the site, resulting in
fewer employees driving to the site and therefore fewer vehicular trips. However,
although Alternative C would result in a decrease in employees driving to the site,
this decrease would not be enough to reduce vehicle trips significantly enough to
eliminate the project's significant unavoidable PM10 emissions. Therefore, air
quality impacts PM10 emissions from under Alternative C (both project and
cumulative) would remain, sinnilar to the project, significant and unavoidable.
Impacts from local CO concentrations would remain the same as under the project
and less than significant. Assuming that Alternative C would be constructed in a
phased manner and therefore the childcare facility could remain on site during
some phases of the project, thc~ impacts from TACs would remain less than
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 77 of 84
significant, the same as under the project. Similar to the project, Alternative C there
would be no impact from objectionable odors and it would not conflict with the
State goals in AB 32. Overall innpacts to air quality under Alternative C, although
incrementally less, would be the same as under the project.
Biological Resources
The project site is currently dE~veloped as a business park and the only biological
resources on the site are mature landscaping. Alternative C has the same potential
to remove trees on the site as the project as it is likely that reduced parking would
result only in smaller parking structures and would not increase the preservation of
existing landscaping. Under Alternative C, project construction activities could
result in the same less than significant impacts due to destruction of active bird
nests during removal of vegetation or grading, or may potentially result in the
abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. However, similar
to the project, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Similar to the project, Alternative C would have no impact to riparian habitat,
wetlands, or to migratory corridors. Regarding the removal of trees, impacts to tree
removal and conflict with existing codes or plans protecting biological resources
would be the same under Alternative C as the project and less than significant.
Cultural Resources
The project site has been developed and redeveloped several times in the twentieth
century. These processes haves almost completely removed potential for, and make
the property quite unlikely to contain, significant cultural resources that could be
impacted by development. Similar to the proposed project, the potential for
disturbance of subsurface resources during ground disturbing activities, including
fossilbearing soils and rock formations, paleontological resources, and archeological
sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans, still exists under this
alternative. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed for any future
construction at the site, and possible impacts to historical resources would be
avoided to the extent feasible, ensuring impacts remain less than significant. Under
Alternative C, impacts to cultural resources would remain the same as under the
proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same amount of development
(1,230,570 sf) and employees as the proposed project. Geologic hazards such as
seismic ground shaking would still exist under this alternative, and impacts would
remain less than significant. Site specific hazards related to erosion, loss of top soil,
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 78 of 84
subsidence, expansive soils, and landslides would also remain the same under this
alternative since the amount of the site area that would be built upon (50 percent of
the total site), and the size of the development (1,230, 570 sf) would remain.
Collectively, impacts would be less than significant, but not less than the proposed
project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Development of this alternative would result in the construction 615,285 sf of R&D
uses, resulting in laboratories ;and other research facilities that would use, store, or
require the transport and disposal of hazardous materials. As with the proposed
project, compliance with safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state,
and local laws and regulations would ensure the risks associated with the routine
use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than
significant. Impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would
remain the same as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, existing
buildings at the site would be demolished in order to make room for new
development. These buildings potentially contain hazardous materials including
waste oil, asbestos, lead paint, halogenated and non-halogenated solvents, organic
compounds, and petroleum products. During demolition operations hazardous
materials could be released from structures at the site or from the underlying soils.
Portions of the project site would still be included on government lists of hazardous
materials sites, and developmc~nt at the site could create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment. However, as projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis,
mitigation measures would be identified to reduce these impacts to a less than
significant level.
Under this alternative, potential impacts to nearby schools would also remain the
same as under the proposed project, and it is expected that mitigation measures
would be identified to ensure iimpacts remain less than significant,
Hydrology and Water QualitJr
The reduced parking alternative would result in development of 1,230,570 sf of
R&D and Office uses, a FAR of 1.25, and 2,264 parking spaces. Typical industrial
non-point source (NPS) pollutants associated with industrial activities would still be
present at the site and would be the same as the project and less than significant.
Development of this alternative would contribute to the levels of NPS pollutants and
litter entering downstream waters, including San Francisco Bay. However, it is
expected that mitigation measures would be identified to reduce possible impacts to
a less than significant level. This alternative could result in a reduction to impacts
associated with impervious surfaces. More than 70 percent of the project site is
currently covered in impervious surfaces. This alternative includes a number of
strategies designed to decrease the amount of impervious surfaces at the site.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 79 of 84
Implementation of these strategies would decrease impervious surfaces from 70
percent to 61 percent of the project site. This alternative also includes less site
development, and less parking, which could result in a greater reduction of
impervious surfaces. Development of Alternative C would reduce impacts to
groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge at the project site. Mitigation
measures would be expected to be developed on a site by site basis, as individual
projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that under this
alternative, impacts to ground~~ater would be less than significant, and similar to
the proposed project.
Redevelopment at the project site under this alternative would involve demolition
of existing structures and paved areas, as well as grading activities. Construction
operations associated with this alternative would present a threat of soil erosion
from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the erosional
forces of runoff during construction. However, it is expected that mitigation
measures would be identified iin order to reduce impacts to a less than significant
level. Impacts would be similar to those identified for proposed project.
Development of this alternative includes strategies intended to result in a net
benefit to these resources. Collectively, impacts related to hydrology and water
quality would be less than sig.ni~cant under Alternative C, and similar to the
proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative C, the project site would be redeveloped with Office and R & D
land uses. These uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the
surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research
and development activities. Similar to the project, Alternative C would redevelop the
project site with Office and R ~z D uses and there would be no impact to existing
residential communities.
Under Alternative C, a General Plan Amendment to increase the FAR to 1.25 would
be required. The Gateway Specific Plan District zoning allowing an FAR of 1.25 was
adopted for the intent purpose of developing and redeveloping the entire Gateway
Specific Plan District at a higher density. As surrounding properties are
redeveloped, it is likely that they may request General Plan Amendments to allow
redevelopment at increased densities. Therefore, similar to the project, density
under Alternative C would be consistent with the City's vision for development in
the area. Density would not bey inconsistent or create land use impacts due to the
increased density and this impact would be less than significant and similar to the
project. Under Alternative C, t11e anticipated range of total parking provided at
ultimate buildout would be 2,264 spaces. Parking would be provided at a ratio that
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 80 of 84
would not meet code requirements for this development level of 2.3 spaces per
1,000 s£ Although the City typically allows 2.83 spaces per 1,000 square feet for
office/research and development uses, the City may accept revised parking
standards as long as the amount of parking generated by the standards is supportive
of the recommendations and rf~quirements of the Transportation Demand
Management plan prepared for the project. Therefore, impacts to Gateway Specific
Plan District Zoning parking requirements would be the less than significant and
the same as under the project,
There are no natural community plans or applicable habitat conservation plans that
apply to the project site and the project site does not contain any critical or sensitive
habitat. Therefore, similar to the project, Alternative C would have no impact to
conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plans.
Noise
Under Alternative C, the project site would be redeveloped with Office and R & D
uses at the same density and square footage as the project, and would employ the
same number of employees on the site. Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
(HVAC) equipment for buildings would likely be located on the roof-tops of the
buildings. As under the project:, mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. Similar to the project, buildings constructed on the site
under Alternative C could be exposed to a CNEL of up to 67.6 dBA along Gateway
Boulevard and 73.4 dBA along Oyster Point Boulevard. However, the City would
require that an analysis of noise reduction requirements be conducted and noise
insulation features be included, as needed, in the design and this impact would be
the same as under the project.
Alternative C would result in t:he same square footage of development as the project
and employees as the project. 'The number of vehicle trips and, therefore, traffic
generated noise would be the .same as under the project. This impact under the
project would be less than significant and would remain the same under Alternative
C. In the future, cumulative traffic would increase the traffic noise levels at the
commercial land uses along Gateway and Oyster Point Boulevards by 2.0 to 4.7 dBA.
Cumulative traffic would increase the traffic noise levels at residential land use
along Sister Cities Boulevard by up to 2.5 dBA. These cumulative traffic noise
increases exceed the threshold of 3 dBA for a significant increase. Similar to the
project, Alternative C would rE~sult in the contribution to this increase and would
result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to noise the same as the
project. Impacts from aircraft noise would be the same as under the project. Under
Alternative C, impacts from temporary groundbourne vibration and noise would be
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 81 of 84
less than significant with mitig<~tion. However, similar to the project, redevelopment
activities would be phased and the Genentech Child Care facility might still be
operational. Therefore, construction noise would significantly affect the noise
sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility resulting in a similar significant
and unavoidable impact.
Population and Housing
Development under Alternative C would result in the generation of 3,009 employees
at the project site. ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110
jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Therefore, this
alternative's contribution to the increase in employment in the City would be within
ABAG's employment projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020.
The proposed project is also within ABAG's employment projections; however,
Alternative C would result in the generation of fewer employees and therefore,
reduce the demand for housing; in the City as compared to the proposed project. .
This alternative, as well as the proposed project, would promote a greater regional
jobs balance, and would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population
growth and this impact would be less than significant.
Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative would not
displace existing housing, necE~ssitate construction of replacement housing, nor
displace substantial numbers of people. Under this alternative, impacts to
population and housing would be less than significant and slightly less than the
proposed project.
Public Services
Demand for public services, including police and fire, would be reduced
proportionally with the reducl_ion in development under this alternative.
Development of this alternative would result in 3,009employees at the site
constituting a minor increase (less than 3 percent) in the City's daytime population
and would not lead to a change in response times, service ratios, and/or
requirement for construction of new police or fire facilities. Current response times
and service ratios are adequate and no new police or fire facilities that would result
in potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact to public
services would be less than significant, and less than the proposed project. No
mitigation measures would bE~ necessary.
Transportation and Circulation
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 82 of 84
Under Alternative C, the same number of square feet of development of Office and R
& D uses would occur on the site as under the project. Therefore, Alternative C
would result in the same number of employees on the site. However, under
Alternative C, fewer parking spaces would be provided, which would act as a
disincentive for employees to drive. This would theoretically result in an
approximate 27 percent of decrease in the number of trips generated under
Alternative C as opposed to the project. However, Alternative C would generate
enough trips to exceed the C/CAG trip generation limits by 2015 and 2035. Similar
to the project this impact would be reduced to less than significant.
Alternative C would result in lE~ss than significant impacts to intersections and
vehicle queuing by 2015. Similar to the project, Alternative C would result in
impacts to U.S. 101 mainline and ramps under 2015. Similar to the project, these
impacts would be significant and unavoidable as the reduction in vehicle trips is
not enough to reduce the significant unavoidable impacts. Similar to the project,
2035 intersection impacts would be less than significant. Impacts to U.S. 101
mainline and ramps under 20?~5 would be the same as under the project, significant
and unavoidable.
Alternative C would provide parking at a 2.3 ratio and would, similar to the project,
not meet code requirements and this impact would be the same. Assuming that the
parking garages would be located at the back of the site, impacts to pedestrian
safety and vehicular circulation would be less than significant and the same under
Alternative C as the project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative C, the same number of square feet of development would occur
on the site as under the project. Similar to the project, surface and stormwater
runoff would be collected on-site and would not create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or result in the need for construction of new storm water drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities. Although Alternative C would result in the same
square footage of development, the development of R & D uses would consume
more water and so would result in an increase in water usage on the site. Therefore,
demand for water supplies for' fire flow, domestic, or manufacturing uses would be
incrementally increased. Additionally, Alternative C would result in slightly reduced
amount of wastewater and solid waste generation due to the increase in employees.
However, overall impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative C would
be the same as under the project and would be less than significant.
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 83 of 84
Relationship of Alternative C Ito the Project Objectives
Alternative C would be a feasible alternative to allow redevelopment of the project
site and would meet all of the project's objectives. This alternative would allow for
redevelopment of the project site at an FAR of 1.25, however, with fewer parking
spaces provided on the site. Alternative C would be a feasible alternative to allow
redevelopment of the project site and could potentially meet the project objectives
of redeveloping the project site to create a cohesive working campus environment,
emphasizing the pedestrian environment, encouraging high quality architecture,
connecting to various transit Triodes, and allowing the incremental and phased
redevelopment of the site.
Finding: The Reduced Parking Alternative fails to meet basic project
objectives
In light of the entire record, including the letter submitted by DGA Architects, the
City finds that the parking reduction described in this alternative is substantially
greater and more onerous tha~rr the parking restrictions considered, and ultimately
approved, for other similar projects located in the East of 101 Area. The Reduced
Parking Alternative effectively requires a 19% reduction in the number of parking
spaces from the amount required under the Municipal Code. The indirect effects of
the Alternative could prevent 'the Alternative from meeting basic project objectives.
For example, provision of substantially fewer parking spaces per gross square foot,
as compared to other developments in the area, could make finding tenants for the
project difficult. This would negatively affect the viability of the project (Project
Objective #4), as well as the project's ability to generate tax revenue for the City
(#3) and create quality jobs (#2). It would also impede the growth of the area's high
technology research and development uses. The Reduced Parking Alternative,
therefore, fails to meet the project's basic objectives. For the reasons stated, the City
finds that requiring such a substantial and unique reduction in available parking is
an infeasible alternative to the proposed Project.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed project and
the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an
"environmentally superior" alternative be selected and the reasons for such a
selection disclosed. In generall, the environmentally superior alternative is the
alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant
impacts. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an
informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that
best meets the goals or needs of the City. Table IV-2 in the EIR summarizes the
Exhibit A
CEQA Findings
Page 84 of 84
comparative impacts of each of'the alternatives when compared to the project. The
table lists the level of significance of the impacts of the project to each
environmental topic analyzed in Chapter IV and shows whether the impacts
anticipated under each proposed alternative would be lesser, similar, or greater
than the proposed project. The table provides a comparison of the ability of each
alternative to avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts of the project.
Alternative A, the No Project/B~uildout Under Existing General Plan Alternative,
proposes a reduced amount of development that would result in the fewest
employees on the site and therefore, potentially the least amount of vehicle trips.
This smaller amount of trips would provide the biggest decrease in operational
emissions, vehicular-related noise increases, and traffic impacts and would
therefore be the environmentally superior alternative.
However, CEQA requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the "no
project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior
alternative from among the other alternatives (CEQA Guidelines, Section
15126.6[e] [2]). Based on the analysis provided above, it has been determined that
Alternative C would be the environmentally superior alternative, because this
alternative would result in the next greatest reduction in significant project impacts
to air quality, noise, and traffic. The alternatives to the project considered in this
analysis propose either a reduced amount of development on the site, land uses
requiring fewer employees, or fewer parking spaces on the site (thereby limited
project-generated trips to the site). However, although all these alternatives would
result in some reduction of employees or vehicle trips to the project site, none of the
feasible alternatives would reduce impacts to a level that would reduce the
significant unavoidable impaci:s to air quality, noise, and traffic.
Therefore, no feasible alternative is superior in this regard and, similar to the
project, all feasible alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable
impacts.
1364466.2
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of
the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations
for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the Gateway Business
Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report ("Gateway Business Park Master
Plan" or "Project"). (Resolution No. .) The City Council has carefully
considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project.
The proposed project is located in the City's East of 101 Area and the
Gateway Redevelopment Project Area. The development is controlled by the South
San Francisco General Plan, The East of 101 Area Plan and the Gateway Specific
Plan. The project consists of a 1Vlaster Plan and a Phase 1 Precise Plan (Precise Plan)
for the redevelopment of the existing Gateway Business Park. The Precise Plan
consists of two sub-phases, la and 1b, and would define the first phase of the
Project while other phases of the Project are more conceptual in nature. The Project
consists of the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6-
acre project site and construction of five to six new buildings, six stories in height,
and two to four parking structures. The project would be constructed in five phases
from 2011 to 2020. The project includes three building types (Gateway Boulevard
frontage buildings, internal site buildings, parking structures) varying
architecturally in style to create visual interest and diversity on the Project site. The
two easterly buildings proposed for 900 and 850 Gateway Boulevard would be six-
stories in height. Other buildings on the site including the parking structures would
be less than six stories in height.
The buildings would be situated close to the perimeter of the site thereby
creating large areas to accommodate open space and landscaping. The ratio of
parking spaces provided on-site will vary during phases of the Project ranging from
2.52 to 2.88. At completion, the Project would provide 3,100 parking spaces on the
site. The parking structures would be situated on the southeastern border of the
master plan area. The office buildings would be situated primarily along Gateway
Boulevard at the western border and the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and
Oyster Point Boulevard. Internal areas of the Project site would contain the Central
Commons, an area incorporatiing open space areas, landscaping, and pedestrian
walkways.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 2 of 23
The proposed Project would involve increasing density at the site by
developing the site up to an FAR of 1.25. This change in FAR translates to an
increase in permitted development at the site to approximately 1,230,570 square
feet (sf), or a net change of 946,570 sf, as compared to existing development. Upon
buildout of the project, impervious area would be reduced from approximately 70
percent to approximately 61 percent.
The objectives of the Project are as follows:
• Increase FAR at the site from approximately 0.29 to 1.25 FAR.
• Create a cohesive working campus environment with a clear organization of
buildings, structures parking, and network ofhigh-quality pedestrian
circulation and open space.
• Emphasize the pedestrian environment with well-designated and useful
landscaping that respond to the climate of the City.
• Encourage high-quality architecture, landscape architecture, and sustainable
design elements.
• Connect to and foster the use of various modes of transit such as Caltrain,
BART, and future Ferry service.
• Allow for the incremental and phase redevelopment of the existing buildings
while maintaining a functioning working environment for areas not
concurrently being redeveloped.
• Promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City's
transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation
demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between
buildings.
• Generate tax revenue through the Redevelopment Agency.
The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the
impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable.
The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects
identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted
with the original General Plan approval and by the measures adopted through the
current project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the City Council recognizes that the
implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental
effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent
the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been
mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental,
land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 3 of 23
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts. The following significant and
unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified in the Gateway Business
Park Master Plan Environmental Impact Report:
AIR QUALITY
Impact IV.C-1: The proposed project would conflict with the applicable air quality
plan because the increase in FAR would result in more vehicle miles traveled than
could be generated under the existing General Plan. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. This impact would remain significant and unavoidable because
no feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact.
Finding IV.C-1: The proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan will help
reduce this impact. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures that reduce
this impact to a level of less-than-significant. As the mitigation of this impact is not
feasible, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.C-2: The proposed project would violate an air quality standard. This is
considered a potentially signifiicant impact. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 would
reduce impacts from construction/demolition emissions to less than significant.
However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.2, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation
measures are available to reduice this impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 Construction/Demolition Emissions
Implementation of the following measures would reduce airborne dust by reducing
and controlling loose soils in areas subject to dust creating activity. As a condition of
the construction contracts, thE~ project sponsors shall require that construction
contractors follow these construction practices:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet o1~ freeboard.
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply nontoxic soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parkin€; areas, and staging areas at the construction sites.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 4 of 23
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas at the construction sites.
e. Sweep public streets adjacent to construction sites daily (with water sweepers) if
visible soil material.
f. Hydroseed or apply non-toxic; soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
g. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
h. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
i. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
j. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible.
k. Wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the construction
site.
1. Install wind breaks at the windward sides of the construction areas
m. Suspend excavation and grading activities when wind (as instantaneous gusts)
exceeds 25 miles per hour.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.2 Regional Operational Emissions -Daily Emissions
of ROG, NOx, and PM10
As noted earlier, the primary sources of long-term, indirect emissions associated
with the project are motor vehicles. The current evaluation includes implementation
of a TDM program estimated to account fora 20 percent reduction in trip
generation.
Finding IV.C-2: Mitigation Measure IV.C-2.1 would reduce impacts from
construction/demolition emissions to less than significant. However, even with
implementation of Mitigation 1Measure IV.C-2.2, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable because no additional feasible mitigation measures
are available to reduce this impact.
NOISE
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 5 of 23
Impact IV.J-4: The proposed project would result in substantial temporary or
periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-
4.1 would reduce the construction noise impact at the existing office buildings and
hotels to less than significant, but the construction noise at the Genentech Child
Care facility is considered significant and unavoidable because no feasible
mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact.
Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 Construction Generated Noise
Prepare a demolition and construction noise control plan that identifies detailed,
site-specific noise attenuation :measures that will be used to minimize impacts on
adjacent land uses. The plan should be prepared under the supervision of a qualified
acoustical consultant or person experienced with equipment and techniques that
can be used to reduce construction related noise. The plan must include but is not
limited to the following:
• Implement noise attenuation measures, which shall include noise barriers or noise
blankets. Particular attention should be paid to providing a noise barrier (at least
12-feet tall) to protect outdoor uses such as the eastern play area of the Genentech
Child Care facility, if it remains during construction.
• Provide advance notification to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction
schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring
throughout the duration of they construction period.
• Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry
standards.
• Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction staging
areas away from sensitive users, where feasible.
• Schedule high noise-producing activities between when they would be least likely
to interfere with the noise sensitive activities of the neighboring land uses. When
near the hotels this would mean restricting construction during sleeping hours.
However, near office buildings or Genentech Child Care uses the evening hours may
be preferable because the buildings are not occupied.
• In addition to the preparation of the construction noise control plan, the following
measures are recommended and maybe included in the plan:
• Designate an on-site construction noise complaint manager for the duration of the
project.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 6 of 23
• Post signs around the project site to inform persons of the construction hours and
the name and phone number of the person or persons to notify in the event of a
noise related problem.
• Apre-construction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general
contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation practices
(including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.) are
completed.
• The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction
staging areas along with operation of earthmoving equipment within the project site
be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract
specifications shall be included in the construction documents, which shall be
reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit.
• The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that heavily loaded
trucks should be routed away i`rom noise and vibration sensitive uses, to the extent
possible. Contract specifications shall be included on the construction documents,
which shall be reviewed by thE~ City prior to issuance of a grading permit..
Finding IV.J-4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.J-4.1 would reduce the
construction noise impact at the existing office buildings and hotels to less than
significant, but the construction noise at the Genentech Child Care facility, a
sensitive receptor, is considerf~d significant and unavoidable because no feasible
mitigation measures are available to avoid this impact. Since the construction noise
would significantly affect the noise sensitive use of the Genentech Child Care facility
that includes outdoor play areas and indoor areas that could be used for daytime
sleeping, and mitigation measures such as noise barriers will be only partially
effective in reducing construction noise levels and minimizing noise induced activity
interference (the construction of the upper floors would be elevated above a noise
barrier) construction noise at the Child Care facility, while temporary, is considered
significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Impact IV.M-4A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.9 percent, with
year 2015 Base
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 7 of 23
Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline. This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M 4A, this impact v~vould remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-4A 2015 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline -
SIM Traffic Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-21) at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp to Oyster Point Boule~~ard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection
The proposed project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the
City Engineer to the following measures. See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2A. In
addition, add an exclusive right turn lane to the flyover off-ramp approach for a total
of four lanes. Stripe as three through lanes and one exclusive right turn lane. This
measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is not currently
included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. Further, as an improvement to a
freeway ramp, the measure is not within the City's jurisdiction, but rather would
require approval of Caltrans.
Adjust signal timing to provide more green time to flyover off-ramp and Oyster
Point eastbound movements. Resultant Operation: AM Peak Hour: The proposed
mitigation will provide additional capacity and reduce delay, which would eliminate
the 95th percentile southbound flyover offramp queue extending to the freeway
mainline.
It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the
City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing they impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Finding IV.M-4A: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M 4A, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduce delay, which would eliminate the 95th percentile
southbound flyover off ramp queue extending to the freeway mainline. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 8 of 23
Impact IV.M-4B: The following; discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp
to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would
increase off-ramp volumes by ?..3 percent, with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic
occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline. This is considered a potentially significant
impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-4B, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-4B ;L015 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline -
SIMTraffic Evaluation (see Figure IV.M-21) at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp
to Dubuque Avenue Intersecttion
The proposed project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the
City Engineer to the following measures.
• Widen the off-ramp approachi to provide three exclusive left turn lanes and a
combined through/ right turn ]lane. In addition, lengthen the offramp lanes to
provide an additiona1600 to 700 feet of storage. This measure will require the
approval of Caltrans. This measure is not currently included in the East of 101
Traffic
Impact Fee list.
• Provide an additional lane on northbound Dubuque Avenue extending from the
freeway ramps to Oyster Point Boulevard. Stripe the five-lane approach to Oyster
Point as two lefts, one through and two right turn lanes.
• On the Oyster Point Boulevard overpass of the U.S.101 freeway, reconfigure the
westbound lanes on the approach to Airport Boulevard to have one combined
through /right turn lane, one through lane and one exclusive left turn lane
extending the full length between Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard. In
conjunction with this measure, have both eastbound left turn lanes on the approach
to Dubuque Avenue-Northbound On-Ramp extend he full length between Airport
Boulevard and Dubuque Avenue.
• Adjust signal timing.
Finding IV.M-4B: AM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which will eliminate the 95th percentile northbound off-
ramp queue extending to the freeway mainline. These measures would also
eliminate the 95th percentile southbound off-rarrip queue on the approach to
Airport Boulevard extending to the freeway mainline. It should be noted that
because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of South San
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 9 of 23
Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will
be implemented While it is likelly that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-5A: The following; discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. AM Peak
Hour: The project would increase off-ramp volumes by 6.9 percent (from 2,099 up
to 2,243 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per
hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation
of Mitigation Measure IV.M-5A, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5A 2015 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline
Diverge at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard Intersection
No improvements are feasible ~to mitigate project specific impacts. The spacing of
southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point
Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane connection
to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A
second off-ramp lane connection would require a long (i.e., 1,000-foot or longer)
deceleration lane, however, due to existing development in the area, only 300 feet of
space is available. There is no room for provision of this lane. Without feasible
measures to mitigate this impaict, the impact would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
Finding IV.M-5A: As noted above, there are no feasible mitigation measures that
reduce this impact to a level of'less-than-significant. As the mitigation of this impact
is not feasible, this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-5B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp
to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would
increase off-ramp volumes by 3.3 percent (from 1,507 up to 1,556 vehicles) with
Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered a
potentially significant impact, Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-5B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 10 of 23
Mitigation Measure IV.M-5B x:015 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline
Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection
(see Figure IV.M-20)
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measure.
• Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp
diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per hour, which
would accommodate the Base Case + project AM peak hour volume of 1,556 vehicles
per hour.
Finding IV.M-5B: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this
measure is currently not included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should
be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented. While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agE~ncy's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered t0 be significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-6A: The following discussion concerns U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp
from the Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the PM
peak hour, the project would increase on-ramp volumes by 6.2 percent (from 2,366
up to 2,513
vehicles) with Base Case volunnes already exceeding 2,200 vehicles per hour. This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-6A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-6A 2015 On-Ramp Operation to U.S.101 Mainline at
U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.101 mainline. On-ramp capacity would be increased to at least 3,000 vehicles
per hour, which would accommodate the Base Case + project PM peak hour volume
of 2,513 vehicles per hour.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 11 of 23
Finding Impact IV.M-6A: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also,
this measure is currently not included on the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It
should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the
City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant acid unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-6B: The following; discussion concerns U.S. 101 Southbound On-Ramp
from Dubuque Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the project would increase on-
ramp volumes by 6.9 percent (iFrom 1,901 up to 2,032 vehicles) and increase Base
Case volumes above the 2,000 vehicle/hour capacity limit. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. I?ven with implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-6B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-6B ~On-Ramp Operation to U.S.101 Mainline at
U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.101 mainline. On-ramp capacity would be increased to at least 3,000 vehicles
per hour, which would accomnnodate the Base Case + Project PM peak hour volume
of 2,032 vehicles..
Finding IV.M-6B: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this
measure is currently not included on the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee list. It should
be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead a€;ency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable
Impact IV.M-7A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound (to the
north of the Oyster Point interchange). During the AM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 1.5 percent (from 9,331 to 9,475 vehicles per hour) at a
location where acceptable LO> E year 2015 Base Case operation would be degraded
to unacceptable LOS F operation. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 12 of 23
Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-7A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-7A :? 015 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101
Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would. require widening the current freeway or
construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its
close proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible.
Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the
types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of
Impact 7A is not feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1
(defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished...taking into account
economic...and technological factors.").)
Finding IV.M-7A: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and would
be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit.
Under
CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives,
including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where
economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead
agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-7B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound (to the
north of the Oyster Point interchange). During the PM peak hour, the project 10,162
vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year 2015 Base Case
operation. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Pvleasure IV.M-7B, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-7B 2015 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101
Northbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) Mitigation of
this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new
freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to
surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such
mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it
would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 7B is not feasible
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 13 of 23
as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining "feasible" as
"capable of being accomplished...taking into account economic...and technological
factors.").) Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public
objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project.
(See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd.
(d).) Where economic concern<,~ render a particular mitigation measure infeasible,
the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd.
(a) (3).)
Finding IV.M-7B: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and would
be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit.
Under
CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives,
including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where
economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead
agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-9F: The following; discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. During the PM peak hour, the
project would increase volumes by 6.7 percent at a location with unacceptable LOS F
Base Case operation (resultant: operation would be LOS F-254 seconds control
delay). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation
of Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F 2035 Intersection Level of Service Oyster Point
Boulevard /Dubuque Avenuie / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection
(see Figure IV.M-22 and Table IV.M-25)
• See Mitigation Measure IV.M-2D. In light of economic, environmental, and
technological concerns, there are no other financially feasible measures (as
identified by the Public Works Department) that would provide any increased
capacity. Provision of additional lanes on any of the intersection approaches would
require either widening of bridge structures across the U.S. 101 freeway and/or the
Caltrain rail line and possibly Broadway diversion around the supports for the
Southbound Flyover off-ramp.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 14 of 23
Finding IV.M-9F: PM Peak Hour: The proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which will improve operation to LOS F-223 seconds
control delay, which is not better than Base Case operation (LOS F-196 seconds
control delay). However, as noted above, additional mitigation measures are not
feasible and would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses
they would benefit. Under CEQ,~1, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance
public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the
project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021.
subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure
infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code
§21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-10A: The following discussion concerns Oyster Point Boulevard /
Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp Intersection. During the AM peak
hour, the project would increase volumes by 7.2 percent in the through lanes on the
eastbound Oyster Point intersection approach where 95th percentile Base Case
queuing would already extend beyond available storage. In addition, the project
would increase volumes by 5.0 percent in the Dubuque Avenue northbound right
turn lane, where Base Case 95t~1 percentile queues would already be exceeding
available storage. During the P:M peak hour, the project would increase volumes by
11.0 percent in the right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard
intersection approach, where 95th percentile Base Case queuing would already
extend beyond available stora€;e; and by 11.2 percent in the left turn lane on the
westbound Oyster Point Boulevard intersection approach, where 95th percentile
Base Case queuing would already extend beyond available storage. This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-10A, this impact. would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-10A 2035 Vehicle Queuing - Synchro Evaluation at
Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
Intersection (see Figure IV.NI-22)
• Same mitigations as for level of service (Mitigation Measure IV.M-9F). In light of
that would provide any increased capacity. Provision of additional lanes on any of
the intersection approaches would require either widening of bridge structures
across the U.S.101 freeway and/or the Caltrain rail line and possibly roadway
diversion around the supports for the Southbound Flyover off-ramp. Resultant
Operation: AM Peak Hour:
• Eastbound Approach Through Movement =The proposed mitigation will provide
additional capacity and reduces delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 15 of 23
to 432 feet, which would be bei:ter than Base Case queuing of 444 feet. Impact
reduced to a less than significant level.
• Northbound Right Turn =The proposed mitigation will provide additional capacity
and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 336 feet, which is
longer than Base Case 308-foot: queue. Impact would not be reduced to a less than
significant level. PM Peak Hour:
• Westbound Approach Right Turn: The proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and reduce delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing to 2,095
feet, which is longer than Base Case queuing of 1,892 feet. Impact would not be
reduced to a less than significant level.
• Westbound Approach Left Turn: The proposed mitigation will provide additional
capacity and economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no
other feasible measures reducE~ delay, which would reduce 95th percentile queuing
to 1,396 feet, which is longer than Base Case queuing of 1,270 feet. impact would
not be reduced to a less than significant level.
Finding IV.M-10A: As noted above, even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-10A, this impact: would remain significant and unavoidable. In light
of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other feasible
measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended
for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off-
ramp storage.
Impact IV.M-11A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 8.7 percent, with
year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic backing up to the freeway mainline. This is
considered a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-11A, this impact: would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-11A 2035 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline -
SIM Traffic Evaluation at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster
Point Boulevard /Gateway Ioulevard Intersection
In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other
feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those
recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within
available off-ramp storage. Provision of additional lanes would potentially require
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 16 of 23
acquisition of additional righty-~of-way along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision
of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover offramp intersection
approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure
lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection.
Finding IV.M-11A: In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns,
there are no other feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity
beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile
queues within available off-ramp storage. Even with implementation of Mitigation
Measure IV.M-11A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-11B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-
Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would
increase off-ramp volumes by 3.0 percent, with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic
occasionally backing up to the :Freeway mainline. This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-11B, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-11I3 2035 Off-Ramp Queuing to Freeway Mainline -
SIM Traffic Evaluation at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
Intersection
There are no other feasible signal timing or lane addition measures as identified by
the Public Works Department beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that
would reduce 95th percentile ,AM peak hour queues within available off-ramp
storage
Finding IV.M-11B: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-11B, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-12A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. During the
AM peak hour, the project would increase off-ramp volumes by 8.7 percent (from
2,035 up to 3,161 vehicles) with Base Case volumes already exceeding 1,500
vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-12A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 17 of 23
Mitigation Measure IV.M-1212035 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline
Diverge at U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard Intersecttion
No improvements are feasible ~to mitigate project specific impacts. The spacing of
southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point
Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane connection
to southbound U.S.101 to servE~ the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A
second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long
(1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of available space. There
is no room for provision of this; lane.
Finding IV.M-12A: No improvements are feasible to mitigate project specific
impacts. The spacing of southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and
to Oyster Point Boulevard prec;ludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp
lane connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard
southbound off-ramp. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline
would require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of
available space. There is no room for provision of this lane. Even with
implementation of Mitigation rvleasure IV.M-12A, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-12B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-
Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the project would
increase off-ramp volumes by 3.0 percent (from 1,680 to 1,730 vehicles) with Base
Case volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is considered a
potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-12B, this impact would rf~main significant and unavoidable
Mitigation Measure IV.M-12B 2035 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline
Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Intersection
(see Figure IV.M-22)
Same mitigation as for 2015. (.Add a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101
mainline.) Off-ramp diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,300 vehicles
per hour, which would accommodate the Base Case + project volume of 1,730
vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 18 of 23
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agE~ncy's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Finding IV.M-12B: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-12C: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp
to East Grand Avenue/ Executive Drive Intersection. During the AM peak hour, the
project would increase off-rarr~p volumes by 9.8 percent (from 2,897 up to 3,180
vehicles) at a location where the two-lane off-ramp diverge capacity would be 2,300
vehicles per hour. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation rvleasure IV.M-12C, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-121„ 2035 Off-Ramp Operation at U.S.101 Mainline
Diverge at U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive
Drive Intersection
Provide a second off-ramp lame connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. The
required improvements are contemplated in and funded in the City's East of 101
traffic program, and by paying the City's East of 101 traffic fee, the project
proponent will be funding its fair share of the required improvements. Planned
provision of a second off-ramp would increase diverge capacity to 2,200 to 2,300
vehicles per hour. This could accommodate the project off-ramp volume of about
2,284 vehicles per hour.
Finding IV.M-12C: The identiiFied measure would increase capacity, thereby
reducing the impact, though the impact would not be reduced to a less-than-
significantlevel. Given the roadway geometry, there are no additional physical
measures that could feasibly be implemented and which would be capable of
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 19 of 23
increasing capacity. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-12C, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-13A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound One-Lane
On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase on-ramp volumes by 9.5 percent at a location where Base Case volumes
would already be exceeding the ramp capacity limit of 2,000 vehicles per hour (up
to 2,381 vehicles per hour). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Even
with implementation of Mitigattion Measure IV.M-13A, this impact
Mitigation Measure IV.M-13A 2035 On-Ramp Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at
U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue (see Figure IV.M-22)
The project should provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City
Engineer to the following measure. Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.101 freeway. On-ramp capacity would be increased from 2,000 up to 3,000
vehicles per hour, with a Base Case + project PM peak hour volume of about 2,381
vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant and unavoidable.
Finding IV.M-13A: This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans' jurisdiction, the City of
South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing they impact to a less than significant level, because the
measure is beyond the lead agency's jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is
considered to be significant a,nd unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-13B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound Two-
Lane On-Ramp from Produce Avenue. During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase on-ramp volumes by ~4.7 percent at a location where project traffic would
increase Base
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 20 of 23
Case volumes above atwo-lanE~ on-ramp capacity limit of 3,300 vehicles per hour
(from 3,256 up to 3,409 vehicles per hour). This is considered a potentially
significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-13B, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-13I3 2035 On-Ramp Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at
U.S.101 Southbound On-Ramp from Produce Avenue
A second on-ramp lane is already provided at the Produce Avenue on-ramp,
providing a capacity of ±3,300 vehicles per hour. There are no other physical
improvements possible to accommodate the Base Case + project volume of about
3,410 vehicles per hour.
Finding IV.M-13B: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-13B, this
impact would remain signifTCa-nt and unavoidable.
Impact IV.M-13C: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound One-Lane
On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase on-ramp volumes by ~~.9 percent at a location where project traffic would
increase Base Case volumes above 2,200 vehicles per hour (from 3,234 up to 3,521
vehicles per hour). This is con:>idered a potentially significant impact. Even with
implementation of Mitigation 1vleasure IV.M-13C, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-131C 2035 On-Ramp Operation to U.S. 101 Mainline at
U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
Provision of a second on-ramp. lane (as recommended for 2015) would increase
capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. This measure will require the
approval of Caltrans. There are no other physical improvements possible acceptable
to Caltrans to
accommodate the Base Case + project volume of about 3,521 vehicles per hour.
Finding IV.M-13C: Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.M-13C, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 21 of 23
Impact IV.M-14A: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Southbound (to the
north of the Oyster Point interc:hange). During the AM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 2.4 percent (from 10,381 to 10,633 vehicles per hour) at a
location with unacceptable LO:i F year 2035 Base Case operation. This is considered
a potentially significant impact:. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-14A, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure IV.M-14A 2035 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101
Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or
construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its
close proximity to surroundin€; development, such mitigation is not feasible.
Additionally, such mitigation ~n~ould be prohibitively expensive in relation to the
types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of
Impact 14A is not feasible as defined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1
(defining "feasible" as "capablE~ of being accomplished...takingfnto account
economic...and technological factors.").) Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an
obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns,
against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3);
CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular
mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Finding IV.M-14A: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and
would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would
benefit. Under
CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives,
including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where
economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead
agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Impact IV.M-14B: The following discussion concerns U.S.101 Northbound (to the
north of the Oyster Point interchange). During the PM peak hour, the project would
increase volumes by 2.6 percent (from 11,220 to 11,510 vehicles per hour) at a
location with unacceptable LOS F year 2035 Base Case operation. This is considered
a potentially significant impact. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measure
IV.M-14B, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 22 of 23
Mitigation Measure IV.M-14B'~ 2035 Freeway Mainline Operation at U.S.101
Northbound (North of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange)
Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or
construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its
close proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible.
Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the
types of land uses it would benefit. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of
Impact 14B is not feasible as dE~fined by CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1
(defining "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished...takingfnto account
economic...and technological factors.").) under CEQA, the City in this matter has an
obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns,
against the benefits of the project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3);
CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular
mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
Finding IV.M-14B: As noted above, the mitigation measure is not feasible and
would be prohibitively expensiive in relation to the types of land uses it would
benefit. Under
CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives,
including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project. (See Pub.
Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines, §15021. subd. (d).) Where
economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead
agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council now balances the
unavoidable impacts that apply to the development of the Gateway Business Park
Master Plan, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavoidable
impacts are outweighed by thE~ benefits of the Project, as further set forth below.
The following specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and
other considerations support approval of the Project:
A. The Project is expected to generate a new source of significant
tax revenue and development impact fees for City of approximately $50,000,000
Additionally, at full build out,l:he Project is expected to employ an additional
Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Page 23 of 23
2,531employees by 2020. Many of these new positions will be filled by residents of
local communities.
B. The existing physical environment consists primarily of
industrial development, with limited sidewalks and minimal site improvements, and
which lacks amenities. The Project will convert the property to uses consistent with
the campus oriented research ~u development uses, including additional amenities
and improvements. The proposed Project will be built to the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LE'.ED) Green Building Rating System standard and also
provide landscaping and lighting for the property and improve the overall aesthetic
character of the site.
C. The Project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policies
for the East of 101 Area, which provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of
non-residential uses (3.5-G-1) ;and promotes high-technology, and research and
development uses (3.5-G-3).
D. The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing
Policies, which generally promote research & development uses, to the exclusion of
residential and more traditional industrial uses. (See 3.5-I-3, 3.5-I-11.).
E. The Project is designed to take advantage of and promote the
use of public transit by adopting a Transportation Demand Management Plan that
provides incentives for employees to use alternative modes of transportation,
promotes parking cash-out incentives, and uses a lower parking ratio to increase
ridership on BART and the East of 101 shuttle service, as well as constructing
pedestrian walkways linking the Project to the adjacent shuttle stops and bikepaths.
1364468.2
Exhibit C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Included in Final Environmental Impact Report
Gateway Business Park Master Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report