South San Francisco City Council
July 13, 2022

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Former On-site Chemical Storage: Records indicated that some areas along the southeastern side of 325 South Maple Street building were utilized for chemical and water storage. Two tanks, formerly located immediately east of the northeastern corner of the building, were identified as "tanning liquor tanks." Similarly, a site plan dated 1950 depicted a tank labeled "acid tank" in the same general area. Tanneries typically utilized acid and salt solutions as part of the chromium (III) sulfate process during preparation of the hides and to make wastewater suitable for sewage disposal. Documents also showed two sewage disposal areas immediately north of this building. In addition, records depicted a large-scale wastewater treatment area with timberlined sumps, a settling tank, a water reservoir and a sludge lagoon.

Typically, tanneries using chromium sulfate during this time were not known to utilize solvents in significant quantities. In addition, there are no known releases associated with these features, and any significant release would have been discovered in groundwater at downgradient properties, which has not occurred. However, based on the lack of information regarding the specific chemical use at the tannery, large scale wastewater treatment associated with the tannery, and the length of time that this business was in operation (1942 to 1985), the historical use of the property as a tannery along with associated chemical storage and use is considered to represent a recognized environmental condition.
⚫ Adjoining Facility with PCE in Groundwater: Maryatt Industries, which formerly operated at 290 South Maple Avenue (immediately west-northwest), was a linen supply company, that conducted dry cleaning activities. This facility was initially developed in 1958. Dry cleaning, which included the use of tetrachloroethene (PCE) solvents, was conducted at this location from 1958 until 1993 when the facility switched to water-based cleaning products. Wastewater associated with dry cleaning operations was discharged to a solids settling tank on the northeast side of the facility prior to being discharged to the sanitary sewer system. An investigation conducted in 2003 identified concentrations of PCE and its breakdown products in soil, groundwater, and soil vapor in excess of the RWQCB ESLs. A solvent release was also noted at the 416 Browning way facility, located adjacent to and west of the 325 South Maple Avenue site; this release had commingled with the release at 290 South Maple Avenue. 416 Browning is located approximately 260 feet to the northwest of the 325 South Maple Avenue site.

Groundwater monitoring at this facility has indicated that groundwater flow, measured to the north-northwest and to the northeast, is less than 10 feet bgs.

Investigations conducted on the property indicated VOCs were present beneath the northeast side of the building and the west side of the site. The investigations did not include sampling along South Maple Avenue. The closest boring to the site, which was advanced in the vicinity of a storm drain located on the south side of the facility, and approximately 85 feet to the northwest of the property. The following constituents of concern were reported: total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) at 770 ug/L, TCE at 70 ug/L, 1,2-DCE at 1,100 ug/L, PCE at 520 ug/L, and vinyl chloride at 880 ug/L. These elevated concentrations were noted to be upgradient of the source areas and were determined to be associated with an off-site VOC release in the vicinity of 416 Browning Way. It was not clear if the release was from an off-site source or a separate release area within the site. According to the Phase I ESA, the aforementioned impacts are currently being addressed under the oversight of the RWQCB, and therefore it is anticipated that over time these impacts will be remediated. Subsurface impacts associated with release(s) of PCE to soil and groundwater were identified as a recognized environmental condition in the Phase I ESA.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Concentrations reported in groundwater exceeded the residential and commercial exposure scenario for vapor intrusion within the critical distance of the site. Thus, a VEC exists at the property that is considered a recognized environmental condition.

Several business environmental risks were also identified:
⚫ According to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) records, a former tenant, AccuFleet International/AccuFleet Inc./AccuFleet (325 South Maple Avenue, Unit 20) received a permit to install dry cleaning equipment, dated January 24, 1996; however, the facility status is listed as "shut down" as of 2002. At the time of the preparation of the Phase I ESA, AccuFleet was operational, but was not present at the subject property. According to information obtained during on-site interviews, the site contained a commercial washing operation for the airline industry. AccuFleet was also listed in the EDR Hist Cleaner and Emissions Inventory Data (EMI) databases. Between 1997 and 2001, AccuFleet is listed in the air permitting database as emitting one pound of organic hydrocarbon in 1997 and one pound in 1998. No emissions were noted in 1999 to 2001. This data could be an indication that the facility utilized petroleum hydrocarbon based cleaner as opposed to halogentated solvent based cleaner. Due to the lack of direct evidence that the former tenant performed halogentated solvent based dry cleaning on the property, the low likelihood that dry cleaning was performed on the property represents a business environmental risk.
⚫ Groundwater quality in the area may be degraded due to naturally occurring metals such as selenium, arsenic, as well as contiguous industrial usage of the surrounding area since the 1940s. Given the historical industrial use of the property and surrounding area, soil sampling and analysis might be warranted prior to off-site disposal or reuse of excess soil generated during future site development activities. In addition, urban fill utilized in this area may contain concentrations of metals, volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile compounds, or other constituents that may require consideration of specific measures for management, handling, and/or disposal if disturbed during site development activities. To the extent that future site development requires construction dewatering, groundwater sampling and/or treatment may be required to ensure compliance with applicable construction dewatering discharge permitting. The future handling of soils and/or groundwater during future construction was identified as a business environmental risk.
⚫ Based on a review of historical records, a former railroad spur appears to have been previously present on-site. Railroad spurs are typically associated with creosote, pesticides, and heavy metals. While no visual evidence of impacts (i.e., stained soils or stressed vegetation) was observed during the preparation of the Phase I ESA, it is not known whether soil beneath the former railroad spurs has been impacted by chemicals or petroleum products from the historical use. The soil contained within the former railroad spur area is considered to represent a business environmental risk.
⚫ According to records reviewed during the preparation of the Phase I ESA, the former tannery’s process water was derived from three wells located on the subject property. The aforementioned wells appear to have been located within the northwestern portion of the property, near a concrete reservoir. Information regarding construction or dates of installation or abandonment were not found during the research for the ESA. The lack of records indicating that the wells were properly abandoned is considered to represent a business environmental risk.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Based on the original construction date of the main building at 325 South Maple Avenue (1942), asbestos containing material may be present at the site. Suspect materials observed during the preparation of the Phase I ESA included roofing materials and wallboard assemblies. ACM is unlikely to be a concern for the two newer buildings, constructed in 1995 (315 South Maple Avenue) and 1996 (319 South Maple Avenue).
⚫ A limited visual inspection of the site for suspect lead-containing paint (LCP) was conducted.

Based on the date of construction of Building 325 (circa 1942), it is possible LCP may have been applied within the building. Interior painted surfaces were observed to be in fair to good condition. Based on the construction dates of 315 and 319 South Maple Avenue (circa 1995 and 1996), LCP is unlikely to have been applied within those buildings.

According to the Phase I ESA, the potential presence of hexavalent chromium, heavy metals, and volatile organic compounds in shallow soil associated with the aforementioned RECs and business environmental risks will likely be addressed via excavation, and thus, it is unlikely significant concentrations of these chemicals will remain after these activities. The Phase I ESA includes several recommendations regarding the environmental conditions of the site, including the following:
⚫ Specific health and safety requirements and exposure controls to protect future construction workers should be considered.
⚫ A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan describing specific health and safety requirements and exposure controls should be prepared in advance of any future site construction activities that would involve disturbance of shallow soil. Soil to be excavated would be subject to management and disposal in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Waste profile soil sampling and analysis may be required by disposal facilities to fully document the waste classification and disposal requirements.
⚫ Vapor intrusion mitigation should be designed and implemented for the proposed on-site buildings to protect against releases to groundwater from nearby sources. ⚫ Should wells be located during redevelopment, they should be properly abandoned. ⚫ All suspect ACM should be properly assessed prior to disturbance during building maintenance, construction, or demolition activities. Prior to demolition contractors should be made aware of the presence of LCP to provide protection for the workers and for disposal considerations.

Cortese List Sites
CalEPA Cortese List Data Resources5 were consulted to determine if any Cortese sites are located within the boundary of the project site. The Cortese List is described below in Section 4.8.3, Regulatory Framework. One address located within the Specific Plan area and the Phase 1 site was 5 The CalEPA Cortese List Data Resources (https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/) provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements and include:
▪ List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC’s EnviroStor database ▪ List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database ▪ List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit
▪ List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the Water Board
▪ List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
identified in the DTSC’s Cleanup Sites database (via Department of Toxic Substances Control’s EnviroStor website):
⚫ West Coast Automotive Service Center at 160 South Linden Avenue - The property is listed as a corrective action site. According to EnviroStor, the site is listed as Inactive - Needs Evaluation as of March 30, 2011. The site is associated with a Du Pont paint manufacturing facility. A 2004 Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment Report stated that several investigations and remedial activities have been conducted on-site to address both soil and groundwater impacts. A commercial deed restriction was issued to the site and on in September 2011, San Mateo County Environmental Health issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter associated with the petroleum releases at the property. Additional environmental details associated with the site are discussed under Previous Environmental Investigations above.

Two locations within the Specific Plan area (and within the Phase 1 site boundary) were identified in the LUST database (via State Water Resources Control Database’s GeoTracker website):
⚫ Malaspina Property at 30 Tanforan Avenue6 - The property is listed with gasoline impacts to undisclosed media. The site is listed as a Completed - Case Closed site (as of December of 2017).

Cleanup agencies included the San Mateo Local Oversight Program (LOP) and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Additional environmental details associated with the site are discussed under Previous Environmental Investigations above. As previously discussed, any proposed change in land use or soil and groundwater disturbance at or in close proximity to the Malaspina site would be evaluated by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department GPP as required.
⚫ EFL Transportation at 50 Tanforan Avenue - The property is listed with diesel impacts to groundwater. The site is listed as a Completed - Case Closed site (as of 1996). Cleanup agencies included the San Mateo LOP and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Additional environmental details associated with the site are discussed under Previous Environmental Investigations above.

Schools
CEQA establishes special requirements for certain projects near schools to ensure that potential health impacts resulting from exposure to hazardous materials, wastes, and substances will be carefully examined and disclosed in a negative declaration or EIR, and that the lead agency will consult with other agencies on these issues. There are no schools or childcare facilities located on or within 0.25 mile of the project site. The closest school is South San Francisco High School, located approximately 0.47 mile to the northwest of the northern Specific Plan area boundary. The nearest childcare facility is the Sweet Pea Daycare, located approximately 0.70 mile to the south of the Specific Plan area’s southern boundary.

Airports
Aviation safety hazards can result if projects are located near airports. San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is approximately 1.23 miles southeast of the project site. Oakland International Airport is the next closest airport, approximately 11 miles to the east, across San Francisco Bay. 6 The Malaspina Property at 30 Tanforan Avenue listed within the LUST database (on the Water Board’s GeoTracker site) also includes 29, 40, and 46 Tanforan Avenue and 335 (now demolished), 347, and 349 South Maple Avenue. This is according to December 2017 County of San Mateo Health System Case Closure and Residual Contaminants letters.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Wildfires
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) is required by law to map areas of significant fire hazard based on fuels, terrain, weather and other relevant factors (PRC 4201-4204 and Govt. Code 51175-89). According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) “FHSZ Viewer,”
7 the project site is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or an area of high or moderate wildfire risk.

Phase 1 Site
The Phase 1 site is comprised of approximately 16.9 acres and is includes an 11.93-acre portion within the Specific Plan area and a 5.03 acre-portion within the off-site improvement areas (the majority of the off-site improvement areas). The Phase 1 site within the Specific Plan area includes approximately nine buildings on five parcels). The existing uses on the Phase 1 site include industrial and office uses within the Specific Plan area. The off-site improvement areas consist of rights-of-way and easements developed with roadway, sidewalk, and utility improvements in the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.

Hazardous Materials Identified in Previous Environmental Investigations The discussions involving 240 Dollar Avenue; 160 and 180 South Linden Avenue; and 30/40, 46, 50, 54 Tanforan Avenue in the Environmental Setting description for the Specific Plan area above apply to the Phase 1 site, as these properties are located within the Phase 1 site boundary.

Cortese List Sites
As discussed above in the Environmental Setting discussion for the project site, three Cortese sites were identified within the Phase 1 site.

Schools
As discussed above in the Environmental Setting discussion for the project site, there are no schools within 0.25 mile of the Phase 1 site. The closest school is South San Francisco High School, approximately 0.64 mile northwest of the Phase 1 site boundary.

Airports
As discussed above in the Environmental Setting discussion for the project site, SFO is approximately

1.23 miles southeast of the Phase 1 site. Oakland International Airport is the next closest airport, approximately 11 miles to the east, across San Francisco Bay.

Wildfires
As discussed above in the Environmental Setting discussion for the project site, according to the CAL FIRE “FHSZ Viewer,”
8 the Phase 1 site is not in a VHFHSZ or an area of high or moderate wildfire risk.
7 https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ Map can be found at: https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/ files/documents/files/Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zones.pdf 8 https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/ Map can be found at: https://planning.smcgov.org/sites/planning.smcgov.org/ files/documents/files/Fire%20Hazard%20Severity%20Zones.pdf City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.8.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the hazards and hazardous materials plans and policies of federal, state, and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site.

4.8.3.1 Federal
Hazardous Waste Handling
The federal Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) established a program to be administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. The RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which specifically prohibits the use of certain techniques for the disposal of hazardous waste.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as “Superfund,” was enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980 and amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act on October 17, 1986. This law (42 USC 103) provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provides for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and establishes a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. CERCLA also enabled revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The NCP (CFR Title 40, Part 300) provides the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and/or contaminants. The NCP also established the National Priorities List.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, administered by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), is intended to ensure the safety and health of American workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. OSHA establishes and enforces protective standards and reaches out to employers and employees through technical assistance and consultation programs. OSHA standards are listed in 29 CFR 1910.

Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 authorized the EPA to secure information on all new and existing chemical substances and control those substances with unreasonable risks related to public health and the environment.

U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR 100–185) The U.S. Department of Transportation regulations cover all aspects of hazardous materials packaging, handling, and transportation. Some of the topics covered include parts 107 (Hazard Materials Program), 130 (Oil Spill Prevention and Response), 172 (Emergency Response), 173 City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
(Packaging Requirements), 174 (Rail Transportation), 176 (Vessel Transportation), 177 (Highway Transportation), 178 (Packaging Specifications), and 180 (Packaging Maintenance).

Aviation Hazards
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Regulations (14 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 77) establish standards for what constitutes an obstruction to navigable airspace. Obstructions include any object if it is: (1) 500 feet above ground level; (2) 200 feet above ground level or above the established airport elevation, whichever is higher, within 3 nautical miles of an airport; and (3) above a height within a terminal obstacle clearance area or en route obstacle clearance area. In addition, California Public Utilities Code section 21659 prohibits hazards near airports (as defined by 14 CFR 77) unless a permit allowing the construction is issued by the Caltrans Division of Aeronautics. FAA requires a developer to file a Notice of Proposed Construction (Form 7460) for any structure greater than 200 feet above ground level. The form requires a proposal for marking and lighting of wind turbines and towers. FAA determines if the proposed Project would create a hazard to navigable airspace and issues either a Determination of No Hazard or a Notice of Presumed Hazard.

4.8.3.2 State
California Environmental Protection Agency
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) was created in 1991. It unified California’s environmental authority in a single cabinet-level agency and brought the California Air Resources Board, State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), DTSC, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and Department of Pesticide Regulation under one agency. These agencies were placed under the CalEPA “umbrella” for the protection of human health and the environment to ensure the coordinated deployment of state resources. Their mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment and ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality.

Department of Toxic Substances Control
DTSC, a department of CalEPA, is the primary agency in California for regulating hazardous waste, cleaning up existing contamination, and finding ways to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste primarily under the authority of the federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (primarily Division 20, Chapters 6.5 through 10.6, and Title 22, Division 4.5). Other laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Cortese List
CalEPA maintains the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Site (Cortese) List, a planning document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the locations of hazardous materials release sites. Per Government Code section 65962.5, the Cortese List must be updated at least once annually. DTSC, the State Water Board , and CalRecycle contribute to the hazardous material release site listings.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Hazardous Waste Control Act (Section 25100 et seq.)
DTSC is responsible for enforcing the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), a framework under which hazardous wastes are managed in California.

The law provides for the development of a state hazardous waste program that administers and implements the provisions of the federal RCRA with regards to waste management system in California. It also provides for the designation of California-only hazardous waste and development of standards that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent than federal requirements.

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program
In January 1996, Cal EPA adopted regulations implementing a Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.11, Sections 25404–25404.9) The Unified Program is implemented at the local level. The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) is the local agency that is responsible for the implementation of the Unified Program. The San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) is the designated CUPA for the project site.

The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of hazardous materials programs, including the HazMat Business Plan Program, California Accidental Release Prevention Program, Underground Storage Tank Program, Aboveground Storage Tank Program, and Hazardous Waste Generator Program, and incident response.

California Code of Regulations, Title 8—Industrial Relations Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (known as Cal/OSHA) and the federal OSHA are the agencies responsible for ensuring worker safety in the workplace. Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices. These standards would apply to construction activities.

California Labor Code (Division 5, Parts 1, 6, 7, and 7.5) The California Labor Code is a collection of regulations for the workplace that ensure appropriate training on the use and handling of hazardous materials as well as the operation of equipment and machines that use, store, transport, or dispose of hazardous materials. Division 5, Part 1, Chapter

2.5, ensures that employees who are in charge of handling hazardous materials are appropriately trained and informed with respect to the materials they handle. Division 5, Part 7, ensures that employees who work with volatile flammable liquids are outfitted with appropriate safety gear and clothing.

CUPA Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program Business Plan
State and Federal Community Right-to-Know laws were passed in 1986. These laws allow public access to information about the types and amounts of chemicals being used at local businesses. The City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
laws also require businesses to plan and prepare for a chemical emergency through the preparation of a Hazardous Materials Inventory and a Hazardous Materials Business Plan that are certified annually. Under this program, businesses are inspected at least once every three years by a CUPA inspector to verify compliance with the California Health and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations. Hazardous materials business plans must include the following:
⚫ details, including floor plans, of the facility and business conducted at the site; ⚫ an inventory of hazardous materials that are handled or stored on site; ⚫ an emergency response plan; and
⚫ a training program for safety and emergency response for new employees, with annual refresher courses
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Government Code Section 51178 requires CAL FIRE to identify fire hazard severity zones in the state. Government Code Section 51179 requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, FHSZs in its jurisdiction. Specifically, the state is required to designate Very High Fire Severity Zones (VHFHSZs) in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs). LRAs consist of areas where local agencies are responsible for fire suppression rather than the state.

4.8.3.3 Regional
San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division As described above, San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division is the primary local agency approved as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) with responsibility for implementing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials management. The Unified Program is described under Section 4.8.3.2, above. As the local CUPA, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division maintains the records regarding location and status of hazardous materials sites in the county, and administers programs that regulate and enforce the transport, use, storage, manufacturing and remediation of hazardous materials. A Participating Agency (PA) is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer one or more Unified Programs within their jurisdiction, on behalf of the CUPA. The City of South San Francisco Fire Department maintains a special program that regulates hazardous materials through disclosure and risk management plans, as well as referrals to the County of San Mateo for above ground storage tanks. Thus, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is a PA with the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division as the CUPA.

County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Plan
The 2015 County of San Mateo Emergency Operations Plan establishes policies and procedures and assigns responsibilities to ensure effective management of emergency response operations within the San Mateo County Operational Area. The emergency management organization in San Mateo County will identify potential threats to life, property and the environment, and develop plans and procedures to protect, prevent and mitigate those assets from potential hazards (e.g., hazardous materials spills).

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
State law requires Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) to prepare and adopt an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for each public use and military airport within their jurisdiction.

Further, ALUCs are required to review the plans, regulations, and other actions of local agencies and airport operators within each commission’s jurisdiction. SFO is 1.23 miles south of the Specific Plan area and Phase 1 site. The 2012 Comprehensive ALUCP prepared for SFO has four primary areas of concern:
⚫ Aircraft Noise Impact Reduction – To reduce the potential number of future airport area residents who could be exposed to noise impacts from airport and aircraft operations. ⚫ Safety of Persons on the Ground and in Aircraft in Flight – To minimize the potential number of future residents and land use occupants exposed to hazards related to aircraft operations and accidents.
⚫ Height Restrictions/Airspace Protection – To protect the navigable airspace around the Airport for the safe and efficient operation of aircraft in flight. ⚫ Overflight Notification – To establish an area within which aircraft flights to and from the Airport occur frequently enough and at a low enough altitude to be noticeable by sensitive residents. Within this area, real estate disclosure notices shall be required, pursuant to state law.

The 2012 SFO ALUCP contains airport/land use compatibility policies and criteria that apply to all land uses except those considered as existing land uses. ALUCs were given authority to: (1) specify how land near airports is to be used, based on safety and noise compatibility considerations; (2) develop height restrictions for new development to protect airspace in the vicinity of the airport; and (3) establish construction standards for new buildings near airports, including sound insulation requirements. As identified in the 2012 SFO ALUCP, the project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 sphere of influence, which is the boundary established to regulate obstructions to airspace navigation, including building heights, and within SFO’s Airport Influence Areas A and B, requiring ALUC review for consistency with ALUCP policies.

ALUCP Policy SP-1 identifies Safety Compatibility Zones within certain distances from an airport to minimize potential hazards and improve public safety. Policy SP-2 defines incompatible land uses within each Safety Compatibility Zone. There are five safety compatibility zones in the vicinity of SFO.

As shown in Figure 4.10-1 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR, the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area, overlapping with the Phase 1 site, is located within Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Additional details regarding compatibility zones including compatibility criteria within these zones are discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR.

4.8.3.4 Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the city, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The City General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the city, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The City General Plan contains a Health and Safety Element, which acknowledges and mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g., hazardous materials and waste). The City General Plan includes the following policies applicable to hazards and hazardous materials:
⚫ Policy 8.3-G-1: Reduce the generation of solid waste, including hazardous waste, and recycle those materials that are used to slow the filling of local and regional landfills, in accord with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
⚫ Policy 8.3-G-2: Minimize the risk to life and property from the generation, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and waste in South San Francisco. Comply with all applicable regulations and provisions for the storage, use, and handling of hazardous substances, as established by federal (EPA), state (DTSC, RWQCB, Cal/OSHA, CalEPA), and local (County of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco) regulations. ⚫ Policy 8.3-I-2: Continue to maintain hazardous waste regulations in the City’s zoning ordinance.

The existing zoning ordinance and General Plan prohibits intensive industrial facilities and industries that produce substantial amounts of hazardous waste, prohibits industrial uses involving the permanent storage of hazardous materials, and limits lighter industrial uses that produce hazardous waste, such as auto repair and auto painting businesses, to the Light Industrial land use classification.
⚫ Policy 8.3-I-4: Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials.

These routes should not pass through residential areas or other sensitive areas. Specific time periods for transport should be established to reduce the impact and accident risk during peak travel periods.
⚫ Policy 8.4-I-3: Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the city.
⚫ Policy 8.6-G-1: Use the City’s Emergency Response Plan as the guide for emergency management in South San Francisco.
⚫ Policy 8.7-I-1: Do not permit land uses that pose potential hazards to air navigation in the vicinity of SFO. These land uses include the following:
 Any use that would direct a steady or flashing light of white, red, green or amber color towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward a landing, other than FAA-approved navigational lights;
 Any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing;
 Any use that would generate smoke or rising columns of air;  Any use that would attract large concentrations of birds within approach and climb-out areas; and
 Any use that would engage electrical interference that may interfere with aircraft communications or aircraft instrumentation.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
South San Francisco Municipal Code
The South San Francisco Municipal Code includes regulatory requirements addressing use and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. These regulatory requirements include the following:
⚫ Section 8.16.125, Yard waste; construction and demolition debris; hazardous waste and household hazardous waste: Construction debris and/or demolition debris removed from a residential, commercial and industrial or institutional property by a licensed construction or demolition contractor using its own employees and equipment as an incidental part of a comprehensive service offered by such contractor, rather than as a hauling service, may be disposed of by such contractor at any licensed transfer station or materials recovery facility. ⚫ Section 14.04.320, Coordination with hazardous materials inventory and response program: The first revision of the business plan for any facility subject to the City’s hazardous materials inventory and response program shall include a program for compliance with this chapter, including the prohibitions on non-stormwater discharges and illicit discharges, and the requirement to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. ⚫ Section 14.08.210, General discharge regulations: It is unlawful to discharge or cause to be discharged directly or indirectly, any pollutant or wastewater into any storm sewer or into any sewage facility which will interfere with the operation or performance or pass through of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works.

San Bruno Plans and Policies
As further described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within San Bruno in areas that are completely developed, consisting of rights-of-way and easements developed with roadway, sidewalk, and utility improvements; the project would not develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. The specific off-site improvements that are wholly or partially located within San Bruno include: constructing a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue; improving Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue; converting Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue; and realigning the existing storm drain main within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. Development of these improvements would be subject to applicable San Bruno plans and policies.

This section identifies and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant policies from the San Bruno General Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials as related to the portions of the off-site improvements located within San Bruno’s jurisdiction. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with San Bruno land use plans and policies, refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
San Bruno General Plan
The San Bruno General Plan, adopted in 2009, includes goals and policies associated with hazards and hazardous materials in the Health and Safety Element. 9 These goals and policies include
requiring appropriate use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials; ensuring that all development heeds safety precautions from the San Francisco International Airport; and regulating development on sites with known or suspected contamination of soil and/or groundwater.

Specifically, the City’s General Plan includes the following goals and policies associated with hazards and hazardous materials that are relevant to the proposed off-site improvements in San Bruno’s jurisdiction:
⚫ Policy HS-24: Control the transport of hazardous substances to minimize potential hazards to the local population. Identify appropriate regional and local routes for transportation of hazardous materials, and require that fire and emergency personnel can easily access these routes for response to spill incidents.
⚫ Policy HS-30: Regulate development on sites with known or suspected contamination of soil and/or groundwater to ensure that construction workers, the public, future occupants, and the environment are adequately protected from hazards associated with contamination, in accordance with federal, State, and local rules, regulations, policies, and guidelines.

4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to hazards and hazardous for the proposed project, including Phase 1. It describes the methods and thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Feasible measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion, when necessary.

4.8.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant hazards and hazardous materials impact if it would:
⚫ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
⚫ 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;
⚫ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; ⚫ 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, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
9 City of San Bruno. 2009. San Bruno General Plan, Health and Safety Element. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24020. Accessed: December 2, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; ⚫ Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
⚫ Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

4.8.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project, including Phase 1, is based on the hazardous materials technical reports listed in Section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting, under Previous Environmental Investigations, unless otherwise noted. The technical reports describe existing conditions within the Specific Plan area (including the Phase 1 site), identify potential hazards related to hazardous materials, and provide recommendations for mitigating effects from those hazards. Although the subject properties of the hazardous materials technical reports do not include the off-site improvement areas, the environmental database searches conducted for the Phase 1 ESAs, which generally cover a one-mile radius from the subject site, included the off-site improvement areas.

Therefore, this analysis assumes that conditions, impacts, and recommendations identified for the Specific Plan area also apply to the off-site improvement areas.

Buildout Scenario Studied (Life Sciences Scenario and Office Scenario) As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the proposed project would allow for development of the commercial campus as either office or research-anddevelopment (R&D) uses, or a combination of both, up to a total buildout of 2,800,000 square feet.

For the purposes of program-level EIR analysis, two projected buildout scenarios were identified which would represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the proposed project: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario. Each section within Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyses the buildout scenario that represents the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.

Under the Life Sciences Scenario, the Specific Plan area would be developed with 1,936,850 square feet of research and development (R&D) uses and 88,200 square feet of amenity uses. R&D uses are typically associated with the handling and use of various hazardous materials, potentially including chemicals, solvents, medical wastes, and infectious agents. The use of these types of materials is more likely to occur with R&D uses as compared to office uses. Therefore, the Life Sciences Scenario has a greater potential to result in significant impacts with respect to hazards and hazardous materials related to the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials, and is analyzed as the “worst-case” scenario for those purposes.

However, the Office Scenario would be the worst-case scenario for impacts related to encountering contaminated soil because the Office Scenario would involve a greater volume of excavation than the Life Sciences Scenario (688,400 cubic yards [cy] under the Office Scenario versus 353,700 cy under the Life Sciences Scenario), resulting in further potential to encounter contaminated soils. This impact is analyzed under Impact HAZ-2.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.8.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. (Project:

Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
Construction
Project construction would involve routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking. Such transport, use, and disposal must comply with applicable regulations discussed under Section 4.8.3 Regulatory Framework. Although solvents, paints, oils, grease, and caulking would be transported, used, and disposed of during the construction phase, these materials are handled on a temporary basis and are typically used in construction projects and thus, would not represent the routine transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Any spills or releases involving these materials are expected to be small, localized and cleaned as they occur. Therefore, project construction would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation
Under the Life Sciences Scenario, the Specific Plan area would be developed with R&D uses, 10 including laboratory space with some square footage occupied by office and related uses. Due to the nature of R&D uses, the possibility exists for hazards related to the handling of hazardous materials, including biomedical materials and waste to occur. Any R&D tenant(s) handling qualifying hazardous materials would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, state and local regulations for qualifying hazardous materials, seek consultation with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD), and apply for applicable permits for any regulated substance that may pose a threat to public health and safety or the environment because they are highly toxic, flammable, or explosive. Tenants must comply with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations (e.g., RCRA, California Hazardous Waste Control Law and principles prescribed by the US Department of Health Services) to ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. In addition, registration of the hazardous materials through the SMCEHD Hazardous Material Business Plan Program would be required to ensure safe and responsible handling those qualifying materials.

Support office and related amenity uses included within the Life Sciences Scenario would involve the use of hazardous chemicals that are typical in retail, fitness center, meeting space, and office settings (e.g., toners, paints, kitchen and restroom cleaners, other maintenance materials).

Landscape maintenance on the project site, including the off-site improvement areas, would require 10 Section 20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code defines R&D use as: “A facility for scientific research and the design, development, and testing of electrical, electronic, magnetic, optical, pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology components and products in advance of product manufacturing. Includes assembly of related products from parts produced off-site where the manufacturing activity is secondary to the research and development activities.”
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the use of a wide variety of commercial products that are formulated with hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, cleaners and degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides). Such materials are considered common and are unlikely to be stored or used in large quantities. Any spills involving these materials would be small and localized and would be cleaned up as they occur. The off-site improvement areas would be developed with circulation improvements and underground utilities, the operation of which would not require routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

The City of South San Francisco requires that building spaces be designed to handle the intended office and R&D uses, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and secondary containment structures, in accordance with the guidelines set forth the City’s Fire Code (South San Francisco Municipal Code

15.24010 California Fire Code, 2019 Edition, adopted by reference). Compliance with state and local regulations would ensure that buildings are equipped with safety measures including sprinklers, alarms, etc., to minimize potential impacts of the presence of hazardous materials. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for completed structures, the City requires final inspection by the South San Francisco Fire Department to ensure conformance of all building systems with the City’s Fire Code and National Fire Protection Association requirements.

The inspection includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans. Finally, compliance with the California Department of Transportation regulations would ensure that all necessary safety precautions would be taken during transport of hazardous materials during all phases of the project.

Therefore, mandatory compliance with all applicable federal, State and local regulations pertaining to the safe use, storage, transport and disposal of hazardous materials would ensure that the project would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
Construction
Phase 1 site construction would involve routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as the materials mentioned under the project analysis above. Thus, the construction analysis for the project applies to Phase 1. Phase 1 site construction would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during construction, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation
Phase 1 would include office uses that would use materials typical of retail, fitness center, meeting space, and office settings (e.g., toners, paints, kitchen and restroom cleaners, other maintenance materials). Landscape maintenance would require some hazardous materials use as well (also described above in the project analysis). These types of materials are considered common and unlikely to be stored or used in significant quantities. Furthermore, spills involving these materials would be small and localized and would be cleaned up as they occur. Per the proposed Precise Plan, Phase 1 would not include R&D uses. However, to the extent that any regulated materials would be utilized within the Phase 1 site, tenants must comply with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations (e.g., RCRA, California Hazardous Waste Control Law and principles prescribed by the US Department of Health Services) to ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
than significant. The off-site improvement areas developed during Phase 1 would be developed with circulation improvements and underground utilities, the operation of which would not require routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, Phase 1 operations would not create a significant hazard for the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. (Project: Less than Significant with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project
As discussed in Section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting, multiple site-specific investigations were prepared between 2017 and 2020 for portions of the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site.

Certain reports cover select portions of the Specific Plan area. The technical reports are included in full in Appendix 4.8-1. These investigations concluded that prior releases of hazardous materials have occurred within various portions of the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the potential for contaminated on-site soil and/or groundwater exists within the Specific Plan area, and presumably within the off-site improvement areas, given their proximity to the Specific Plan area. Depending on the contaminant characteristics and extent of contamination in particular locations, ground disturbance and excavation activities conducted during construction are likely to encounter contaminated soil. Additionally, dewatering within the Specific Plan area could result in the withdrawal of contaminated groundwater. If the groundwater contains contaminants above regulatory levels, a release of the water could present a hazard to people or the environment unless properly managed. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, ground disturbance could also result in the exposure of pollutants from spills or other activities and may contaminate groundwater. Groundwater dewatering may also mobilize existing groundwater contaminant plumes. For these reasons, encountering contaminated soil and/or groundwater would create an exposure risk to construction personnel and the surrounding environment, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

In order to address these potential risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials related to contaminated groundwater and/or contaminated soil, future development within the Specific Plan area would be required, as conditions of approval, to incorporate recommendations described in the prior site-specific investigations described in Section 4.8.2. To further address these risks, project applicants, including the Phase 1 applicant, would need to implement a Soil Management Plan (described below as Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a) to minimize the potential exposure of construction personnel to contaminated soils, unknown environmental conditions or subsurface features. In addition, to further address potential risks associated with contaminated groundwater, as discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, project applicants, including the Phase 1 applicant, would be required to conduct groundwater monitoring and ensure adequate treatment and disposal of contaminated groundwater, if encountered, pursuant to Mitigation Measure HWQ-1. With implementation of standard regulatory compliance measures, potentially contaminated soils and groundwater would be handled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations and requirements.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
It is also reasonably foreseeable that potential upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials could occur resulting from previously unknown soil and/or groundwater contamination, such as encountering a previously unidentified UST. This potential risk would also be addressed in coordination and under oversight of the applicable oversight federal, state, and/or local agency (e.g. EPA, State Water Resources Control Board, DTSC, or local Environmental Health or Fire Department). The type and extent of the contamination will dictate the appropriate response and remediation appropriate for the site and the agencies to be notified.

According to the Phase I ESA conducted for the 325 Maple Avenue site (2019), a vapor encroachment condition exists at this location. As a result, future development to occur at this location (as part of a future phase) could result in migration of vapor-forming chemicals from subsurface sources into future, overlying buildings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b below would ensure that engineering controls in the form of vapor mitigation systems are implemented to redirect or minimize vapor encroachment, thereby reducing potential impacts in this area.

In addition, as discussed in Section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting, various buildings and structures within the Specific Plan area may contain asbestos-containing materials and/or lead-based paint.

Demolition of existing structures within the Specific Plan area may expose construction workers, the public or the environment to hazardous materials such as lead-based paint, asbestos and PCBs. The level of potential impact is dependent upon the age, construction and building materials in each area of the building. Any activity that involves cutting, grinding or drilling during building renovation or demolition, or relocation of underground utilities, could release friable asbestos fibers and/or lead dust, unless proper precautions are taken. Potential exposure to hazardous building materials would be reduced through appropriate identification, removal and disposal according to applicable regulations. Specifically, buildings and structures that are scheduled to be demolished that are known to have hazardous building materials (as summarized in section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting; 240 Dollar Avenue and 180 Linden Avenue, 160 Linden Avenue, 50 Tanforan Avenue and 30/40 Tanforan Avenue have undergone a Hazardous Building Materials Survey) would require proper abatement procedures prior to construction activities to reduce potential impacts, and remaining buildings to be demolished that have not been previously surveyed would require a Hazardous Building Materials Survey as described under Mitigation Measure HAZ-2c, below.

With the implementation of site-specific recommendations included in the various investigations mentioned, compliance with regulatory requirements, and implementation of the mitigation measures described below, impacts associated with the potential upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prepare a Soil Management Plan Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit (All Phases)
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall retain the services of a qualified environmental engineering firm to prepare and implement, during site preparation, grading, and excavation activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP). The SMP shall be designed to protect human health of construction workers, the public and the environment during site preparation, grading, and excavation activities by including protocols, measures, and techniques for the proper handling, management, and disposition of affected soils found on the site and any areas of off-site work during site preparation and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
grading activities. The SMP shall also ensure the proper characterization, management, and/or disposal of contaminated environmental media that is above applicable Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) by recommending additional sampling activities (as necessary), including profile sampling for proper disposal. The SMP shall be prepared by a commercial environmental engineering firm with demonstrated expertise and experience in the preparation of SMPs and shall be stamped by an appropriately licensed professional. The SMP shall be implemented by the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans throughout all ground-disturbing work.

The SMP shall establish protocols and measures for addressing the discovery of presently unknown environmental conditions or subsurface structures such as USTs, sumps, or wells. If the environmental engineering firm subsequently identifies the need for further sampling, the project applicant shall implement this and any other requirements identified in the SMP. The project applicant shall enter into a voluntary agreement with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for review and approval of the SMP prior to construction activities. The RWQCB will also have oversight authority pertaining to implementation of the SMP. If directed by the RWQCB, the project applicant shall conduct additional site investigation and characterization prior to construction to ensure that hazardous materials in the soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater do not exceed applicable regulatory thresholds.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Engineering Controls to Address Vapor Encroachment Conditions (Future Phases that Include the Property at 325 South Maple Avenue) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for development within the property at 325 South Maple Avenue, the project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable requirements imposed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or San Mateo County Health, Environmental Health Services for soil vapor sampling and risk evaluation to address vapor intrusion concerns. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, engineering controls designed by a qualified engineer to address vapor encroachment conditions by redirecting and or minimizing VOC concentrations in compliance with San Francisco Bay RWQCB (or San Mateo County Health) requirements and shall be implemented on the site.

Specific engineering controls may include, but will not be limited to:
⚫ Installation of subsurface migration barriers; and/or ⚫ Inclusion of ventilated foundations for any proposed structures; and/or ⚫ The use and implementation of an alternative method or structural design that would address soil gas releases and reduce the potential for hazardous conditions to occur.

Appropriate engineering control system(s) shall be determined with concurrence, approval, and oversight of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or San Mateo County Health, as applicable, and shall be dependent on future building placement and construction. Project applicants shall comply with all applicable San Francisco Bay RWQCB or San Mateo County Health requirements for long-term operation, monitoring, and maintenance of the vapor mitigation systems. Any land use covenant required by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or San Mateo County Health to assure the long-term efficacy of the vapor mitigation systems shall be recorded in property title records by the project sponsor(s) or successor owner(s). If at the time of development, the 325 South Maple Avenue site has obtained case closure from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB or San Mateo City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
County Health and vapor intrusion is deemed no longer a concern, implementation of this mitigation measure would no longer be required.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2c: Conduct a Hazardous Building Materials Survey prior to Demolition Activities and Hazardous Building Material Handling (All Phases) Prior to the issuance of any demolition permit, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall ensure that a Hazardous Building Materials Survey is conducted by a licensed contractor on structures that will be demolished and have not been surveyed previously. The Hazardous Building Materials Survey shall identify the presence of hazardous building materials including: asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and poly-chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Should this survey determine that lead-based paint and/or asbestos or other hazardous building materials are present, the following actions shall be implemented by the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans:
⚫ A health and safety plan shall be developed by a certified industrial hygienist for potential lead-based paint, asbestos or other hazardous building materials risks present during demolition. The health and safety plan shall then be implemented by a licensed contractor.

The health and safety plan shall comply with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) requirements.
⚫ Necessary approvals shall be acquired from the City and/or County (by the licensed contractor) for specifications or commencement of abatement activities. Abatement activities shall be conducted by a licensed contractor. ⚫ Prior to demolition of building materials containing asbestos, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) shall be notified ten days prior to initiating construction and demolition activities. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. In addition:
 Asbestos shall be disposed of at a licensed disposal facility to be identified by the licensed contractor.
 The local office of the Cal/OSHA shall be notified of asbestos abatement activities.  Asbestos abatement contractors shall follow state regulations contained in 8 CCR 1529 and 8 CCR 341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material.
 Asbestos removal contractors shall be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. The owner of the property where abatement is to occur shall have a Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by and registered with the Office of the California Department of Health Services in Sacramento. ⚫ The contractor and hauler of hazardous building materials shall file a Hazardous Waste Manifest that details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. Pursuant to California law, the City of South San Francisco shall not issue the required permit until the applicant has complied with the notice requirements described above.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Require Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Prior to Dewatering Activity (All Phases). Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR.

Phase 1
Similar to the proposed Specific Plan area, properties in the Phase 1 site have a history of hazardous materials releases and site investigations, remediation, and monitoring. Environmental information described for 240 Dollar Avenue; 160 and 180 South Linden Avenue; and 30/40, 46, 50, 54 Tanforan Avenue applies to the Phase 1 site as they are located within its footprint (the Environmental Setting section describes investigations conducted in more detail).

Due to the environmental history of the Phase 1 site, it is possible that soil disturbance activities during construction could expose people and the surrounding environment to residual or undocumented contamination associated with the aforementioned releases. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a would reduce potential impacts associated with residual or undocumented contaminated soil to less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure HAZ2a would also account for the potential exposure to previously unknown subsurface features.

Implementation of a Soil Management Plan was part of the recommendations found in the 2018 Phase II ESA prepared for 50 Tanforan Avenue. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, would ensure the impacts related to the potential release of contaminated groundwater would be less than significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b would address the potential impacts associated with vapor encroachment conditions identified within the Phase 1 site.

For sites that have conducted pre-renovation hazardous materials surveys, the hazardous materials would be removed (as recommended in the surveys) by a qualified consulting firm prior to construction. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ-2c, a hazardous building materials survey would be conducted on the remaining buildings to be demolished (that have not been surveyed previously) within the Phase 1 site footprint.

In summary, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2c, and Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact associated with residual and undocumented contamination, subsurface features, and hazardous building materials (during demolition) to less than significant with mitigation for Phase 1 by ensuring that the potential for release or exposure to hazardous materials is minimized.

Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact)
Project
There are no existing schools within 0.25 mile of the project site. The nearest school is the South San Francisco High School located approximately 0.47 mile to the northwest of the project site. Thus, the project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school. No impact would occur.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have no impact related to emitting hazardous emissions or handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of a school.

Impact HAZ-4: The 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, but would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Project: Less than Significant with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project
Online CalEPA Cortese List Data Resources11 were consulted to determine if any of the addresses located within the Specific Plan area are located within any of the resources that comprise the list.

One address located within the Specific Plan area was identified in the DTSC’s Cleanup Sites database (via DTSC’s EnviroStor website):

West Coast Automotive Service Center at 160 South Linden Avenue - The property is listed as a corrective action site. According to EnviroStor, the site is listed as Inactive - Needs Evaluation as of 3/30/2011. The site is associated with a Du Pont paint manufacturing facility. A 2004 Abbreviated Preliminary Assessment Report stated that several investigations and remedial activities have been conducted on-site to address both soil and groundwater impacts. As discussed in Section 4.8.2, Environmental Setting, a 2018 Phase I ESA conducted at this location determined that the extent of hydrocarbon-impacted groundwater had been adequately defined, and although residual concentrations were above drinking water ESLs, no current exposure pathway to human or environmental receptors exists as no water wells, deeper drinking water aquifers, surface water, or other sensitive receptors are likely to be impacted. Based on evidence that the contaminant plume is decreasing with time, the Phase I ESA indicated that residual concentrations are anticipated to reach appropriate regulatory limits for drinking water quality naturally. A commercial deed restriction was issued to the site and in September of 2011, San Mateo County Environmental Health issued a No Further Action (NFA) letter associated with the petroleum releases at the property as the case was considered a low-risk groundwater case as defined by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Since the groundwater contaminant plume is stabilized and does not extend significantly off-site, there is no potential for significant transport and concentration of contaminants in sensitive ecological habitats.

Future redevelopment within the 160 South Linden Avenue portion of the Specific Plan area would be required to adhere to the deed restriction and DTSC oversight (as mentioned above, the site is listed as a corrective action site in need of evaluation and under purview of the DTSC). With adherence to applicable deed restrictions and input and oversight from DTSC, impacts associated with the aforementioned listing would be less than significant. 11 The CalEPA Cortese List Data Resources (https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/) provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the “Cortese List” requirements and include:
▪ List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from DTSC’s EnviroStor database ▪ List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database ▪ List of solid waste disposal sites identified by the Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit
▪ List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) and Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAO) from the Water Board
▪ List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Two locations within the Specific Plan area (and within the Phase 1 site boundary) were identified in the LUST database (via State Water Resources Control Database’s GeoTracker website):
⚫ Malaspina Property at 30 Tanforan Avenue - The property is listed with gasoline impacts to undisclosed media. According to GeoTracker, the site is listed as a Completed - Case Closed site (as of 2017). Cleanup agencies included the San Mateo Local Oversight Program (LOP) and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Additional environmental details associated with the site are included in the Environmental Setting section above.
⚫ EFL Transportation at 50 Tanforan Avenue - The property is listed with diesel impacts to groundwater. According to GeoTracker, the site is listed as a Completed - Case Closed site (as of 1996). Cleanup agencies included the San Mateo LOP and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

Additional environmental details associated with the site are included in the Environmental Setting section above.

Contamination at both the Malaspina Property and EFL Transportation properties have been addressed to the satisfaction of the oversight agencies as indicated on the state GeoTracker database. Thus, potential impacts associated with the aforementioned LUST listings are considered unlikely. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a (as mentioned under Impact HAZ-2) would further reduce potential exposure to construction workers and the public to any potential residual contamination in on-site soils if encountered. Thus, impacts associated with creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment resulting from the project being located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant with mitigation.

Phase 1
As stated above in the project analysis, one property identified in the DTSC’s Cleanup Sites database and two properties identified in the LUST database are located within the Phase 1 site boundary. No other sites within the Phase 1 site boundary were identified in the Cortese List Data Resources. For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, impacts associated with the Phase 1 site being located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would be less than significant with mitigation.

Impact HAZ-5: The project would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
SFO is approximately 1.23 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 sphere of influence and within the boundaries of Airport Influence Area (AIA) A and B of the SFO ALUCP. As such, the compatibility criteria contained within the ALUCP are applicable to development within the project site. The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport is used by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) to promote compatibility between SFO and surrounding land uses. The ALUCP compatibility criteria, as derived from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), are used to safeguard the general welfare of the public.

In general, height limitations and restrictions in the area are defined by the SFO Airport AIA.

According to the 2012 SFO ALUCP, notification and consultation with the FAA under CFR Part 77.9 City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
would be required for implementation of the project. Building heights under the project would range from four to seven stories, subject to maximum height limits in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and San Francisco International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan requirements; maximum heights would be approximately 115 feet depending on the specific elevation of the relevant portion of the Specific Plan area and the applicable height contours under these regulations (see Figure 4.10-2 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR). As discussed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and shown in Figure 4.10-1, a small portion of the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area is located within Safety Compatibility Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. Proposed development within that portion of the Specific Plan area would consist of streetscape, open space, and the four-story commercial amenities use building, which are permissible uses for Zone 4. In addition, as the proposed off-site improvements consist of roadways, sidewalks, and utility easements along roadways surrounding the Specific Plan area, height limitations and restrictions would not be exceeded. As discussed in Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, of this EIR (Impact NOI-3), the types of uses proposed by the project are compatible with ALUCP noise contours (see Figure 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR).

Pending consultation with C/CAG and the FAA, it is expected that the project would be compatible with the applicable land use compatibility policies under the SFO ALUCP. Development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the FAA and ALUCP building height regulations and would otherwise be compatible with the land uses contemplated for the project site under the ALUCP; as such, the project would not pose a safety hazard or generate excessive noise for people working in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant.

Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts related to noise and safety hazards within an airport land use plan would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-6: The project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
Project development would not include any permanent changes to existing public roadways that provide emergency access to the project site or surrounding area. On the contrary, the off-site improvements consisting of roadways and sidewalks within and surrounding the Specific Plan area would improve roadway circulation and adjacent intersections, resulting in improved access to the project site and the surrounding area. Within the Specific Plan area, the proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct a transit-oriented office/R&D campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet, including a new roadway (Southline Avenue). During construction, it is possible that construction activity could potentially affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other roadway obstructions that could impede emergency access on-site. However, compliance with the City’s standard condition of approval requiring a pre-construction meeting (for large projects featuring significant work in the public right-of-way) would minimize potential impacts associated with emergency response times access. After building permits are approved, and prior to initiating construction activities, the applicant would be required to hold a pre-construction meeting with City planning, building, and engineering staff and other interested parties (including the South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments) to cover topics such as the project’s applicable conditions of City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
approval, permits issued, construction schedule, staging, logistics, traffic control, site security, and access. During the pre-construction meeting, representatives of the police and fire departments would ensure adequate access to the project site and surrounding areas is provided in the event of an emergency; therefore, emergency response access or emergency evacuation plan routes would not be impeded significantly during the construction period.

The project would not involve structures that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. On the contrary, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Project would provide circulation improvements and roadway design within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area within the off-site improvements area in a manner that ensures that all police, fire, and emergency medical service vehicles can safely and efficiently navigate through the area. Furthermore, development of the new Southline Avenue would provide additional emergency access options to and from the Specific Plan area. Therefore, development of the project is not expected to interfere with the County of San Mateo’s Emergency Operations Plan or any evacuation route. Adequate access to project site would be improved by incorporating circulation and access improvements from east to west. The City of South San Francisco requires that upon completion of the proposed building, occupancy is not allowed until a final inspection is made by the South San Francisco Fire Department, which includes a review of the emergency evacuation plans.

Furthermore, R&D tenants who handle hazardous materials would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations including the California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law and the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (including Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan coordinated with the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health and the South San Francisco Fire Department).

Adherence to the aforementioned regulations and plans would ensure a proper response and evacuation in the event of an emergency associated with a hazardous material release.

Therefore, the project would not impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan and this impact would be less than significant.

Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not impair implementation of or interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Additionally, most off-site improvements consisting of roadways, sidewalks, and utility easements along roadways surrounding the Specific Plan area would be conducted during Phase 1 and would improve roadway circulation and access in the area. This impact would be less than significant.

Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact)
Project
The project site is a highly developed industrial area, and no wildlands are intermixed within this industrial area. Land uses surrounding the project site include commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities, located to the north and east; residential uses to the south; and the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and The Shops at Tanforan and San Bruno Towne Center to the west. The closest wildlands area is Sign Hill Park located approximately 1.5 miles from the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project site. According to CAL FIRE, the project site is not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The project would not exacerbate wildfire risks of any nature, and it not located in or near a Local or State Responsibility area with a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone designation. The project is not susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

Therefore, because the project site is in a densely developed urban area with no nearby wildland areas, there would be no impact.

Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, the Phase 1 site is in a densely developed urban area with no nearby wildland areas, there would be no impact.

4.8.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
Impact C-HAZ-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hazards and hazardous materials. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) The cumulative geographic context for hazards and hazardous materials is the project site and nearby properties in the immediate vicinity. Similar to the project, reasonably foreseeable projects could result in construction impacts related to the routine transport, disposal, or handling of hazardous materials; intermittent use and transport of petroleum-based lubricants, solvents, and fuels; and transport of affected soil to and from sites. However, hazardous waste generated during construction of any project would be collected, properly characterized for disposal, and transported in compliance with federal, state and local regulations as described under Regulatory Setting.

Hazardous materials are strictly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. Specifically, these laws are designed to ensure that hazardous materials do not result in a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. For each of the reasonably foreseeable projects under consideration, various projectspecific measures (such as the ones identified for this project) would be implemented as a condition of development approval to mitigate risks associated with exposure to hazardous materials. With implementation of applicable regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant, and the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative hazard or hazardous materials impact.

The project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported to and from the surrounding area. Cumulative increases in the transportation of hazardous materials and wastes would not be significant because the probability of accidents is relatively low due to stringent regulations that apply to transport, use and storage of hazardous materials. The project, in combination with other development in the immediate vicinity would add to cumulative traffic congestion on those roadways used for evacuation. However, the project site and immediate vicinity are well serviced by an extensive vehicular circulation network, allowing for multiple possible evacuation routes in the case of an emergency. Moreover, the project would implement various circulation improvements within the project site that would improve access to the project site and surrounding areas. As such, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.8-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Development of the project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the demand for emergency response capabilities. Any growth involving increased use of hazardous materials has the potential to increase the demand for emergency response capabilities. First response capabilities and hazardous materials emergency response capabilities are currently available and sufficient for all cumulative projects. Substantive hazardous materials accidents within the project site or its vicinity are expected to be rare, and if such incidents were to occur, only one such incident would be expected at any one time (except during major catastrophes).

For these reasons, the project, inclusive of Phase 1, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects located within the immediate vicinity of the project site, would not result in a significant cumulative hazards or hazardous materials impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-1September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.9.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the Southline Specific Plan and off-site improvements (proposed project), including the first phase of development under the proposed project (Phase 1), on hydrology and water quality. This section also describes the existing conditions at the project site, including the Phase 1 site, as well as the regulatory framework for this analysis. The impacts of the proposed project are generally analyzed at a program level, and the impacts of Phase 1 are analyzed at a project level. Impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project, impacts resulting from implementation of Phase 1, and cumulative impacts are described. Feasible mitigation measures, where applicable, are also described. Relevant technical documentation used in this analysis includes the Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project (Storm Drainage Technical Study) prepared for the proposed project by BKF in April 2021 (Appendix 4.9-1), 1 the Southline Development Design-Level
Geotechnical Investigation (Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation) prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group in July 2020 (Appendix 4.6-1), 2 and the Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment of 325 Maple Ave/325 South Maple Avenue and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report 240 Dollar Avenue (Phase I and Phase II ESAs) prepared for the proposed project by ATC Group Services (Appendix 4.8-1).
3,4 The study area for the Storm Drainage Technical Study, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, and Phase I and Phase II ESAs is the Specific Plan area (or, in the case of the Phase I and Phase II ESAs, specific properties within the Specific Plan area). Given the proximity of the off-site improvement areas to the Specific Plan area, it is assumed that existing conditions and impacts described for the Specific Plan area would be the same or substantially similar at the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, unless otherwise noted, the existing conditions and impacts described for the Specific Plan area in the Storm Drainage Technical Study, DesignLevel Geotechnical Investigation, and Phase I and Phase II ESAs are assumed to apply to the project site as a whole, inclusive of the off-site improvement areas.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. The NOP comments pertaining to hydrology and water quality include comments about project-related discharge rates and proposed drainage features to address the project site’s location within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone, compliance of stormwater treatment facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, and ensuring proper water pollution control best management practice (BMP) devices are installed and maintained. These issues are addressed below in Section 4.9.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. 1 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 2 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129.3.6. July 28, 2020.
3 ATC Group Services LLC. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 325 Maple Ave/325 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California ATC PROJECT NO. NPGS19033. October 31. 4 ATC Group Services LLC. 2018. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report 240 Dollar Avenue South San Francisco. June 7.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-2September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.9.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to hydrology and water quality on the project site.

4.9.2.1 Regional Setting
Climate and Topography
The project site is located in a relatively flat area, immediately adjacent to the San Francisco Bay (Bay) shoreline, in the City of South San Francisco (City). The regional climate is typical of the Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. Average annual precipitation measured from the nearest weather station is between 0.02 inch and 4.31 inch per year. Approximately 84 percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March. Average daily temperatures range from a high of 73.4 degrees to a low of

42.6 degrees.
5 The project site totals approximately 33 acres, and is comprised of the Specific Plan area and the offsite improvement areas. The Specific Plan area comprises seven parcels totaling approximately

26.5 acres and is located in the City of South San Francisco. The Specific Plan area is completely developed. The approximately 6.4-acre off-site improvement areas are located in the City of South San Francisco and within the jurisdictions of the City of San Bruno and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). The off-site improvement areas are also completely developed, consisting of rights-of-way and easements developed with roadway, sidewalk, and utility improvements. The surrounding area is largely developed with commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities to the north and east; predominately single-family residences to the south; and the San Bruno BART station, The Shops at Tanforan, and San Bruno Towne Center to the west. The off-site improvement areas consist of rights-of-way and easements developed with existing circulation and utility infrastructure improvements. The majority of the Specific Plan area is hardscaped with a mix of asphalt parking and building structures. The unpaved portions of the Specific Plan area are landscaped or ruderal areas between parcels. The Specific Plan area contains some ornamental landscaping and approximately 162 trees. The off-site improvement areas contain additional ornamental landscaping and approximately 19 trees, with four trees near the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, and 15 trees near the proposed Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.
6 The topography of the project site and surrounding vicinity is relatively flat, with a slight downward slope toward the northeast. The project site elevation ranges from approximately 17 to 33.25 feet (NAVD 88)7 above mean sea level (MSL).
5 Western Regional Climate Center. 2021. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary San Francisco International Airport, California (047769) Period of Record: 07/01/1945 to 06/09/2016. Available:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7769. Accessed: February 2, 2021. 6 Aerial and street view imagery from Google Earth was used to approximate the number of trees in the off-site improvement areas.
7 The North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) is the vertical control datum established in 1991 by the minimum-constraint adjustment of the Canadian-Mexican-United States leveling observations. It held fixed the height of the primary tidal bench mark, referenced to the new International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 local mean sea level height value, at Father Point/Rimouski, Quebec, Canada.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-3September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Surface Water
The City is built on the bay plain and on the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. South San Francisco includes the Colma Creek watershed within the County of San Mateo’s Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. The project site is within the Colma Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries watershed within the larger San Francisco Bay Watershed. The Colma Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries Watershed encompasses approximately 32 square miles.8 Headwaters of Colma Creek are in the San Bruno Mountain, the creek drains a highly urbanized watershed. Only a small number of tributaries on San Bruno Mountain remain in a natural state. Colma Creek predominantly flows in straight, engineered channels or underground storm drains. The Colma Creek flood control channel is maintained by the San Mateo County Department of Public Works and drains into San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International Airport. Runoff throughout the City is collected in the City’s storm drainage system, which discharges to Colma Creek or San Francisco Bay. Colma Creek is less than one mile north of the project site.

The 2016 South San Francisco Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP), described in Section 4.9.3.3, p. 4.9- 19, divides the City into three regional drainage/tributary watershed areas, based on their location and proximity to Colma Creek: the Northern Region, the Southern Region, and the Lower Region.

Drainage areas outside the City are incorporated into the SDMP model due to their impact on drainage systems within the City. Each drainage area is further divided into smaller local subwatersheds. The Northern Region (subwatersheds B through D) and Southern Region (subwatersheds E through G) are relatively steep sloped urban and residential areas located within and along the bottom of the surrounding foothills. The Lower Region (subwatersheds A, and H through L) is relatively flat and includes industrial development areas. As shown in Figure 4.9-1, p.

4.9-4, the majority of the project site is located in the Southern Region, Subwatershed B, with the exception of the off-site improvement areas in San Bruno’s jurisdiction, which are located in the Lower Region, Subwatershed A. All storm drain systems within the Southern Region subwatersheds discharge to the Colma Creek channel and outlets to San Francisco Bay. The storm drain systems within the Lower Region regional watersheds discharge either to Colma Creek or directly to San Francisco Bay.
9 It is noted that the project site, including the off-site improvement ares in San Bruno’s jurisdiction, is located outside of the six watershed areas that comprise San Bruno’s storm drain system.10
8 UC Davis Sustainability Indicators Group. 2020. Colma Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries. Available:
https://indicators.ucdavis.edu/water/regions/180500040903. Visited: October 9, 2020. 9 Michael Baker International. 2016. South San Francisco Storm Drain Master Plan. February. 10 City of San Bruno. 2014. Storm Drain Master Plan. June. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24092. Accessed January 11, 2021. 0’
Local Watersheds
Colma Creek
300’
E
Regional Watersheds
Colma Creek
Feet
0 150 300
O-Site Improvements
Speci
c Plan Area
City Boundary
Legend
Figure 4.9-1
Regional and Local Watersheds within the Project Area
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-10-021) JC
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-5September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Water Quality
Water quality in California is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which controls the discharge of pollutants to water bodies from point and non-point sources. In the San Francisco Bay Area, this program is administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The authority of the RWQCB includes permitting of stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems (which includes the existing on-site drainage system), industrial processes and construction sites that disturb areas larger than one acre. The City of South San Francisco (City) is a co-permittee of the San Mateo County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program, which is a coordinated effort by local governments to improve water quality in San Francisco Bay.

Water quality in a typical surface water body is influenced by processes and activities that take place within the watershed. The quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site and surrounding development is typical of urban watersheds where water quality is affected primarily by discharges from both point and nonpoint sources. Point-source discharges are discharges that one can point to as known sources of pollutants, while nonpoint source discharges generally result from diffuse sources, such as land runoff, precipitation, or seepage. Point and nonpoint sources include outfalls, winter storms, overland flow, exposed soil, roofs, parking lots, and streets.

The Porter-Cologne Act requires that the State Water Board or a Regional Water Board adopt basin plans for the protection of water quality. The San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) specifies region-wide and water body–specific beneficial uses and sets numeric and narrative water quality objectives in surface waters. The Basin Plan specifies beneficial uses that apply to water bodies with potential to be affected by the project, as shown in Table 4.9-1.
11 Table 4.9-1. Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters of Water Bodies with Potential to Be Affected by the Project
Water Body Designated Beneficial Uses
Lower San Francisco Bay IND; COMM; SHELL; EST; MIGR; RARE; SPAWN; WILD; REC1; REC2; NAV
Key:

COMM: Commercial and Sport Fishing
IND: Industrial Service Supply
NAV: Navigation
SHELL: Shellfish Harvesting
WILD: Wildlife Habitat
EST: ESTUARINE HABITAT
MIGR: Fish Migration
RARE: Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species
SPWN: Fish Spawning
REC1: Water Contact Recreation
REC2: Noncontact Water Recreation
Source: San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Originally published January 18, 2007. Last updated in 2017. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html. Accessed: October 2, 2020. 11 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Originally published January 18, 2007. Last updated in 2017. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html. Accessed: October 2, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-6September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB has listed the Lower and South San Francisco Bays as an impaired water body. Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires states make a list of waters that are not attaining water quality standards. The 303(d)-listed impairments for the Lower San Francisco Bay shown in Table 4.9-2 are based on the 2014/2016 California Integrated Report.12 Table 4.9-2. Water Quality Impairments within the Project Area Water Body
Listed Impairments per 2014/2016 303(d)
List Potential Sources

EPA TMDL
Report
Completion
Colma Creek Trash Source Unknown Est. 2029
Lower San
Francisco Bay
Chlordane Source Unknown Est. 2013
DDT Source Unknown Est. 2013
Dieldrin Source Unknown Est. 2013
Dioxin Compounds (Including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) Source Unknown Est. 2019 Furan Compounds Source Unknown Est. 2019
Invasive Species Source Unknown Est. 2019
Mercury Source Unknown 02/12/2008
PCBs (including dioxin like) Source Unknown 03/29/2010
Trash Source Unknown Est. 2021
Key:

EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
TMDL = total maximum daily load
Est. = estimated completion date
DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls
Source: California State Water Resources Control Board. 2018. 2014/2016 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report)—Statewide. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. EPA approved:

April 6, 2018. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml. Accessed: October 2, 2020.

The Lower San Francisco Bay is designated as impaired for mercury. Fish tissue collected from San Francisco Bay often contains relatively high mercury concentrations. Sources of mercury include runoff from historic mines, urban runoff, wastewater discharges, atmospheric deposition, and resuspension of historic deposits of mercury-laden sediment already in San Francisco Bay. Most of the historic mercury deposits date back to the Gold Rush of the 1800s, when mercury was mined throughout the Coastal Range and used in the Sierra Nevada to extract gold. The largest source of mercury is the Central Valley, where rivers carry mercury from remote regions to San Francisco Bay.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved a Basin Plan amendment incorporating a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for mercury in San Francisco Bay and an implementation plan to achieve the TMDL and became effective on November 7, 2007. 12 California State Water Resources Control Board. 2018. 2014/2016 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report)—Statewide. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. USEPA approved: April 6, 2018. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml. Accessed:

October 2, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-7September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The Lower San Francisco Bay is also designated as impaired for trash. Provision C.10 of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) contains requirements for trash load reductions. Trash load reduction control actions must be implemented to meet the goal of 100 percent trash load reduction or no adverse impact to receiving waters from trash by July 1, 2022.

Trash is considered a threat to aquatic life, which relates to impairment of beneficial uses, including Noncontact Water Recreation (REC2), as designated for the Lower San Francisco Bay (Table 4.9-1, p. 4.9-5). The City is responsible for requiring sections C.10 (trash capture) and C.3 (stormwater treatment) to be met by all qualifying development projects within the City. The City owns and maintains storm drainage infrastructure within the public right-of-way, which discharges to County flood control facilities.
13 Groundwater
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) serves the potable water needs for the portion of the City east of I-280, where the proposed project is located as well as the cities of San Carlos and San Mateo. The Project Area is in the South San Francisco District (SSFD) of the Cal Water service area. Cal Water prepared and adopted a 2020 Urban Water Management Plan,14 which includes information related to groundwater. Urban Water Management Plans are prepared every five years.

In addition, groundwater conditions including groundwater supply are described in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project, which is included in Appendix 4.17-1 of this EIR. 15 The project site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin, and the groundwater wells that supply the project site are from the Westside Basin. The Westside Groundwater Basin covers an area of approximately 25,400 acres. It is bound to the north by the Lobos Groundwater Basin, the San Bruno Mountains and San Francisco Bay to the east, high bedrock separates the basin from the San Mateo Plain Subbasin to the south, and the San Andreas Fault and Pacific Ocean bound the basin to the west. The basin opens to the Pacific Ocean on the northwest and San Francisco Bay on the southeast.16
Recharge in the Westside Groundwater Basin include infiltration of rainfall and irrigation water, and leakage from water and sewer pipes. The period of 1987–1992 showed declining water levels, likely the result of a concurrent drought during this period.
17 However, recent groundwater monitoring
indicated that increased or stable water levels were observed in shallow, primary production, and deep aquifers throughout the Westside Basin. Increased aquifer storage was also observed. 18 The Westside Groundwater Basin is subdivided for management purposes into northern and southern portions, separated by the San Francisco and San Mateo county lines. The county-line boundary between the “North Westside Basin” and the “South Westside Basin” serves as a 13 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 14 California Water Service. 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, South San Francisco District. June 2021. 15 EKI Environment & Water. 2021. Final Draft Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan. July. 16 California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Bulletin 118 Westside Groundwater Basin. January 20.

Available: https://www.smcsustainability.org/download/energy-water/groundwater/2-35.pdf. Accessed:

October 5, 2020.
17 California Department of Water Resources. 2006. Bulletin 118 Westside Groundwater Basin. January 20.

Available: https://www.smcsustainability.org/download/energy-water/groundwater/2-35.pdf. Accessed:

October 5, 2020.
18 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2018. 2017 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties California. May. Available: https://sfwater.org/modules/ showdocument.aspx?documentid=10212. Accessed: October 5, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-8September 2021
ICF 00082.20
jurisdictional distribution of groundwater pumping and does not have hydrogeological significance.

No geologic features restricts groundwater flow between the northern and southern parts of the basin.19 Groundwater pumping has historically provided up to 50 percent of local water supply in the South Westside Basin for the communities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Daly City, although current usage is significantly less as a proportion. The Westside Groundwater Basin is not adjudicated and, in its recent evaluation of California groundwater basins, Department of Water Resources determined that the Westside Groundwater Basin was not in overdraft and was a low priority basin. Recent evaluations by others have also found that current pumping is estimated to be within the basin’s safe yield.
20 Most dissolved constituents in groundwater monitored in general basin groundwater within the Westside Groundwater Basin meet EPA guidelines; however, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater commonly exceed the primary maximum contaminant level. In addition, natural sources of total dissolved solids to groundwater in the San Francisco Bay, including the Westside Groundwater Basin, include saltwater intrusion from the Bay as well as interaction between recharge water and aquifer materials derived from marine or estuarine sediments. Two areas monitored for seawater intrusion, the Pacific Coast and the Bay Coast, contain several monitoring wells in various aquifers in the Westside Basin known as the coastal and bay side monitoring networks, respectively. Groundwater is monitored as part of a semi-annual monitoring program. 21 Existing beneficial uses of the Westside groundwater basin include municipal and domestic water supply, industrial process water supply, and industrial service water supply; and potential beneficial uses include agricultural water supply.

Flood Hazards
Flood risks in South San Francisco originate from three sources: high tides and wind generated waves from San Francisco Bay; Colma Creek and associated tributary sloughs, including high tides coinciding with high creek flows which exacerbate flood risks; and the San Bruno Channel, which discharges into San Francisco Bay independently of Colma Creek. The City of South San Francisco is highly urbanized with relatively high runoff generation rates, a condition that increases the potential for flood condition in periods of heavy rainfall.

Periodic flooding problems exist along Colma Creek. The San Mateo County Flood Control District was formed in 1959, with one of its key objectives to address the recurring flooding problems along Colma Creek. Subsequent changes along Colma Creek were designed to protect against a 50-year storm event, which has a 2 percent probability of occurring in any given year. 22 At the confluence of Colma Creek and the San Francisco Bay, excess floodwaters either overflow on land near the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant from Colma Creek due to channel constrictions, or are restricted behind overland flow barriers such as the Caltrain railroad tracks and U.S. 101. However, if channel constrictions are removed by future improvement projects, there is 19 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, City and County of San Francisco District. June.
20 WRIME 2012. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, City and County of San Francisco, prepared by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, City of San Bruno, Daly City, and Cal Water South San Francisco District, dated July 2012.
21 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. 2018. 2017 Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report Westside Basin San Francisco and San Mateo Counties California. May. Available:
https://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=10212. Accessed: October 5, 2020. 22 Hassell 2020. Colma Creek Adaptation Planning Final Design Report N0004. July 8.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-9September 2021
ICF 00082.20
sufficient flow capacity in Colma Creek between Utah Avenue and San Francisco Bay to accommodate the full estimated 100-year flood discharge without overtopping the creek banks.23 A flood insurance rate map (FIRM) is an official Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared map of a community. It is used to delineate both the special flood hazard areas and the flood-risk premium zones that are applicable to the community. Areas of the City of South San Francisco have FIRM maps completed in 2012. The project area’s flood zone was updated in 2019 and indicates that the project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone, as shown in Figure

4.9-2, p. 4.9-10. However, the areas adjacent to the Bay are currently unresolved and continue to use 2012 FEMA flood data.

A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by displacement of a large volume of water, typically as a result of an undersea earthquake or landslide. At the shoreline, tsunami waves may range in height from a few inches to more than 30 feet.24 As depicted on the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency and California Geological Survey, some areas in the City located immediately adjacent to the Bay are within a tsunami inundation area. However, the project site is not within a tsunami inundation area.25 Seiche occurs in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water, such as a lake or reservoir. San Francisco Bay is a large, open body of water with no immediate risk of seiche. No other larger bodies of water are near the project site. There would be minimal to no risk of inundation from a seiche event in the project vicinity.

Dam failures are catastrophic events characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of impounded water. Thirteen dams in San Mateo County have been identified as large enough to endanger lives and property in the event of a major uncontrolled release or catastrophic failure.

According to dam failure inundation maps, the project site is not within a dam inundation area. The hazards of tidal flooding in areas in close proximate to San Francisco Bay are generally managed by a series of levees. The levees were constructed for salt evaporation ponds in the southeast portion of the County and for flood protection in the north and central portions of the County. Generally, these levees would not withstand the flood intensities of the 100-year base flood. There would be no risk of inundation from a levee failure in the project vicinity. 26 23 Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2012. City of South San Francisco South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plan Flood Protection Study. June. 24 City and County of San Francisco. 2016. Emergency Response Plan, an Element of the CCSF Emergency Management Program, Tsunami Annex. August. Available: http://sfdem.org/sites/default/files/Documents/ CCSF%20Tsunami%20Annex%20Public%20Version%2020160907.pdf. Accessed: February 3, 2021. 25 California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), the University of Southern California (USC), and the California Geological Survey (CGS). 2009. Tsunamic Inundation Map for Emergency Planning. State of California, City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco South Quadrangle (San Francisco Bay). June 15. 26 County of San Mateo Sheriff’s Office, Homeland Security Division, and Office of Emergency Services. 2015.

County of San Mateo Hazard Vulnerability Assessment Appendix to The Emergency Operations Plan. January 2.

Available: https://hsd.smcsheriff.com/sites/default/files/downloadables/2%20- %20Hazard%20Vulnerability%20Assessment.pdf#:~:text=Dam%20failure%20inundation%20area%20and% 20exposure%20of%20existing,area%2C%20versus%201%2C132%20acres%20%280.4%25%29%20of%20n on-urban%20land. Accessed: February 3, 2021.

Figure 4.9-2
FEMA Flood Zones within the Project Area
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Data\ResourceData\WS\Wetlands\02_FEMA_FloodZones_20201019\FEMA_FloodHazards_20201019.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 3/5/2021 San Bruno South San Francisco
0 0.25
Miles
Off-Site Improvement Area
Specific Plan Area
City Limits
FEMA Flood Zone (2019)
100-year Flood
1:12,500
[N
Colma
Creek
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-11 September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.9.2.2 Local Setting
Project Site
Surface Water
The project site is comprised of the approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area and approximately

6.4 acres of off-site improvement areas. The Specific Plan area is located at the intersection of South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue adjacent to the City of San Bruno. The off-site improvement areas are located within the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno and within BART jurisdiction, generally adjacent to the Specific Plan area to the west, south and east.

As shown in Figure 4.9-2, p. 4.9-9, Colma Creek and Lower San Francisco Bay are less than 1 mile north and 1 mile east of the project site, respectively. As described in Section 4.9.2.1, p. 4.9-3, the project site is located on the boundary between the Southern Region and Lower Region South San Francisco drainage watersheds, within the larger Colma Creek Watershed.

Approximately 94 percent of the total surface area of the Specific Plan area consists of existing impervious surfaces.27 Impervious surfaces on the Specific Plan area include existing office, industrial, warehouse, and storage buildings and associated surface parking lots. The Specific Plan area contains some ornamental landscape and approximately 162 trees. The off-site improvement areas consist of roadways, sidewalks, and utility easements and are nearly entirely impervious, although approximately 19trees and other landscaping is present.

Generally, the Specific Plan area is flat with a downward slope to the east. On-site storm drainage systems convey storm runoff from each parcel to the adjacent public roadways. The south portion of the Specific Plan area drains to a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) located in Tanforan Avenue. The northwest portion of the Specific Plan drains to 4-foot by 4-foot box culvert located in South Maple Avenue. Parcels located on the east drain north via the roadway gutter in both Dollar Avenue and South Linden Avenue, as there is no public storm drain infrastructure in these two roadways. The gutter flow in South Linden Avenue drains to a 7-foot by 5.5-foot box culvert that crosses Linden Avenue north of the site. There is one parcel on Dollar Avenue assumed to drain south to Tanforan. Drainage patterns on the off-site improvement areas vary depending on the location.

The 42-inch RCP located within Tanforan Avenue has been identified by the 2016 South San Francisco SDMP as a segment to be improved by installing a parallel 66-inch pipe. Additional downstream segments are also identified for capacity improvements by the South San Francisco SDMP. These recommended improvements are due to anticipated demands from General Plan buildout within the Lower Region Watershed, separate from the proposed project. The proposed project would not be responsible for installing these identified SDMP improvements directly, but the design and implementation of the project’s underground utilities would take into account the SDMP improvements and as such would not conflict with implementation of these SDMP improvements.

The proposed project would be required through conditions of approval to coordinate with the City of South San Francisco to preserve existing space within Tanforan Avenue for the possible installation of the 66-inch pipe as part of a future capital improvement project.28 27 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20, 2021.
28 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-12 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Groundwater
Depth to groundwater on the project site ranges from approximately 8 to 27 feet below ground surface (bgs).
29 Historic high groundwater levels are not currently mapped for the project site.

However, recent groundwater data for monitoring wells located within 500 feet of the project site indicated groundwater levels of 5 to 16.5 feet below the existing grades. Groundwater levels may vary due to seasonal fluctuation, underground drainage patterns, regional fluctuations, and other factors.
30 Water Quality
Water quality in the vicinity of the project site is directly affected by stormwater runoff from adjacent streets and properties that deliver fertilizers, pesticides, automobile and traffic pollutants (e.g., oil, grease, metals), sediment with associated pollutants from soil erosion, trash, and other pollutants. Beneficial uses and water quality impairments that apply to water bodies with the potential to be affected by the project site are discussed above under the regional setting.

There are current or formerly contaminated sites located near or within the project site, as discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, that could impact water quality. Maryatt Industries located at 290 South Maple Avenue formerly conducted dry cleaning activities, which included the use of tetrachloroethene (PCE) solvents. Concentrations of PCE and its breakdown products were identified in groundwater sampled from properties near the project site in excess of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) environmental screening levels.

Other solvent releases, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and naphthalene were also measured near the project site. Groundwater quality in the project area may also be degraded due to naturally occurring metals such as selenium and arsenic, as well as industrial activities of the surrounding area.
31 Groundwater also contained metals including barium, cadmium, cobalt, thallium, and vanadium. However, groundwater samples were unfiltered, which may overestimate metal concentrations. It is unlikely that shallow groundwater beneath the project area would be used as a source of drinking water.32
Flooding
As shown in Figure 4.9-2, p. 4.9-9, the project site is outside of the 100-year floodplain, within FEMA Zone X. FEMA Zone X is an area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as above the 500-year flood level.33 The eastern edge of the project site is approximately 1 mile inland from the San Francisco Bay shoreline and is approximately 17 to 33.25 29 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
30 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
31 ATC Group Services LLC. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 325 Maple Ave/325 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California ATC PROJECT NO. NPGS19033. October 31. 32 ATC Group Service s LLC. 2018. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report 240 Dollar Avenue South San Francisco. June 7.
33 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Map Number 06081C0043F, dated April 5, 2019. Available:
https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/agolprint_gpserver/j25a3d93b5d5e4b 8d9606e99a93f2e318/scratch/FIRMETTE_353f0870-17c3-44ac-bc0e-9d026be115f2.pdf.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-13 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
feet (NAVD 88) above MSL. Therefore, the potential for inundation due to tsunami or seiche is considered low.34, 35
Phase 1 Site
The discussion above regarding project site surface water, groundwater, water quality, and flooding characteristics is also applicable to the Phase 1 site. The Phase 1 site is comprised of approximately 16-acres within the Specific Plan area, in addition to the majority of the off-site improvement areas.

As discussed above, the Specific Plan area is currently developed with office and industrial buildings and surface parking lots. This portion of the Phase 1 site drains south to a 42-inch RCP located in Tanforan Avenue and east to a roadway gutter in Dollar Avenue and South Linden Avenue. The roadway drains to a 7-foot by 5.5-foot box culvert that crosses Linden Avenue north of the Phase 1 site. The Phase 1off-site improvement areas consist of rights-of-way and easements developed with roadway, sidewalk, and utility improvements. Drainage patterns on the off-site improvement areas vary depending on the location.

Generally, the Phase 1 site is flat with a downward slope to the east. The Phase 1 site is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin. Water quality on the Phase 1 site is similar to the water quality discussed above for the overall project site. The Phase 1 site is outside of the 100-year floodplain and within FEMA Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard.

4.9.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the hydrology and water quality plans and policies of federal, state, regional, and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site.

4.9.3.1 Federal
Clean Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 was enacted with the primary purpose of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA directs states to establish water quality standards for all “waters of the United States” and to review and update such standards on a triennial basis.

At the federal level, the Clean Water Act is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has delegated responsibility for implementation of portions of the CWA, including water quality control planning and control programs, such as the NPDES program (discussed below), to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board or SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards or RWQCBs). The State Water Board establishes statewide policies and regulations for the implementation of water quality control programs mandated by federal and State water quality statutes and regulations. The Regional Water Boards develop and implement water quality control plans (basin plans) that identify the beneficial uses of surface and ground waters, water quality characteristics, and water quality problems. 34 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
35 California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), the University of Southern California (USC), and the California Geological Survey (CGS). 2009. Tsunamic Inundation Map for Emergency Planning. State of California, City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco South Quadrangle (San Francisco Bay). June 15.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-14 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the Clean Water Act and related federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and regulations adopted by the state and regional boards exceed the federal requirements.

Section 303(d) and Total Maximum Daily Loads. The CWA contains two strategies for managing water quality. One is a technology-based approach that includes requirements to maintain a minimum level of pollutant management using the best available technology (BAT). The other is a water quality-based approach that relies on evaluating the condition of surface waters and setting limitations on the amount of pollution that the water can be exposed to without adversely affecting the beneficial uses of those waters. Section 303(d) of the CWA bridges these two strategies. Section 303(d) requires that the states make a list of waters that are not attaining standards after the technology-based limits are put into place. For waters on this list (and where the EPA administrator deems they are appropriate), the states are to develop TMDLs. TMDLs are established at the level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards. Federal regulations require that an implementation plan be developed along with the TMDL and Sections 303(d), and 303(e), and that approved TMDLs be incorporated into basin plans. EPA requires that NPDES permits be revised to be consistent with any approved TMDL. A mercury TMDL has been established for the San Francisco Bay (Bay) and approved by the State Water Board (Resolution 2007-0045). TMDLs for the other constituents that contribute to impairment are scheduled to be completed by 2021.

Section 404 Dredge/Fill Permitting. The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States is subject to permitting specified under Section 404 (Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material) of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA regulates placement of fill materials into the waters of the United States. Section 404 permits are administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Section 401 of the CWA requires that an applicant pursuing a federal permit to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant obtain a Water Quality Certification (or waiver). A Water Quality Certification requires the evaluation of water quality considerations associated with dredging or placement of fill materials into waters of the United States. Water Quality Certifications are issued by one of the nine geographically separated Regional Water Boards in California. Under the CWA, the Regional Water Board must issue or waive a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for a project to be permitted under CWA Section 404.

Section 402—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources (Section 402). The 1987 amendments to the CWA created a new section of the CWA devoted to stormwater permitting (Section 402[p]). EPA has granted the State of California (the State Water Board and Regional Water Boards) primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of CWA and NPDES. CWA Section 402 mandates permits for municipal stormwater discharges, which are regulated under the NPDES General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) (MS4 Permit).

National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 restrict certain types of development on floodplains and to provide for a National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The NFIP is a federal program administered by the Flood Insurance Administration of FEMA.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-15 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
FEMA is responsible for determining, based on USACE studies and in coordination with states and local governments, flood elevations and floodplain boundaries. FEMA is also responsible for identifying flood hazard areas and publishes a boundary map of flood hazards, including the 100- year floodplain, in those areas in connection with the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA allows non-residential development in the floodplain; however, construction activities are restricted within the flood hazard areas, depending on the potential for flooding within each area. Floodplain mapping is an ongoing process in the Bay Area and flood maps must be regularly updated for both major rivers and tributaries as land uses and development patterns change.

4.9.3.2 State and Regional
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) established the State Water Board and divided the state into nine Regional Water Boards, which are responsible for coordination and control of water quality within their respective jurisdictional boundaries. Waters of the State are defined more broadly than “waters of the United States;” they are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. This includes waters in both natural and artificial channels. The Act requires the RWQCBs to establish water quality objectives while acknowledging that water quality may be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. Designated beneficial uses, together with the corresponding water quality objectives, also constitute water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act. The Act also requires projects that are discharging, or proposing to discharge, wastes that could affect the quality of the State’s water to file a waste discharge report with the appropriate Regional Water Board.

Waste Discharge Requirements Program
Waste discharges that can be exempted from the California Code of Regulations (CCR) requirements are issued waste discharge requirements (WDRs) and are regulated by the WDR Program. Typical discharge types include domestic or municipal wastewater, food processing related wastewater, and industrial wastewater.

State regulations addressing the treatment, storage, processing, or disposal of waste are contained in Title 27, CCR, section 20005 et seq. Discharges that qualify for exemption from Title 27 must be consistent with the exemptions provided in Title 27 section 20090.

Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) is a comprehensive three-bill package that Governor Jerry Brown signed into California state law in September 2014. The SGMA provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention only if necessary, to protect the resource. The plan is intended to ensure a reliable groundwater water supply for California for years to come. SGMA requires the formation of local Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA), which are required to adopt groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) to manage the sustainability of groundwater basins.

GSAs for all high- and medium-priority basins, as identified by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), must adopt a GSP, or submit an alternative to a GSP. SGMA also requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-16 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. GSPs for high- and medium-priority basins are due to DWR by January 31, 2022, however GSPs for critically over drafted high- and medium-priority basins were due to DWR by January 31, 2020. The project overlies the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a very low-priority basin and not subject to SGMA. The voluntary South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan provides a framework for regional groundwater management in the South Westside Basin that sustains the beneficial use of the groundwater resource.36 More information regarding groundwater in relation to water supply is provided in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR and is described in the Water Supply Assessment prepared for the project, which is included in Appendix 4.17-1 of this EIR. 37 NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities
Most construction activities that disturb one acre of land or more are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities (Construction General Permit). The State Water Board has issued a statewide Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAR000002, as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ), adopted September 2, 2009. Construction activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, that result in soil disturbances of at least one acre of total land area. The Construction General Permit requires the applicant to file a notice of intent (NOI) to discharge stormwater and to prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP includes a site map and a description of proposed construction activities, along with a demonstration of compliance with relevant local ordinances and regulations, and an overview of the BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources. Permittees are further required to conduct annual monitoring and reporting to ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and effective in controlling the discharge of stormwaterrelated pollutants.

San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) specifies regionwide and water body–specific beneficial uses and sets numeric and narrative water quality objectives for several substances and parameters in numerous surface waters in its region. 38 The
project site lies within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. The Basin Plan was last updated in 2017.39 Pursuant to the Clean Water Act NPDES program, the RWQCB issues permits for point source discharges that must meet the water quality objectives and must protect the beneficial uses defined in the Basin Plan. Beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and 36 WRIME 2012. South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, City and County of San Francisco, prepared by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, City of San Bruno, Daly City, and Cal Water South San Francisco District, dated July 2012.
37 EKI Environment & Water. 2021. Final Draft Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan. July. 38 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Originally published January 18, 2007. Last updated in 2017. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html. Accessed: October 2, 2020. 39 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.html. Accessed: October 2, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-17 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Section 303(d)-listed impairments are described for the project area are described in Section

4.9.2.1, p. 4.9-3.

The Basin Plan also establishes beneficial water uses for groundwater basins within the region. The South Westside Groundwater Basin (known as the Westside D groundwater basin in the Basin Plan) underlies the project site and is listed in the Basin Plan as providing existing beneficial uses that include municipal and domestic water supply, industrial process water supply, and industrial service water supply and potential beneficial uses that include agricultural water supply. The basin names, such as Westside A, Westside B, etc., are informal names assigned by the Water Board to preserve the beneficial use designations in the 1995 Basin Plan and do not represent sub-basins identified by the Department of Water Resources.

San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board issued the most recent MS4 Phase I San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 (Order No. R2-2015-0049 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008) (San Francisco Bay MRP) on November 19, 2015. San Mateo County is a Permittee under the San Francisco Bay MRP for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the MS4s. The current San Francisco Bay MRP expires on December 31, 2020. The permit continues in full force and effect until a new permit is issued or the Regional Water Board rescinds the permit.

Only those dischargers authorized to discharge under the expiring permit are covered by the continued permit.

MS4 Permits require that cities and counties develop and implement programs and measures to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent possible, including management practices, control techniques, system design and engineering methods, and other measures as appropriate. Permit holders have created stormwater management plans for their respective locations. These plans outline the requirements for municipal operations, industrial and commercial businesses, construction sites, and planning and land development. Regardless of size, all projects require construction-phase BMPs, post-construction site design measures to maximize infiltration in pervious areas, and post-construction source control measures to help keep pollutants out of stormwater, as appropriate.

Stormwater Management Plan / Provision C.3 Requirements Provision C.3 of the 2015 San Francisco Bay MRP requires new development and redevelopment source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures to address pollutant discharges in stormwater runoff through low-impact development (LID) techniques, including infiltration and biotreatment. C.3 requirements include LID stormwater controls such as site design measures, source control measures, and stormwater treatment. The MRP requires green landscape in public and private properties to capture stormwater from paved surfaces such as roads, parking lots and other areas where stormwater collects pollutants, which would otherwise be conveyed to San Francisco Bay.

The project is a new development project, and therefore would be considered a “Regulated Project” under the San Francisco Bay MRP. More specifically, the project falls within the “Other Redevelopment Projects” category within the C.3 Provision, which is defined as “any land-disturbing activity that results in the creation, addition, or replacement of exterior impervious surface area on a site on which some past development has occurred.” These projects include those that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, which applies to the project. To meet the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-18 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Provision C.3 requirements, projects must include appropriate site design measures, pollutant source controls and treatment control measures.

San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) is a partnership of the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), each incorporated city and town in the county, and the County of San Mateo, which share a common NPDES permit. The project would be required to comply with the San Francisco Bay MRP Provision C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance.

Municipalities apply the Maximum Extent Practicable standard, including standard stormwater conditions of approval for projects that receive development permits. The SMCWPPP prepared a C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance dated October 2014 to assist projects in designing appropriate post-construction stormwater controls to meet local jurisdictional requirements and the requirements of the San Francisco Bay MRP. The C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist is required for all projects requiring a Planning or Building permit that would result in any new areas of impervious surface. SMCWPPP Provision C.3.g (Hydromodification Control Requirements) requires that certain new development projects manage increases in stormwater runoff flow and volume. Permit Permittees, including the City of San Bruno, have developed maps showing where HM controls are required. The project is exempt from SMCWPPP Permit Provision C.3.g because the project site is outside the limits of hydromodification areas.

MRP Regulations for Qualifying Special Projects
The current MRP regulates stormwater treatment for new development, but recognizes that certain urban infill, higher density, and transit-oriented developments have some inherent environmental benefits and challenges. These types of projects, known as “Special Projects,” which include certain land development characterized as smart growth, high density, or transit-oriented development, can either reduce existing impervious surfaces or create less accessory impervious areas and automobile-related pollutant impacts. Special Projects are allowed to use specific types of non-LID treatment measures to treat a certain percentage of the site’s runoff. These Special Projects may receive LID treatment reduction credits in recognition that density and space limitations may make 100 percent LID treatment infeasible. If approved by the Water Board, these Special Projects may be allowed credits against otherwise applicable treatment requirements by installing tree-box-type high flow-rate bio-filters or vault-based high flow-rate media filters. Due to the proximity to transit stations, this project is anticipated to qualify as a Special Project based on smart growth, high density, and transit-oriented development and may be eligible to receive LID credits for stormwater treatment.

South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan
The South Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) was completed in July 2012 as a joint effort between Cal Water, the SFPUC, and the Cities of Daly City and San Bruno that superseded prior groundwater management and planning efforts. The GWMP was prepared pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 3030 (codified in CWC Section 10750 et seq.). The GWMP ensures a sustainable, high quality, reliable water supply at a fair price for beneficial uses achieved through local groundwater management, and provides steps for monitoring water quality and quantity in the South Westside Basin. Each groundwater well identified in the GWMP has defined triggers for overdraft, seawater intrusion, various water quality measures, and has identified two levels of City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-19 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
trigger thresholds for each groundwater well based on historical water levels, and actions to address the trigger that is met.

San Mateo County Flood Control and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District The Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District coordinates cross-jurisdictional collaborations to manage impending flooding threats. The District initiates new countywide efforts to address sea level rise, flooding, coastal erosion, and large-scale stormwater infrastructure improvements through integrated regional planning, project implementation, and long-term maintenance.

Comprised of the 20 incorporated cities, C/CAG, and the County of San Mateo, the purpose of the District is to create a unified agency to cost-effectively implement resilient infrastructure to face flood challenges. The Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District was created by modifying the existing Flood Control District through state legislation, Assembly Bill 825 (2019-2020).

4.9.3.3 Local
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The City’s current General Plan, adopted in 1999, includes goals and policies associated with hydrology and water quality.40 The City General Plan has identified policies from Open Space and Conservation, and Health and Safety Element, related to hydrology and water quality. These goals and policies include continuing to improve the quality of surface and groundwater, stormwater management, and minimizing flooding. The City’s General Plan includes the following goals and policies associated with hydrology and water quality:

Open Space and Conservation Element: Water Quality
• Policy 7.2-G-1: Comply with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations and standards to maintain and improve the quality of both surface water and groundwater resources.
• Policy 7.2-G-2: Enhance the quality of surface water resources and prevent their contamination.
• Policy 7.2-G-3: Discourage the use of insecticides, herbicides, or toxic chemical substances within the city.
• Policy 7.2-I-1: Continue working with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB in the implementation of the NPDES and continue participation in STOPPP for the protection of surface water and groundwater quality.

Health and Safety Element: Flooding
• Policy 8.2-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. • Policy 8.2-I-1: Continue working with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the implementation of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP).
40 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division/generalplan#:~:text=The%20current%20General%20Plan%2C%20adopted%20by%20the%20City,that%20will%20a llow%20this%20vision%20to%20be%20accomplished%3B. Accessed: October 11, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-20 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
• Policy 8.2-I-2: Use the City’s development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3.

City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
Title 14: Water and Sewage: Title 14 includes requirements related to stormwater management and discharge control, water quality control, and sewer lateral construction, maintenance and inspection.

South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan
The 2015 San Francisco Bay MRP requires the implementation of a comprehensive program of stormwater control measures and actions designed to limit contributions of urban runoff pollutants to San Francisco Bay. MRP Provision C.3.j.i requires the City of South San Francisco to prepare a Green Infrastructure Plan to be submitted with its Annual Report to the RWQCB. The City’s 2019 Green Infrastructure Plan is intended to provide the methods by which the TMDL waste load allocations for urban runoff to the Bay will be met, and to set goals for reducing the adverse water quality impacts of urbanization and urban runoff on receiving waters. The Green Infrastructure Plan serves as an implementation guide to describe how the City will shift from conventional “collect and convey” storm drain infrastructure management to sustainable stormwater management, and focus on retrofitting existing gray infrastructure to include green infrastructure designs into new and existing public spaces, including streets, parks, and parking lots. The Green Infrastructure Plan includes general design and construction guidelines, standard specifications and details for including green infrastructure components in projects throughout the City. These guidelines and specifications are intended to address a variety of project types in the City right-of-way based on the land use and transportation characteristics of the site, to allow projects to provide a range of functions and benefits, such as stormwater management, bicycle and pedestrian friendly streets, public green space, and street trees.

South San Francisco Storm Drain Master Plan
The 2016 South San Francisco SDMP provides an analysis of existing storm drain facilities and trash capture opportunities within the jurisdiction of the City. As described in Section 4.9.2.1, p. 4.9-3, the SDMP divides the City into different drainage areas, named according to their locations and proximity to Colma Creek. Hydrology and hydraulic analyses were completed for each drainage area.

Drainage areas outside the City, including Lower Region Subwatershed A (in which the off-site improvement areas in San Bruno are located), are incorporated into the model due to their impact on drainage systems within the City. The goal of the SDMP is to provide comprehensive long‐range planning for the implementation and development of drainage facility improvements, including storm drains and trash capture devices, determine the cost of implementing such facilities, discuss funding priorities, and provide an implementation schedule of the improvements within the City.

The SDMP notes that any improvements outside the City boundary should be discussed with neighboring cities.

The SDMP does not identify any recommended facility improvements for infrastructure serving the Specific Plan area within Southern Region Subwatershed B. However, the Storm Drain Master Plan does recommend improvements within Tanforan Avenue to infrastructure serving the adjacent Lower Region Subwatershed A. The recommended improvements call for the future installation of a City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-21 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
parallel 66-inch pipe in addition to the existing 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe located within Tanforan Avenue. Additional downstream segments are also identified for capacity improvements.

These recommended improvements are due to anticipated demands from General Plan build-out within the Lower Region Watershed. As described above, the proposed project would not be responsible for installing these identified SDMP improvements directly, but the design and implementation of the project’s underground utilities would take into account the SDMP improvements and as such would not conflict with implementation of these SDMP improvements.

The proposed project would be required through conditions of approval to coordinate with the City to preserve existing space within Tanforan Avenue for the possible installation of the 66-inch pipe as part of a future capital improvement project, which, if installed, would be a separate project from the proposed project.
41 San Bruno Plans and Policies
As further described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within San Bruno in areas that are completely developed, consisting of rights-of-way and easements developed with roadway, sidewalk, and utility improvements; the project would not develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. The specific off-site improvements that are wholly or partially located within San Bruno include: constructing a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue; improving Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue; converting Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue; and realigning the existing storm drain main within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. Development of these improvements would be subject to applicable San Bruno plans and policies.

This section identifies and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant policies from the San Bruno General Plan related to hydrology and water quality. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with San Bruno land use plans and policies, refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with San Bruno plans and policies related to storm drain infrastructure, including the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan, see Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR.

San Bruno General Plan
The San Bruno General Plan, adopted in 2009, includes goals and policies associated with hydrology and water quality.42 The San Bruno General Plan has identified policies from Environmental Resources and Conservation, and Health and Safety Element, related to hydrology and water quality.

These goals and policies include reducing pollution within surface water including compliance with relevant regulatory water quality standards, minimizing stormwater runoff, stormwater 41 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 42 City of San Bruno. 2009. San Bruno General Plan. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/gov/city_departments/commdev/planning_division/long_range_planning/gene ral_plan.htm#:~:text=The%20San%20Bruno%20General%20Plan%20outlines%20a%20vision,decisions%20o n%20private%20development%20proposals%20and%20public%20facilities. Accessed: November 11, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-22 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
management, maximizing groundwater recharge, and minimizing flooding. The City’s General Plan includes the following goals and policies associated with hydrology and water quality:

Environmental Resources and Conservation Element
• ERC-D: Reduce pollution levels within the surface water that San Bruno discharges into the San Mateo County Flood Control District, then into San Francisco Bay. • ERC-19: Regulate new development—specifically industrial uses—as well as construction and demolition practices to minimize pollutant and sediment concentrations in receiving waters and ensure waterbodies within San Bruno and surface water discharged into San Francisco Bay meets or exceeds relevant regulatory water quality standards. • ERC-20: Require implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce accumulation of nonpoint source pollutants in the drainage system originating from streets, parking lots, residential areas, businesses, and industrial operations.
• ERC-23: Regulate new development to minimize stormwater runoff rates and volumes generated by impervious surfaces, and maximize recharge of local groundwater aquifers when feasible. Utilize the recommendations provided in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agency’s Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. • ERC-24: Require that new development incorporate features into site drainage plans that reduce impermeable surface area and surface runoff volumes.

Health and Safety Element
• HS-B: Reduce the potential for damage from geologic hazards through appropriate site design and erosion control.
• HS-D: Protect sites subject to flooding hazards by implementing storm drainage improvements, and by requiring building design and engineering that meets or exceeds known flood risk requirements.
• HS-4: Prevent soil erosion by retaining and replanting vegetation, and by siting development to minimize grading and land form alteration.
• HS-5: Require preparation of a drainage and erosion control plan for land alteration and vegetation removal on sites greater than 10,000 sq. ft. in size. • HS-13: With cooperation from the San Mateo County Flood Control District, continue maintenance, early warning, and clean up activities for storm drains throughout San Bruno.

Upgrade or replace storm drains where needed to reduce potential flooding, particularly in the neighborhoods east of El Camino Real.
• HS-17: Require upgrade of the City’s storm drain infrastructure proportionate with new development’s fair share of demand. Require that stormwater management capacity and infrastructure are in place prior to occupancy of new development. • HS-18: Require developers to implement erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain an operational drainage system, preserve drainage capacity, and protect water quality. • HS-22: Require that construction-related grading and other activities comply with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-23 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Control Measures and with the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction.

4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to hydrology and water quality for the proposed project, including Phase 1. It describes the methods and thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Feasible measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion, when necessary.

4.9.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant hydrology and water quality impact if it would:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality;
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
o Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; o Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
o Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
o Impede or redirect floodflows;
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation; or • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

4.9.4.2 Approach to Analysis
All project elements were analyzed by comparing baseline conditions, as described in Section 4.9.2, Environmental Setting, above, to conditions during construction and/or operations of the project.

The analysis focuses on issues related to surface hydrology, groundwater supply, surface and groundwater quality, and flood hazards. The key construction and operation related impacts are identified and evaluated based on the physical characteristics of the project and Phase 1 and the magnitude, intensity, location, and duration of activities. Compliance with existing laws, regulations, and policies, including the City’s standard conditions of approval, are assumed to be part of the baseline setting against which the project’s incremental impacts are assessed.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-24 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
• Surface Water Hydrology. The surface water hydrology impact analysis considers changes in impervious surfaces and drainage patterns. Information on the change in impervious surface, runoff quantities, and drainage patterns was provided by the Storm Drainage Technical Study. 43 • Groundwater Hydrology. Potential impacts on groundwater supply and recharge are analyzed using information from publicly available publications and site-specific technical reports, including the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation . 44 The potential impacts associated with
construction dewatering are evaluated.
• Surface and Groundwater Quality. Impacts on surface water and groundwater quality are analyzed using information on potential existing sources of pollution generated by activities, such as vehicle use and parking, building maintenance, pesticide use, trash, and material storage and site-specific technical reports, including Phase I and Phase II ESAs. 45,46 Additional
information on hazardous materials with potential to affect the project is provided in Section

4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. These impacts are compared to potential project-related sources of pollution during project construction, such as sediments and other construction materials, and during project operation, such as vehicle use, building maintenance, pesticide use, trash, and storage of hazardous materials. • Flood Hazards. The impact analysis for flood risk uses FEMA mapping47 to determine the existing flood zone and information from the Storm Drainage Technical Study regarding changes in the drainage system and layout that may affect flooding risk.

Buildout Scenario Studied (Office Scenario and Life Sciences Scenario) As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan would allow for development of the commercial campus as either office or research-and-development (R&D) uses, or a combination of both, up to a total buildout of 2,800,000 square feet. For the purposes of program-level EIR analysis, two projected buildout scenarios were identified which would represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario. Each section within Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyses the buildout scenario that represents the “worst-case” scenario for the resources area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.

A project can introduce hydrology and water quality impacts both directly (e.g., through the increase of impervious surface cover) and indirectly (e.g., through introduced pollutants from automobile use). Both the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario would have the potential to generate direct and indirect hydrology and water quality impacts. Impervious surfaces associated with the 43 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 44 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
45 ATC Group Services LLC. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 325 Maple Ave/325 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California ATC PROJECT NO. NPGS19033. October 31. 46 ATC Group Services LLC. 2018. Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report 240 Dollar Avenue South San Francisco. June 7.
47 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Map Number 06081C0043F, dated April 5, 2019. Available:
https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/agolprint_gpserver/j25a3d93b5d5e4b 8d9606e99a93f2e318/scratch/FIRMETTE_353f0870-17c3-44ac-bc0e-9d026be115f2.pdf.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-25 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
project would convey water and mobilize potential contaminated stormwater to the City’s stormwater system and into receiving surface waters. While the two potential buildout scenarios are similar in building footprint and lot coverage, when considering both building and hardscape coverage, the Life Sciences Scenario would have more impervious surface area (893,499 square feet compared to 897,691 square feet), and would therefore result in greater surface runoff volumes and velocities. As such, the surface water hydrology analysis in the Storm Drainage Technical Study is based on the Life Sciences Scenario. With respect to groundwater, although both scenarios would have the same maximum depth of excavation, the Office Scenario would result in a greater excavation volume than the Life Sciences Scenario (688,400 cubic yards compared to 353,700 cubic yards), and would therefore require more dewatering. Therefore, with respect to surface water impacts, the Life Sciences Scenario has a greater potential to result in significant impacts and is analyzed as the “worst-case” scenario, but with respect to groundwater impacts, the Office Scenario has a greater potential to result in significant impacts and is analyzed as the “worst-case” scenario.

This analysis assumes implementation of the proposed storm drain facilities shown in Figure 4.17-3 in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, and described in Sections 3.6.2.11 and

3.6.3.5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. This analysis also assumes implementation of the recommendations incorporated in the Geotechnical Investigation, 48 which would be required as
conditions of approval, as further described in Section 3.6.2.13 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. For purposes of the Phase 1 analysis, the stormwater runoff analysis considered a worstcase scenario in which all existing impervious area remains in place within the future phase areas of the
Specific Plan area during construction of Phase 1. The analysis assumes that all existing uses within the future phase areas would be demolished during Phase 1 to the foundation level only, so that soils within the future phase areas would not remain exposed during Phase 1 construction.

4.9.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact HWQ-1: The project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. (Project:

Less than Significant with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project
Construction
Surface Water Quality
Project construction activities under either buildout scenario, including grading, stockpiling of soil materials, and other construction-related earth-disturbing activities could result in short-term water quality impacts associated with soil erosion and subsequent sediment transport to adjacent properties, roadways, or watercourses via storm drains. Sediment transport to local drainage facilities such as drainage inlets, culverts, and storm drains could result in reduced storm flow capacity, resulting in localized ponding or flooding during storm events. No surface water features are within the project area; therefore, construction would not involve dredge and fill activities. 48 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-26 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Project construction would also involve use of motorized heavy equipment including trucks and dozers that require fuel, lubricating grease and other fluids. Accidental chemical release or spill from a vehicle or equipment could affect surface water. These construction activities could also generate dust, settlement, litter, oil and other pollutants that could temporarily contaminate water run-off from the project site. Construction activities must comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Municipal Regional Permit, and the governing city’s municipal code, which contain standards to ensure that water quality is not degraded; these requirements are also incorporated into the Southline Specific Plan. As part of the Construction General Permit, standard erosion control measures and BMPs would be identified in a SWPPP and would be implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation of waterways and loss of topsoil.

For construction activities in South San Francisco, as required by standard conditions of approval, a grading permit would be obtained from the City prior to any on-site grading. Compliance with the City’s grading permit and the Construction General Permit would require use of BMPs to restrict soil erosion and sedimentation and restrict non-stormwater discharges from the construction site as well as release of hazardous materials. The City’s grading permit requires applicants to have erosion control measures in place, such as de-silting basins, silt fences, asphaltic emulsions, hay bales, fabric and sand filters, swales, and/or sumps.

Construction activities within the off-site improvement areas located in San Bruno would be subject to the City of San Bruno’s grading requirements and conditions of approval, which require a grading permit prior to any on-site grading. The City of San Bruno’s grading permit requires applicants to install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. As a performance standard, BMPs to be selected would represent the best available technology that is economically achievable and best conventional pollutant control technology to reduce pollutants.

Other potential water quality impacts include chemical spills into storm drains or groundwater aquifers if proper minimization measures are not implemented. However, required BMPs would be implemented to reduce pollutants in stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. Measures range from source control to treatment of polluted runoff. BMPs can include watering active construction areas to control dust generation during earthmoving activities; using water sweepers to sweep streets and haul routes; and installing erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, and sandbag dikes) to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, storm drains, or waterways. As appropriate, disturbed soil would be revegetated as soon as possible with the appropriate selection and schedule of plants.

No disturbed or graded surfaces would be left without erosion control measures in place during the rainy season, which generally occurs between October 15 and April 15. In addition to compliance with the Construction General Permit, the project would also be required to comply with local stormwater and construction site runoff ordinances. These requirements involve development and implementation of an erosion control plan specific to the construction site to minimize water quality impacts. In addition, stormwater management and discharge controls (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 14.04) would be implemented to minimize water quality impacts related to spills or other activities that could contaminate water quality. The plans would be developed according to the guidance provided in documents such as the CASQA construction BMP handbook.

Compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction activities do not result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharges requirements, or otherwise result in water quality degradation.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-27 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Based on the analysis above, project impacts on surface water quality during construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Groundwater Quality
Up to 688,400 cubic yards would be excavated under the Office Scenario. Construction dewatering would be required during certain site preparation and subterranean construction within the Specific Plan area associated with excavation for the subterranean garages, as further explained below. The depth to groundwater in the Specific Plan area ranges from approximately 8 to 27 feet bgs. The shallowest depth to groundwater encountered during subsurface investigations, 8 feet bgs (i.e., a high groundwater level), which also accounts for any future fluctuations in the water table, is considered the project’s design groundwater depth. Because the depth to groundwater is above the maximum depth of excavation (31 feet bgs), dewatering during construction of below-grade facilities, specifically the subterranean parking structures, would be required. Groundwater drawdown and discharge was estimated for the temporary dewatering required during construction. Due to the nature of underlying soil, temporary dewatering would be from the design high groundwater level of 8 feet below the existing grades down to at least 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundation excavations. 49 Groundwater dewatering would only be required for major excavations in Specific Plan area and only within South San Franciso. Dewatering would not be required for construction in off-site improvement areas.

Dewatering could result in the exposure of pollutants from spills or other activities and may contaminate groundwater. Groundwater dewatering may also mobilize existing groundwater contaminant plumes. These existing plumes and neighboring contaminant plumes are described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. Untreated water from construction site dewatering may contain pollutants that, if discharged to a storm drain system or natural watercourse, may exceed water quality standards of the receiving water. Typical pollutants that may be encountered include sediment (the most common pollutant associated with dewatering operations), high levels of pH, and contaminant pollutants associated with current or past use of the site or adjacent land. Release of these pollutants into receiving waters could potentially harm wildlife in the San Francisco Bay or interfere with the wastewater treatment plant’s operation.

Discharging contaminated or sediment-laden water from a dewatering site into any water of the state without treatment is prohibited.

Phase 1 and future development under the Specific Plan would be required, as conditions of approval, to comply with the recommendations in the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation and grading permit requirements. The Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation recommends that excavations less than 30 feet deep be supported by soldier beams and tiebacks, sheet piles, or soil mixed walls with internal bracing or tiebacks, or other methods. To prevent lateral groundwater seepage, the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation recommends that excavations greater than 30 feet deep construct less pervious walls consisting of soldier pile tremie concrete (SPTC) or mixed-inplace soil/cement. Fine-grained soils are generally found at a depth of 20 feet, which would significantly reduce seepage. Generally, groundwater trapped in soils would be removed by standard dewatering wells; however, sump pumping would be required to dewater saturated soil if fine grained soils are present. By implementing low permeability watertight shoring during 49 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-28 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
excavations greater than 30 feet,50 the risk of mobilizing contaminant plumes created by dewatering drawdown would be reduced, and discharge rates and the pumping duration would be reduced.

Nonetheless, because construction dewatering activities may result in plume migration, it is possible that such migration could result in pollutants discharging into a storm drain system or natural watercourse; as such, mitigation would be required to address the potential impacts on water quality that would be caused by this migration.

For water to be discharged to the Bay, the contractor would notify the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board and comply with the board’s requirements related to the quality of water and discharges. The Construction General Permit provides coverage for dewatering activities, provided that dischargers prove the quality of water to be adequate and not likely to affect beneficial uses.

However, groundwater sampling and/or treatment may be required to ensure compliance with applicable construction dewatering discharge permitting. If contaminated groundwater is encountered, compliance with discharge sampling, monitoring, and reporting requirements, and the VOC and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2018-0050) is also required. If it is found that the groundwater does not meet water quality standards, it must either be treated prior to discharge so that all applicable water quality objectives (as designated in the Basin Plan) are met or hauled offsite for treatment and disposal at an appropriate waste treatment facility that is permitted to receive such water.

Other construction activities could result in short-term groundwater quality impacts associated with the input of sediment loads or chemical spills into storm drains or groundwater aquifers that exceed water quality objectives if proper minimization measures are not implemented. However, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional Permit, including filing a Notice of Intent for permit coverage under the Construction General Permit as well as local stormwater and construction site runoff ordinances. These requirements involve development and implementation of a Construction General Permit SWPPP, a Sediment Control Plan, and a stormwater management plan specific to the project site to minimize water quality impacts related to spills or other activities that could contaminate groundwater. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be required and incorporated into individual SWPPPs and other permits prior to approval of grading permits, providing an acceptable level of water quality protection. Shallow soils and groundwater would be managed with a soil and groundwater management plan. The soil and groundwater management plan would describe recommended specific health and safety requirements and exposure controls.
51 More information on hazardous material requirements is provided in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. Additionally, compliance with dewatering regulations would ensure that dewatering activities are monitored and treated as required and that no violations of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur.

In summary, construction dewatering activity would have the potential to mobilize existing groundwater contaminate plumes in the area, resulting in a potentially significant impact to groundwater quality. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 within the Specific Plan area would reduce this potentially significant impact on groundwater quality to a less-than-significant level by requiring ongoing monitoring and remediation during dewatering activities. Therefore, 50 Assuming that shoring walls are properly constructed and the fine-grained soils below subgrade are continuous across the excavation.
51 ATC Group Services LLC. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 325 Maple Ave/325 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California ATC PROJECT NO. NPGS19033. October 31.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-29 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
project impacts on groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Require Groundwater Monitoring and Sampling Prior to Dewatering Activity (All Phases)
Prior to any construction activity proposing or with the potential to require dewatering, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall measure water levels and water quality, prior to and during dewatering activities, with a focus on potential constituents of concern based on permitting requirements and known or suspected water quality impacts within or near the development site. The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall ensure collection and testing of samples prior to initiating construction activities proposing or with the potential to require dewatering. The location of the sampling locations shall be at an appropriate distance from the proposed dewatering site, as determined by a geotechnical evaluation of the local groundwater and soil conditions. If contamination is detected, remedial measures to limit and/or contain the spread of contaminated water shall be implemented. Several options can be employed such as conducting on-site treatment/remediation, disposal in sewer system (with any appropriate pre-treatment) or at a hazardous materials disposal facility depending on type and levels of contamination, tanking, or stopping or phasing underground construction. Water shall be treated such that it complies with discharge and reporting requirements of the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Fuel General Permit (Order No. R2-2018-0050) and applicable water quality objectives as designated in the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), or hauled off-site for treatment and disposal at a permitted waste treatment facility. The applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the City that the treatment and disposal requirements set forth in this mitigation measure have been met.

Operation
As shown in Table 4.9-3, p. 4.9-38, implementation of the proposed project (Life Sciences Scenario) would result in an increase of 189,050 square feet of pervious surface area within the Specific Plan area as a result of installing new landscaping and open space improvements. This would decrease peak runoff flows from the Specific Plan area from 47.27 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 41.73 cfs during a 10-year storm, and from 56.43 cfs to 49.83 cfs during a 25-year storm (Table 4.9-5, p. 4.9- 38).
52 The off-site improvement areas would be developed with roadway and infrastructure improvements and would remain mostly impervious, consistent with existing conditions. As such, within the off-site improvement areas, the project would not cause an appreciable change in pervious surface area. Therefore, this analysis focuses on changes to runoff flows that would result from project buildout within the Specific Plan area.
52 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-30 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 4.9-3. Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Pervious and Impervious Surface Area within the Specific Plan Area – Project Buildout
Area (Square Feet) Area (acres) Area (%)
Existing Impervious 1,082,466 24.85 94
Existing Pervious 73,181 1.68 6
Total 1,155,647 26.53 100
Proposed Impervious 893,416 20.51 77
Proposed Pervious 262,231 6.02 23
Total 1,155,647 26.53 100
Source: BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20, 2021.

Note: numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.

Stormwater runoff may carry pollutants to receiving waters, including the Bay. Runoff from impervious surfaces can generate non-point source pollutants such as organic materials, solids, pathogens, sediment from erosion, chemical fertilizers, and other pollutants. However, all projectrelated development would comply with applicable federal, State, and local requirements discussed in Section 4.9.3, Regulatory Framework, including C.3 and NPDES regulations.

Consistent with C.3 requirements in the MRP and City requirements such as stormwater Municipal Codes and grading permit requirements, stormwater runoff from future phases of the proposed project would be treated through LID methods where feasible, which may consist of biofiltration, stormwater treatment areas, and other site design features intended to manage stormwater runoff flows from the Specific Plan area and to reduce stormwater pollution. Where LID treatment is not feasible, stormwater runoff will be treated using approved filter vaults, as permitted under the C.3 Special Projects provision.

The Southline Specific Plan includes policies to encourage the incorporation of sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, water conservation measures and droughttolerant/low-water use or equivalent landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features. The proposed project would be designed to protect water quality through the management of stormwater runoff as part of green infrastructure and LID where feasible. Biotreatment areas would be located throughout the Specific Plan area where soil conditions allow. Landscape buffers would function as biofiltration for stormwater runoff, and incorporate native and/or adaptive landscaping that is drought tolerant and able to handle periods of inundation. Other open space areas that would allow for water infiltration and associated water quality treatment include the Southline Commons, an approximately 1.5-acre open space located in the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan area. Southline Commons would include a varied landscape, including shade trees and landscaped berms and serve as green space. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, which would be developed during Phase 1 and would cover approximately 0.5 acre, would be surrounded by landscaping and include bioretention features such as a stormwater demonstration garden and a plant garden. Landscape design throughout the Specific Plan area would minimize stormwater runoff rates and volume and promote surface filtration. LID treatment methods and compliance with stormwater management requirements would be applied to subsequent phases of the project. where feasible.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-31 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Development within the Specific Plan area would be required to comply with the City’s standard development conditions regarding both stormwater conveyance and water quality, in addition to any other applicable federal, state and local requirements regarding stormwater discharge. Further, development of off-site improvements in San Bruno would be required to comply with applicable City of San Bruno stormwater requirements. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with San Bruno plans and policies related to storm drain infrastructure, including the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan and Storm Drain Master Plan, see Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise result in water quality degradation during operation because stormwater runoff from the project site would be managed according to the provisions of the San Francisco Bay MRP.

To demonstrate compliance with trash load reduction goals related to water quality, all new development would provide trash capture devices on all drain inlets that connect to the municipal storm drain system, as required by the City. Further, all parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, turn-around areas and landscaping areas would be kept free of debris and litter at all times, as required by City conditions of approval. In addition, vapor intrusion measures would be designed and implemented for the proposed on-site buildings to protect against releases to groundwater from nearby sources.
53 The project would be designed and maintained in accordance with City, County, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board water quality requirements, such as the San Francisco Bay MRP, SMCWPPP, San Bruno water quality requirements, and the Specific Plan Design Guidelines (for development within the Specific Plan area). The project would comply with the General Construction Permit, San Francisco Bay MRP, Provision C.3, and SMCWPPP C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, and would implement a SWPPP and other erosion control measures that incorporate stormwater treatment areas such as biofiltration and stormwater treatment areas. The project would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise result in water quality degradation during operation. Therefore, project impacts on water quality during operation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
Construction
Surface Water Quality
Phase 1 would require grading or disturbing an area of approximately 740,000 square feet square feet during construction, including the off-site improvement areas that would be developed during Phase 1. Phase 1 would excavate approximately 293,000 cubic yards of soil to a depth of up to 31 feet. Like the project, Phase 1 must comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Municipal Regional Permit, the governing city’s municipal code and grading permit. In addition, a SWPPP is required and would identify standard erosion control measures and BMPs to be implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation of waterways. Temporary BMPs would be implemented to control soil erosion and sediment, restrict non-stormwater discharges, provide pollutant control, and reduce or limit surface runoff. For the reasons stated above in the project 53 ATC Group Services LLC. 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 325 Maple Ave/325 South Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California ATC PROJECT NO. NPGS19033. October 31.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-32 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
analysis, Phase 1 impacts on surface water quality during construction would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Groundwater Quality
Phase 1 would require a maximum depth of excavation reaching approximately 31 feet below ground surface. Dewatering would be required during Phase 1 construction when subterranean parking garages are constructed within the Specific Plan area. Dewatering would not be required for construction in off-site improvement areas. Groundwater drawdown will be from the design high groundwater level of 8 feet below the existing grades down to 5 feet below the bottom of the excavations.54 Similar to the project, all Phase 1 related development would comply with applicable federal, State, and local requirements discussed in Section 4.9.3, Regulatory Framework. The contractor would notify the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board and comply with the board’s requirements related to the quality of water and discharges. However, as with the proposed project, construction dewatering during Phase 1 would have the potential to mobilize existing groundwater contaminate plumes in the area, resulting in a potentially significant impact to groundwater quality.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact on groundwater quality to a less-than-significant level by requiring ongoing monitoring and treatment/remediation during dewatering activities. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts on groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operation
Phase 1 includes construction of all new development south of Southline Avenue, including:

Buildings 1, 2, and 7; subterranean parking; and open space, circulation, and pedestrian improvements. Phase 1 also includes construction of the eastern wing of Parking Structure C north of Southline Avenue. Phase 1 also includes most of the off-site improvements. As shown in Table

4.9-4, p. 4.9-33, Phase 1 would increase the amount of pervious surface area within the Specific Plan area by approximately 132,858 square feet. For purposes of the Phase 1 analysis, the stormwater runoff analysis considered a worst-case scenario in which all existing impervious area remains in place within the future phase areas of the Specific Plan area during construction of Phase

1. The analysis assumes that all existing uses within the future phase areas would be demolished during Phase 1 to the foundation level only, so that soils within the future phase areas would not remain exposed during Phase 1 construction. Based on these assumptions, Phase 1 would decrease peak runoff flows from the Specific Plan area from 47.27 cfs to 43.38 cfs during a 10-year storm, and from 56.43 cfs to 51.79 cfs during a 25-year storm (Table 4.9-6, p. 4.9-40). 55 The off-site
improvement areas would be developed with roadway and infrastructure improvements and would remain mostly impervious, consistent with existing conditions. As such, within the off-site improvement areas, Phase 1 would not cause an appreciable change in pervious surface area.

Therefore, this analysis focuses on changes to runoff flows that would within the Specific Plan area after implementation of Phase 1.
54 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
55 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-33 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 4.9-4. Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Pervious and Impervious Surface Area within the Specific Plan Area – Phase 1
Area (Square Feet) Area (acres) Area (%)
Existing Impervious 1,082,466 24.85 94
Existing Pervious 73,181 1.68 6
Total 1,155,647 26.53 100
Proposed Impervious 950,044 21.81 82
Proposed Pervious 206,039 4.73 18
Total 1,155,647 26.53 100
Source: BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

Note: numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.

To manage water quality, Phase 1 includes LID areas for treatment of stormwater runoff within the Specific Plan area where feasible. Phase 1 also includes new perimeter landscape. In total Phase 1 would include approximately 92,647 square feet of planted landscaped areas (not accounting for the proposed biotreatment areas) and 103,600 square feet of irrigated landscape inclusive of bioretention areas. Phase 1 would also include ten biotreatment areas (e.g., planting areas), that would be distributed throughout the three proposed building areas. The biotreatment areas would total approximately 18,499 square feet. Phase 1 would include development of the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet which would incorporate a pathway surrounded by landscaping as well a stormwater demonstration garden and plant garden. Where LID treatment is not feasible, Phase 1 stormwater runoff will be treated using approved filter vaults, as permitted under the C.3 Special Projects provision.

Phase 1 would comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval regarding both stormwater conveyance and water quality, in addition to any other applicable federal, state and local requirements regarding stormwater discharge. Off-site improvements located in San Bruno would also be subject to the City of San Bruno’s permitting and Municipal Code requirements for any permits issued. Stormwater runoff from Phase 1 would be managed according to the provisions of the San Francisco Bay MRP and would not violate any water quality standards or otherwise result in water quality degradation. Therefore, Phase 1 impacts on water quality would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact HWQ-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1:

Less than Significant)
Project
Construction
The depth to groundwater on the Specific Plan area ranges from approximately 8 to 27 feet bgs.

Because the depth to groundwater is above the maximum depth of excavation (31 feet bgs), dewatering during construction of below-grade facilities, specifically the subterranean parking structures, would be required. Groundwater drawdown and discharge was estimated for the temporary dewatering required during construction. Due to the nature of underlying soil, temporary City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-34 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
dewatering would be from the design high groundwater level of 8 feet below the existing grades down to at least 5 feet below the bottom of the building foundation excavations. 56 Dewatering would not be required for construction in the off-site improvement areas.

Temporary dewatering would be conducted during the construction phase. Groundwater supplies would not be used during construction activities such as dust control. Determining the groundwater control method during dewatering activities depends on factors such as geometry of the excavation, aquifer properties, depth of excavation, and the aquifer thickness below the base of the excavation (subgrade). The proposed excavation would encounter saturated fine-grained and granular soils below elevation 19 to 16 feet. During excavations greater than 30 feet, a low permeability watertight shoring wall would be constructed around each excavation. This method would provide the lowest dewatering discharge rates and the shortest pumping duration.57 Therefore, construction of the proposed project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation
The proposed project is located within the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is a low priority basin. Beneficial uses of the basin include water supply. As shown in Table 4.9-3, p. 4.9-30, the amount of pervious area within the project site would increase upon project completion, with approximately 77 percent of the Specific Plan area covered with impervious surfaces and 23 percent of the Specific Plan area covered with pervious surfaces. The project would also include new landscape buffers, native and/or adaptive landscaping, and biotreatment areas throughout the project site in accordance with the design guidelines for landscaping and open space in the proposed Specific Plan. These features would treat runoff and capture and naturally filter contaminants from the site’s stormwater runoff. The addition of impervious areas would allow for groundwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. New landscaped areas would slow surface water runoff, allowing it to percolate into the ground, thereby providing increased benefits for groundwater recharge. All subterranean parking garages would be waterproofed and would not require permanent dewatering systems. The project would, therefore, not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
As discussed above, the depth to groundwater on the Specific Plan area, which includes the Phase 1 site, ranges from approximately 8 to 27 feet bgs.
58 Buildings 1, 2, and 7 and an eight-level parking
structure including up to two levels of below-grade parking are anticipated to require excavations of approximately 31 feet below existing grades. Dewatering would be required during Phase 1 construction to construct the subterranean parking garages in the Specific Plan area; dewatering would not be required in the off-site improvement areas. The dewatering design would maintain 56 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
57 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
58 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-35 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
groundwater at least 5 feet below the bottom of the majority of excavations, and at least two feet below localized excavations such as deepened footings, elevator shafts, and utilities. 59 Dewatering
wells require groundwater to be lowered two feet below subgrade for the largest Phase 1 excavation (Buildings 1 and 2).
60 Draw-down of existing groundwater of 17 to 35.25 feet are planned for oneand two-level basements, respectively. 61 Dewatering would lower the groundwater level inside as well as outside the excavation limits. The magnitude of the drawdown resulting from dewatering activities around Buildings 1 and 2 are estimated to be a radius of approximately 1,100 feet from groundwater draw-down of 17 feet.

Effects of dewatering drawdown would remain after six months from the start of dewater pumping.

Based on the size of the excavation for Buildings 1 and 2 and the required amount of dewatering and drawdown, the drawdown estimates serve as conservative estimates for other Phase 1 excavations, and actual drawdown may deviate from estimated values depending on subsurface properties. If excavation and associated dewatering activities are occurring simultaneously on multiple Phase 1 buildings and/or other dewatering activities in the surrounding area, the lateral magnitude associated with groundwater drawdown may be greater than estimated values. 62 To reduce potential impacts to structures due to groundwater rise or surface water infiltration, below-grade parking level walls would be waterproofed. As a result, permanent dewatering during operations would not be required.

As shown in Table 4.9-4, p. 4.9-33, Phase 1 would increase the amount of pervious surface area within the Specific Plan area by approximately 132,858 square feet. This analysis assumes that Phase 1 would demolish all existing uses within the Specific Plan area to the foundation only until future phases are constructed. Phase 1 includes new perimeter landscape, as well as approximately 92,647 square feet of planted landscaped areas and 103,600 square feet of irrigated landscape inclusive of bioretention areas. Phase 1 would include ten biotreatment areas (e.g., planting areas), distributed throughout the Specific Plan area. The biotreatment areas would total approximately 10,953 square feet. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet is anticipated to be constructed as part of Phase 1 would incorporate a pathway surrounded by landscaping as well a stormwater demonstration garden. These features would treat runoff, naturally filter contaminants from stormwater runoff, and allow for groundwater infiltration and groundwater recharge. New landscape areas would slow water, allowing it to percolate into the ground, thereby providing increased benefits for groundwater recharge. Phase 1 would, therefore, not substantially decrease groundwater supplies and would not impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 59 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
60 Buildings 1 and 2 would be constructed over a common two-level parking/basement structure that would have a proposed subgrade elevation of 3 feet (23 to 27 feet below existing grade). Building 7 and the parking structure would also be constructed over a two-level parking/basement structure, with proposed subgrade elevations of -1 and -2 feet, respectively (24 feet below existing grade). 61 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.
62 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-36 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Impact HWQ-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect floodflows. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Construction
During construction, stormwater drainage patterns could be temporarily altered due to site grading, preparation, and excavation activity. However, the project construction would implement BMPs, required in the project SWPPP to minimize the potential for erosion or siltation in nearby storm drains and temporary changes in drainage patterns during construction. During construction, implementation of an erosion control plan is also required. Construction BMPs would capture and infiltrate small amounts of sheet-flow63 into the ground such that off-site runoff from the construction site would not increase, ensuring that drainage patterns are not significantly altered.

Measures required by the Construction General Permit would also limit site runoff during construction and would not alter stormwater drainage patterns. BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff, ensure proper stormwater control and treatment, and reduce the discharge of pollution to the storm drain system.

Thus, construction of the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site. Project construction would not result in an exceedance of drainage system capacities and the associated impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation
Site grading within the Specific Plan area would create two drainage areas: Drainage Area A, which drains to the south and corresponds with the portion of the Phase 1 site located in the Specific Plan area, and Drainage Area B, which drains to the north and corresponds with the future phases in the Specific Plan area. Under the Specific Plan, new stormwater facilities associated with the Specific Plan would be constructed along a portion of Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue and connect to the existing 42-inch storm drain within Tanforan Avenue as shown in Figure 4.17-3 in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR.

As required by Specific Plan development standards, no lot would be created with size or dimensions rendering it incapable of meeting public utilities standards. As part of the City of South San Francisco’s design review and permitting process, a plan showing the location of all storm drains must be submitted to the City for review and approval. All parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas must drain and be plumbed to the sanitary sewer during project operations. As stated in Impact HWQ-2, above, the project would be required to replicate the 63 Sheet flow is an overland flow or downslope movement of water taking the form of a thin, continuous film over relatively smooth soil or rock surfaces and is not concentrated into channels.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-37 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
pre-project stormwater water balance under NPDES permitting requirements. The project would comply with all applicable BMPs and permitting requirements regarding stormwater drainage and surface runoff detention measures, and therefore the amount of surface runoff would not increase.

On-site storm runoff would be captured and treated on-site using LID methods such as landscaped bioretention and biofiltration planters per current NPDES C.3 requirements where feasible. Where LID treatment is not feasible, stormwater runoff will be treated using approved filter vaults, as permitted under the C.3 Special Projects provision. Treated runoff would discharge to the public storm drain system through new on-site underground storm drain piping. The project would be served by the existing public storm drain infrastructure within Tanforan Avenue and Maple Avenue, and does not anticipate construction of new public storm drainage infrastructure within those roadways or downstream. A new public roadway (Southline Avenue) would be constructed through the project site, which would contain new public storm drain infrastructure, as well as public bioretention planters, to capture, treat, and convey storm runoff from the new public roadway and adjacent sidewalk areas. This new Southline Avenue storm drain infrastructure would connect to the existing infrastructure in Tanforan Avenue through new public storm drain piping in Dollar Avenue. Proposed public storm drainage improvements or public storm water treatment areas within the City of San Bruno would also be connected to the existing public storm drainage system.64 All proposed off-site improvements would continue to drain to the existing storm drain infrastructure within the same existing subwatersheds.

The project proposes to maintain or reduce the pre-project flows to both the north (Drainage Area B) and south drainage (Drainage Area A) basins. Implementation of the project would reduce the overall peak runoff from the Specific Plan area by 12 percent by increasing the pervious area for the site. Drainage Area B would convey flows north to either existing and/or improved storm drains located on South Maple Avenue or Linden Avenue, and Drainage Area A of the Specific Plan area would continue to drain south to existing and/or improved storm drains located in Tanforan Avenue.
65 The 10-year and 25-year peak flows to each drainage basin upon project buildout is shown in Table 4.9-5, below. After implementation of the project and associated new stormwater infrastructure, Drainage Area A and Drainage Area B would see a decrease in peak 10-year storm flow of 1.24 cfs and 4.29 cfs, respectively, and a decrease of 5.53 cfs for the Specific Plan area as a whole. Drainage Area A and B would see a decrease in peak 25-year storm flow of 1.48 cfs and 5.13 cfs, respectively, and a decrease of 6.60 cfs for the Specific Plan area as a whole. 66 64 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 65 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 66 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-38 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 4.9-5. Peak Storm Drain Flow Within the Specific Plan Area – Project Buildout Boundary Area Existing Flow, CFS Proposed Flow, CFS Change in Flow, CFS 10-Year Peak Storm Drain Flow
Drainage Area Aa 22.64 21.40 -1.24
Drainage Area B 24.62 20.33 -4.29
Total 47.27 41.73 -5.53
25-Year Peak Storm Drain Flow
Drainage Area Aa 27.03 25.55 -1.48
Drainage Area B 29.40 24.27 -5.13
Total 56.43 49.83 -6.60
a Corresponds with the portion of the Phase 1 site that is within the Specific Plan area.

Notes:

CFS = cubic feet per second
10-year rainfall was assumed to be 1.96 inches per hour 25-year rainfall was assumed to be 2.34 inches per hour Numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.

Source: BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

To minimize on-site ponding and flooding, and to allow adequate site drainage, hardscape surfaces would slope at least 2 percent towards suitable discharge facilities; landscape areas would slope at least 3 percent towards suitable discharge facilities. Roof runoff would be directed away from building areas in closed conduits, to approved infiltration facilities, or on to hardscaped surfaces that drain to suitable facilities. Retention, detention or infiltration facilities would be spaced at least 10 feet from buildings, and preferably at least 5 feet from slabs-on-grade or pavement. 67 The off-site improvement areas would be developed with roadway and infrastructure improvements and would remain mostly impervious, consistent with existing conditions. Given the limited nature of the proposed circulation and utility improvements, similar runoff volumes and associated pollutants to development in the Specific Plan area are anticipated. Off-site storm water treatment methods would comply with C.3 requirements in the MRP and local stormwater requirements. All project-related development would comply with applicable federal, State, and local requirements discussed in Section 4.9.3, Regulatory Framework, including requirements for water quality, flood control, and stormwater management.

Based on the analysis above, neither alteration of existing drainage patterns at the project site nor changes in stormwater runoff rates or volumes which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect floodflows, and this impact would be less-than-significant impact related to stormwater treatment and capacity. No mitigation is required. 67 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-39 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Phase 1
Construction
Like the project, stormwater drainage patterns under Phase 1 could be temporarily altered. Grading is expected to include minor cut and fills for utilities and at-grade improvements and substantial excavations for construction of the below-grade parking levels.68 Implementation of BMPs, identified in the required project SWPPP, and an Erosion Control Plan would minimize the potential for erosion or siltation in nearby storm drains and temporary changes in drainage patterns during construction. Measures required by the Construction General Permit would also limit site runoff during construction and would not alter stormwater drainage patterns. Temporary BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff, ensure proper stormwater control and treatment, and reduce the discharge of pollution to the storm drain system. As part of the construction documents, a final Stormwater Control Plan is required for compliance with MRP requirements and for consistency with SMCWPPP’s C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. Discharges of stormwater to the stormwater system during construction would not provide an additional source of polluted runoff because all discharges would be in accordance with the NPDES Construction General Stormwater Permit. Phase 1 construction would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, flooding or create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect floodflows. The associated impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Operation
As discussed in Impact HWQ-1 and shown in Table 4.9-4, p. 4.9-33, Phase 1 would increase the amount of pervious surface area within the Specific Plan area by approximately 467,834 square feet.

The large increase in pervious surface area during Phase 1 would occur because Phase 1 would demolish all existing uses within the Specific Plan area and retain the northern portion of the Specific Plan area as pervious surface area until future phases are constructed.

Phase 1 would be served by existing water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain facilities fronting the project site, and would construct new lateral connections to connect to existing pipes. New stormwater facilities constructed as part of Phase 1 would be constructed along a portion of Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue and connect to the existing 42-inch storm drain within Tanforan Avenue. Phase 1 would also relocate portions of existing 24-inch water, sewer, and storm drain mains in South Maple Avenue between Huntington Avenue and Tanforan Avenue. Off-site storm drainage infrastructure improvements are also anticipated with implementation of Phase 1.

Drainage improvements include new storm drain mains within South Linden and Dollar Avenue that would tie into the existing 42-inch main located within Tanforan Avenue. Off-site storm drainage infrastructure improvements also include the realignment of the existing 42-inch main located within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue and Southline Avenue. As shown in Table 4.9-6, p. 4.9-38, the existing 10-year peak flow for the Specific Plan area is 47.27 cfs. After Phase 1 implementation, the proposed 10-year peak flow would be 43.38 cfs, a decrease of 3.88 cfs. Similarly, the existing 25-year peak flow for the Specific Plan area is 56.43 cfs. After Phase 1 implementation, the proposed 25-year peak flow would be 68 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129-3-6. July 28, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-40 September 2021
ICF 00082.20

51.79 cfs, a decrease of 4.64 cfs.
69 For reasons stated above in the project analysis, similar runoff volumes and associated pollutants to development in the Specific Plan area are anticipated.

Based on the analysis above, operations associated with Phase 1 would not substantially alter existing drainage patterns at the project site, result in flooding or runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect floodflows. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Table 4.9-6. Peak Storm Drain Flow within the Specific Plan Area – Phase 1 Boundary Area Existing Flow, CFS Proposed Flow, CFS Change in Flow, CFS 10-Year Peak Storm Drain Flow
Drainage Area Aa 22.64 22.27 -0.37
Drainage Area B 24.62 21.11 -3.51
Total 47.27 43.38 -3.88
25-Year Peak Storm Drain Flow
Drainage Area Aa 27.03 26.59 -0.44
Drainage Area B 29.40 25.20 -4.20
Total 56.43 51.79 -4.64
a Corresponds with the portion of the Phase 1 site that is within the Specific Plan area.

Notes:

CFS = cubic feet per second
10-year rainfall was assumed to be 1.96 inches per hour 25-year rainfall was assumed to be 2.34 inches per hour Numbers may not sum precisely due to rounding.

This runoff analysis is based on the worst-case scenario in which all existing impervious area remains in place within the future phase areas of the site during construction of Phase 1.

Source: BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20.

Impact HWQ-4: The project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation as a result of being located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact)
Project
The project site is not within a planned tsunami inundation area as depicted on the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning prepared by the California Emergency Management Agency and California Geological Survey. 70 Therefore, the project is not subject to inundation by a tsunami.

There are no reservoirs adjacent to the project site; therefore, the project would not be prone to inundation by a seiche. The City of South San Francisco contains areas designated as FEMA 100-year floodplain to the northeast of the project site. However, the project site is located outside of the 100- 69 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study Southline Development Project Technical Memorandum. April 20. 70 California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), the University of Southern California (USC), and the California Geological Survey (CGS). 2009. Tsunamic Inundation Map for Emergency Planning. State of California, City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco South Quadrangle (San Francisco Bay). June 15.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-41 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
year flood hazard zone as determined by FEMA (Figure 4.9-2, p. 4.9-10). 71 Therefore, the site
would not be subject to inundation by a flood. Therefore, there would be no impact related to a risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have no impact related to a risk release of pollutants due to project inundation in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. No mitigation is required.

Impact HWQ-5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
Commonly practiced BMPs would be implemented to control construction site runoff and to reduce the discharge of pollutants to storm drain systems from stormwater and other nonpoint-source runoff. As part of compliance with permit requirements during ground disturbing or construction activities, implementation of water quality control measures and BMPs would ensure that water quality standards would be achieved, including the water quality objectives that protect designated beneficial uses of surface and groundwater, as defined in the Basin Plan. Construction runoff would also have to comply with the appropriate water quality objectives for the region. The NPDES Construction General Permit also requires stormwater discharges not to contain pollutants that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. As stated in Impact HWQ-1, incorporation of sustainable site design features such as surface landscaping design, landscape buffers, biofiltration, and stormwater treatment areas would also reduce stormwater runoff flows and associated pollutants. In addition, implementing the appropriate general plan policies would require the protection of groundwater recharge areas and groundwater resources, as required by a sustainable groundwater management plan.

Dewatering would be conducted temporarily during the construction phase. Further, groundwater supplies would not be used during operation. The amount of impervious area within the project site would decrease upon project completion. New landscape buffers and biotreatment areas throughout the project site would treat runoff and allow for groundwater infiltration and groundwater recharge.

In addition, implementing of the appropriate General Plan policies would require the protection of groundwater recharge areas and groundwater resources, as required by a sustainable groundwater management plan. The project overlies the Westside Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a very low-priority basin and not subject to SGMA, therefore no sustainable groundwater management plan applies to the project area.

Thus, construction and operation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Construction- and 71 Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2019. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette, Map Number 06081C0043F, dated April 5, 2019. Available:
https://p4.msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/agolprint_gpserver/j25a3d93b5d5e4b 8d9606e99a93f2e318/scratch/FIRMETTE_353f0870-17c3-44ac-bc0e-9d026be115f2.pdf.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-42 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
operation related impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
Like the project, Phase 1 must comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit, the Municipal Regional Permit, and local stormwater requirements. In addition, a SWPPP is required and would identify standard erosion control measures and water quality BMPs to be implemented during construction to reduce stormwater discharges which contain pollutants that cause or contribute to exceedances of any applicable water quality objectives or water quality standards, including designated beneficial uses. Incorporation of sustainable site design features such as surface landscaped areas and biotreatment areas would also reduce stormwater runoff flows and associated pollutants. In addition, implementing the appropriate general plan policies would require the protection of groundwater recharge areas and groundwater resources, as required by a sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, it is not anticipated that Phase 1 construction or operation would obstruct implementation of a sustainable groundwater management plan or a water quality control plan.

Construction-related and operational hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the Phase 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.9.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The project site is not located within a mapped flood zone, and the proposed project would have no impact with respect to potential pollutant release due to project inundation as a result of being located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts with regard to this topic.

The cumulative geographic context for impacts related to surface water hydrology and water quality is the Colma Creek-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries Watershed (approximately 32 square miles).

The cumulative geographic context for impacts related to groundwater hydrology and water quality is the Westside Groundwater Basin (approximately 40 square miles). Given the size of each area, it is beyond the scope of this EIR to identify every cumulative project within their boundaries. However, it is reasonable to assume that other cumulative projects would be similar to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site (refer to Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this EIR) in that they would be anticipated to consist predominantly of urban development on similar paved, in-fill sites.

Impact C-HWQ-1: The Project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality. (Project: Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation) Assuming concurrent implementation of the proposed project with other reasonably foreseeable cumulative development, adverse cumulative effects on hydrology and water quality could include construction impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading to the San Francisco Bay. The project, together with cumulative projects, could degrade stormwater quality during construction through land disturbance and during operation through an increase in impervious surface area and contaminated runoff.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-43 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The cumulative geographic areas, inclusive of the project site, are fully developed. Buildout of cumulative projects would be anticipated to primarily involve redevelopment of existing developed sites that contain substantial impervious surfaces. The incremental water quality impact contribution from implementation of the proposed project would be minor. However, the proposed project, together with cumulative projects, could degrade stormwater quality through an increase in impervious surface area and an increase in contaminated runoff. During operation, runoff may contain oil, grease, and metals that accumulated in streets and parking lots as well as pesticides, nutrients, animal waste, and trash from landscaped areas. Such potential impacts could ultimately violate water quality standards, affect beneficial uses, and/or further impair 303(d)-listed waters within the watershed. The quality of stormwater runoff varies with surrounding land uses, topography, and the amount of impervious cover as well as the intensity (energy) and frequency of irrigation or rainfall. When the effects of the project on water quality are considered in combination with the overall project and potential effects of other cumulative projects, there would be the potential for cumulative impacts on surface and groundwater quality.

Like the proposed project, cumulative projects would be required to comply with the Construction General Permit to control runoff and regulate water quality at each development site, in addition to regional and local requirements regarding protection of water quality. Additionally, development projects would be subject to an environmental review process, which would identify potential site and/or project specific water quality impacts and mitigate for any potential significant impacts. New projects would be required to demonstrate that stormwater volumes could be managed by downstream conveyance features and would not induce flooding.

With regard to groundwater quality, before mitigation, the project could contribute to cumulative significant water quality impacts related to construction dewatering and discharge of potentially contaminated dewatered groundwater into surface waters or migration of contaminated plumes as described under Impact HWQ-1 above. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, water quality effects due to construction dewatering and potentially contaminated dewatered groundwater would be controlled such that the proposed project would not contribute considerably to cumulative significant water quality impacts.

Based on the analysis above, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on hydrology and water quality would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation.

Impact C-HWQ-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge such that sustainable groundwater management of the basin would be impeded (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant).

During construction of other reasonably foreseeable development projects within the Westside Groundwater Basin, potential dewatering could be conducted on a one-time or temporary basis during the construction phase but would not result in a loss of water that would deplete groundwater supplies. Dewatering during the construction phase would be conducted temporarily and would not adversely affect groundwater supplies and is therefore not cumulatively significant.

During operation, new impervious areas can reduce the potential for groundwater recharge.

However, other reasonably foreseeable projects in the Westside Groundwater Basin would be expected to include redevelopment or infill projects in highly urbanized areas where there is limited existing recharge through infiltration due to impervious area. Development in highly urbanized areas would not be expected to increase the amount of impervious surfaces substantially because City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.9-44 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
development would be occurring mostly in areas with a substantial amount of existing impervious surfaces. Further, the Westside Groundwater Basin is designated as a very low-priority basin and not subject to SGMA. Therefore, groundwater recharge from percolating rainfall would not be adversely affected, and an indirect lowering of the local groundwater table is not likely to occur.

Cumulative development would also be consistent with C.3 requirements in the MRP and the City requirements related to LID methods or, where LID methods are infeasible, alternative method as permitted under the C.3 Special Projects provisions. The proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge because it would increase the size of groundwater recharge areas and would not require permanent dewatering, as further described in Impact HWQ-1 above.

Therefore, groundwater recharge resulting from potential impacts of the project in combination with other foreseeable projects would not be adversely affected. Cumulative impacts on groundwater recharge and supply would be less than significant.

Impact C-HWQ-3: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, in a manner which would result in erosion or siltation; increase the rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding; exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant).

Cumulative development within the vicinity of the project could increase the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. Such increases could cause localized flooding if the storm drainage capacity is exceeded or convey excess flows to overbank areas where flood storage may not be available.

Generally, cumulative projects would occur in developed areas with existing impervious surfaces and would not be expected to substantially increase the amount of new impervious surfaces.

The project would result in a decrease in impervious surfaces. Further, post-project flows would be less than pre-project flows. Post-construction storm water management BMPs include implementation of biotreatment areas, bioretention basins, landscape buffers, flow through planters, allowing stormwater infiltration and reducing impacts associated with impervious areas.

All new development would be required to address stormwater in a manner that ensures that flooding will not increase and flood flows will not be redirected to other areas that are not currently prone to flooding. All cumulative projects would be required to include stormwater management features, such as LID measures into project designs to reduce flows to pre-project conditions. If improvements to storm drainage capacity are needed, the City would ensure the appropriate storm drainage improvements are identified. Therefore, the project would not contribute to the cumulative exceedance of storm drainage capacity, and there would be a less than significant cumulative impact.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.10 Land Use and Planning

4.10.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the Southline Specific Plan and off-site improvements (proposed project), including the first phase of development under the Specific Plan (Phase 1), on land use and planning. This section also describes existing conditions at the project site, including the Phase 1 site, as well as the regulatory framework for this analysis. The impacts of the proposed project are generally analyzed at a program level, and the impacts of Phase 1 are analyzed at a project level. Impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project, impacts resulting from implementation of Phase 1, and cumulative impacts are described. Feasible mitigation measures, where applicable, are also described.

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. The NOP comments pertaining to land use and planning include concerns related to the proposed project’s consistency with Bay Area Rapid Transit’s (BART’s) Station Access Policy and with the City of San Bruno’s General Plan and Walk ‘n Bike Plan. 1 These issues are
addressed below in Section 4.10.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

4.10.2 Environmental Setting
The approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area is in the City of South San Francisco (“City”). The City is located south of the City of Brisbane and north of the City of San Bruno. The City is built on the bay plain and on the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. The City is located along major transportation routes, including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, BART tracks, and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, which are also used by Caltrain. Figure 3-1 in Chapter 3, Project Description, shows the location of the Specific Plan area and the regional vicinity. As shown in this figure and described in detail under Chapter 3, Project Description, the off-site improvement areas are located within the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, including within areas under BART’s jurisdiction, generally adjacent to the proposed Specific Plan area to the west, south and east.

Together, the 26.5-acre Specific Plan area and off-site improvement areas comprise the approximately 33-acre project site.

Project Site
As shown in Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, land uses surrounding the project site include commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities located to the north and east of the project site within the City of South San Francisco. To the south are predominantly single-family residences, and to the west are the San Bruno BART station and the Shops at Tanforan and San Bruno Towne Center, all of which are in the City of San Bruno. The Centennial Way Trail, a Class I multi-use path, runs generally parallel to Maple Avenue to the west of the project site, in addition to bicycle lanes along Sneath Avenue.
1 With respect to issues raised related to the City of San Bruno’s Green Infrastructure Plan, refer to Section 3.17 Utilities, of this EIR, which addresses the Project’s consistency with this policy.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The San Bruno Caltrain station is located approximately 0.75 mile to the south and the South San Francisco Caltrain station is located approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the project site. Existing circulation surrounding the project site includes South Maple Avenue, Huntington Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, Dollar Avenue, and South Linden Avenue. The project site is located within approximately

0.1 mile from the San Bruno BART station and the co-located SamTrans Transit Center, which provides bus service to a range of destinations in San Mateo County. The project site is served by six freeway interchanges within a radius of 1.5 miles: Interstate 380/El Camino Real, U.S. 101/Grand Avenue, U.S. 101/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard, U.S. 101/San Bruno Avenue, Interstate 280/Sneath Lane, and Interstate 280/San Bruno Avenue. The project site is approximately 1.1-miles northwest of San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Specific Plan Area
The existing uses within the approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area portion of the project site includes seven parcels, developed with a variety of occupied and unoccupied office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities that were largely constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. The existing parcel size, address, land use, and building size of the seven parcels within the Specific Plan area are described in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Project Description. As shown therein, the existing structures within the Specific Plan area total nearly 344,000 square feet. Surface parking lots containing approximately 380 spaces and storage areas are interspersed among the buildings. The Specific Plan area currently lacks internal circulation; there are no routes through the site from South Maple Avenue on the west to South Linden Avenue on the east. An existing site plan is shown in Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description.

The topography of the Specific Plan area and surrounding vicinity is relatively flat with a slight slope downward toward the northeast. The Specific Plan area contains some ornamental landscape and approximately 162 trees, including two protected trees.2,3 The Specific Plan area is served by existing utility infrastructure owned and maintained by the City of South San Francisco (sanitary sewer and stormwater), the California Water Service Company (water), and Pacific Gas and Electric (natural gas and electricity).

Existing Land Use Controls
Section 3.3.3.1 of the Chapter 3, Project Description, provides a comprehensive overview of the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations of the Specific Plan area, which is summarized here.
2 Urban Tree Management. 2020. Tree Inventory of Southline, South San Francisco, CA 94080. May 13. 3 The City of South San Francisco defines a protected tree as any tree of the following species with a circumference of 75 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade: blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), myoporum (Myoporum laetum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), glossy privet (Lingustrum lucidum), lombardy poplar (Populus nigra), or any upright, single-trunked tree considered to be a heritage tree species, with a circumference of 30 inches or more when measured at 54 inches above natural grade: California bay (Umbellaria californica), oak (Quercus spp.), cedar (Cedrus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Catalina ironwood (Lyonothamnus asplenifolium), strawberry tree (Arbutus spp.), mayten (Maytenus boaria), or little gem dwarf southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora, “Little Gem”). City of South San Francisco. n.d. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation.

Available: http://www.qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/?view=desktop&topic=13-13_30-13_30_080.

Accessed: September 13, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Designation and Planning Sub-Area
Under the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) Land Use Element, nearly all of the Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres) is designated as Office, a designation intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices in locations proximate to BART or Caltrain stations. A small, approximately 0.3-acre portion of the Specific Plan area is designated under the General Plan and zoned as Parks and Recreation; this is a linear strip that runs in a southwest-northeast direction, corresponding with an historic rail easement.

The Planning Sub-Areas Element of the General Plan identifies the Specific Plan area as being located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, which, comprises a range of commercial uses, including small business parks. The Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those standards found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area is an area that the City has identified as needing “upgrading and rehabilitation”, 4 and the General Plan indicates that the area’s proximity to the San Bruno BART station will provide opportunities for redevelopment. Access to the area is constrained, and often trucks have to navigate downtown streets to access U.S. 101 at the Grand Avenue intersection, creating bottlenecks at major entryways to the City. To that end, the General Plan includes a number of policies that encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, such as providing better connectivity to the San Bruno BART station, including an extension of South Linden Avenue through the Specific Plan area; enhancing the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements; improving the buffering between industrial areas in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area and surrounding residential neighborhoods; and encouraging new office development in areas designated for that use. General Plan Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, establishes certain height limitations in specific areas within the City, including near BART stations. This figure shows the majority of the Specific Plan area is subject to an 80-foot height limitation and notes that for areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan.

Zoning
The majority of the proposed Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres), which corresponds with the Office land use designation under the General Plan, is zoned Business and Professional Office under the Zoning Ordinance. This zoning district, which implements the General Plan’s Office designation, is intended to provide sites for development such as administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices at locations close to BART or Caltrain stations. The maximum base FAR for administrative, financial, and other office uses is typically 1.0, but increases up to a maximum FAR of 2.5 may be permitted for development that meets specific transportation demand management, off-site improvement, or design requirements or criteria. The small 0.3-acre portion of the Specific Plan area corresponding with the Parks and Recreation land use designation is also zoned Parks and Recreation.

As further described in Section 3.7 of Chapter 3, Project Description, implementation of the proposed project would require certain discretionary approvals including General Plan amendments, adoption 4 City of South San Francisco General Plan, p. 3-14. 1999.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
of the Southline Specific Plan, and zoning map and text amendments. See Section 4.1.0.4, Impacts and Mitigation, for further discussion.

Off-Site Improvement Areas
The off-site improvement areas consist of rights-of-way and easements located in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and within BART’s jurisdiction. The off-site improvement areas would be developed with circulation and utility infrastructure and do not contain any buildings or structures.

Phase 1 Site
The Phase 1 site totals approximately 16.96 acres, which includes approximately 11.93 acres within the Specific Plan area and approximately 5.03 acres within the off-site improvement areas. Under the existing conditions, the portion of the Phase 1 site within the Specific Plan area includes approximately nine buildings on five parcels. The entire Phase 1 site within the Specific Plan area has an Office land use designation under the City of South San Francisco General Plan. Properties within the Specific Plan area that are located partially or fully within the Phase 1 site are identified with an asterisk in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Project Description. The portion of the Phase 1 site within the off-site improvement areas consist of rights-of-way and easements located in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and within BART’s jurisdiction. Table 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, provides a breakdown of off-site improvements under Phase 1. As identified in this table, the off-site improvement areas would be developed with circulation and utility infrastructure and do not contain any buildings or structures.

4.10.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the land use and planning plans and policies of federal, state, regional, and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site.

4.10.3.1 Federal
Code of Federal Regulations Part 77
Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, governs the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s review of proposed construction exceeding certain height limits, defines airspace obstruction criteria, and provides for FAA aeronautical studies of proposed construction. The regulations contain three key elements: (1) standards for determining obstructions in the navigable airspace and designation of imaginary surfaces for airspace protection; (2) requirements for project sponsors to provide notice to the FAA of certain proposed construction or alteration of structures that may affect the navigable airspace; and (3) the initiation of aeronautical studies, by the FAA, to determine the potential effect(s), if any, of proposed construction or alterations of structures on the subject airspace.

Pursuant to these federal regulations, any new structure or alterations to an existing structure (including portions of structures, mechanical equipment, flag poles, and other projections) with a height that would exceed Part 77 elevation thresholds is required to file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. Part 77 Subpart C establishes obstruction standards for the airspace around airports including approach zones, conical zones, transitional zones, and horizontal zones known as “imaginary surfaces.” These imaginary surfaces rise from the primary surface City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
(ground level at the SFO runways), and gradually rise along the approach slopes and sides of the runways. The FAA considers any objects that penetrate these imaginary surfaces as potential obstructions to air navigation. Obstructions may occur without compromising safe air navigation, but they must be marked, lighted, and noted on aeronautical publications to ensure that pilots can see and avoid them.

4.10.3.2 State
State Planning Law: General Plans and Specific Plans
State law (California Government Code Section 65300 et seq.) requires each California municipality to prepare a general plan. A general plan is defined as “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning.” State requirements call for general plans that “comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency.” While allowing considerable flexibility, State planning laws do establish some requirements for the issues that general plans must address. The California Government Code establishes both the required content of general plans and rules for their adoption and subsequent amendment.

Article 8 of the Government Code (Sections 65450–65457) allows local planning agencies to prepare specific plans for the systematic implementation of the general plan, for all or part of the area covered by the general plan. A specific plan must include, either through text or diagrams, the following information:

1. The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan.

2. The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan.

3. Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.

4. A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).

Additionally, the specific plan must be consistent with the general plan and include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.

California Code of Regulations, Business and Professions Code: Airport Influence Area Notification
Section 11010 of Division 4: Real Estate of the California Business and Professions Code requires individuals offering subdivided property for sale or lease to disclose the presence of all existing and planned airports within 2 miles of the property or within an established Airport Influence Area.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008)
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, otherwise known as Senate Bill (SB) 375, requires the integration of land use, housing, and transportation planning to achieve regional greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations to develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)—a new element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)—to plan for achieving these GHG reduction targets. The SCS must demonstrate the attainment of the regional GHG emission-reduction targets while accommodating the full projected population of the region.

Senate Bill 743
SB 743, which was signed into law in 2013 and is codified in Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code, intends to better align California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation impact analysis practices and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. SB 743 is addressed in several locations in this EIR, including Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis; Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation; and Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant.

SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to establish new metrics for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) and allows OPR to extend use of these metrics beyond TPAs. OPR selected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the preferred transportation impact metric and applied their discretion to require its use statewide. OPR issued a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA document in 2018, which contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. As further described in both Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, and Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR (refer to subsections 4.1.4 and 4.15.3.2), the updated CEQA Guidelines that implement SB 743 established that vehicle delay, or level of service (LOS), can no longer be used as a criterion for identifying significant transportation impacts for most projects under CEQA. The City has adopted VMT thresholds and methodology (Resolution 77-2020) in accordance with OPR’s 2018 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

As described in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, SB 743 also created a new CEQA statutory exemption for certain qualifying projects that are consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR has been certified. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, which implement SB 743, future projects that meet the following criteria qualify for a statutory exemption from CEQA:

1. The project is a qualifying residential, employment center, or mixed-use project;

2. The project is located within a TPA;

3. The project is consistent with a specific plan for which an environmental impact report was certified; and

4. The project is consistent with an adopted sustainable communities strategy or alternative planning strategy.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Public Resources Code Section 21099(a)(1) defines an “employment center project” as “a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area [TPA].” A TPA is defined as an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop, such as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by transit, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes (Public Resources Code Section 21099(a)(7)). As shown in Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the entire project site is within a designated TPA.
5 Accordingly, the project allowed by the Specific Plan and analyzed in this EIR would qualify as an employment center project for purposes of CEQA, and future projects under the Specific Plan may qualify for this exemption.

Lastly, as discussed in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, and Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, of this EIR, SB 743 also establishes that aesthetics and parking shall not be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects if the project is located on an infill site, is within a TPA, and is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment-center project. Because the project meets the three criteria, this EIR does not consider aesthetics or parking in determining the significance of impacts under CEQA.

4.10.3.3 Regional
Plan Bay Area 2040
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 in 2017. Plan Bay Area 2040 is the integrated land use/transportation plan and demographic/economic forecast for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region. The plan coordinates housing plans, open space conservation efforts, economic development strategies, and transportation investments. Plan Bay Area 2040 also identifies TPAs in the Bay Region, which are discussed above, under Section 4.10.3.2; as discussed in that section, the entire project site is located within a TPA.

One of the main goals of Plan Bay Area 2040 is to reduce GHG emissions from cars and light-duty trucks through the year 2040 to meet state goals under SB 375. As described above, under SB 375, Metropolitan Planning Organizations such as MTC must develop an SCS as part of the RTP. Plan Bay Area 2040 functions as both the SCS and the RTP for the region.

To reduce GHG emissions, Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed-use, infill development within walkable/bikeable neighborhoods close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities. Local jurisdictions voluntarily identified Priority Development Areas (PDAs) as appropriate locations for these types of neighborhoods. PDAs are eligible for capital infrastructure funds, planning grants, and technical assistance. The adopted Plan Bay Area 2040 estimates that approximately 80 percent of the region’s future housing needs may be met within PDAs. The strategy of focusing growth within PDAs maximizes travel choices, reduces dependency on driving, takes advantage of existing infrastructure capacity, and reduces pressure to develop open space. The Specific Plan area is outside of but adjacent to two Plan Bay Area PDAs; the Transit 5 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2020. MTC Policy Map Explorer. Available: https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/View/index.html?appid=1b8fdd83aa564aa180a59e9b7c4583ca. Accessed September 13, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Corridors and El Camino Real PDA.
6 The San Bruno Transit Corridors PDA is a 700-acre triangular shaped area that includes several developing commercial corridors: San Mateo Avenue, El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue, and Huntington Avenue. The area includes the San Bruno BART station, Tanforan shopping mall, and The Crossings development site at its northern end. At its southern end is the San Bruno Caltrain station, which has been relocated to the corner of San Bruno and San Mateo Avenues. The El Camino Real PDA is a multi-city PDA set along a one-quarter-mile buffer along El Camino Real, extending the length of the corridor through downtowns and central business districts in Daly City, Colma, South San Francisco, San Bruno, Millbrae, Burlingame, San Mateo, Belmont, San Carlos, Redwood City, Menlo Park, and unincorporated neighborhoods in San Mateo County.7
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan8
The 2012 SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP), prepared by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), is a state-mandated land use compatibility plan that addresses the compatibility of surrounding land uses in local jurisdictions with airport operations. Compatibility topics include the Airport Influence Area, safety compatibility polices that affect land use, building height restrictions related to critical aeronautical surfaces, and noise.

According to the 2012 ALUCP, the Airport Influence Area, which is the geographic area that is subject to the land use compatibility considerations identified in the ALUCP, is divided into two areas: Area A and Area B. Area A encompasses all of San Mateo County and the incorporated cities within it, all of which is overflown by aircraft flying to or from SFO at least once per week at altitudes of 10,000 feet (or less) above mean sea level. Area B lies within Area A and contains areas exposed to aircraft noise above the 65 dB CNEL contour or lying below critical airspace. Area B roughly follows the noise compatibility and safety zone contours. As shown in Figures IV-1 and IV-2 of the ALUCP, the Specific Plan area is located within both Area A and Area B, requiring ALUC review for consistency with ALUCP policies.

Safety Compatibility Zones
The ALUCP identifies specific safety compatibility policies to protect public health and safety by minimizing the public’s exposure to the risk associated with potential aircraft accidents in the airport vicinity. The ALUCP Policy SP-1 identifies Safety Compatibility Zones within certain distances from the airport to minimize potential hazards and improve public safety. There are five safety compatibility zones in the vicinity of SFO; these range from Zone 1, which is a broad area surrounding 6 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2021. Priority Development Area—Transit Priority Area Overlay (2017). Available:
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=1b8fdd83aa564aa180a59e9b7c4583ca. Accessed September 13, 2021.
7 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2017. San Mateo County Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment & Growth Strategy. San Mateo County Priority Development Area (PDA) Investment & Growth Strategy. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Final-Draft_PDA_IGS_5_11_17- Meeting.pdf. Accessed February 24, 2021.
8 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: October 27, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
airport facilities, to Zone 5, which is the area immediately surrounding airport runways. Policy SP-2 defines incompatible land uses within each Safety Compatibility Zone.

As shown in Figure 4.10-1, p. 4.10-10, a small portion of the Specific Plan area’s southwest corner (overlapping with the Phase 1 site) is located within Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone.

ALUCP Table IV-2 Safety Compatibility Criteria presents information regarding incompatible land uses for each safety compatibility zone. The compatibility criteria for Zone 4 are the same as those in Zone 3, which are less restrictive than Zones 1 and 2 given that the area is subject to less accident risk by virtue of the lower density of overflights in this area. In Zone 4, stadiums, arenas, and uses accommodating potentially vulnerable populations are incompatible. Hazardous uses and critical public utilities are classified as uses to be avoided within Zone 4, meaning that those uses “should not be permitted unless no feasible alternative is available.” Policy SP-3 provides additional details regarding the hazardous use limitations in Table IV-2, Safety Compatibility Criteria, including limitations on aboveground fuel storage tanks; toxic chemical or fireworks manufacturing facilities; and medical or biological research facilities that use utilize certain hazardous and/or infectious agents.

Height
The ALUCP also establishes airport vicinity height limitations to protect public safety, health, and welfare by ensuring that aircraft can safely fly in the airspace around an airport and to protect the operational capability of airports. The criteria used in establishing these policies is based on the Title 14 of the CFR, Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, which governs the FAA’s review of proposed construction exceeding certain height limits, defines airspace obstruction criteria, and provides for FAA aeronautical studies of proposed construction. The ALUCP incorporates the provisions in Title 14 CFR Part 77; Appendix F of the ALUCP describes the FAA airspace review process and the extent of FAA authority related to airspace protection. As noted in the ALUCP, the height of new development must be maintained below defined obstacle clearance surfaces, referred to as critical aeronautical surfaces.

As identified in the ALUCP, the project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 sphere of influence, which is the boundary established to regulate obstructions to airspace navigation, including building heights. Based on these requirements, the ALUCP establishes height restrictions within specific contours of airport facilities throughout Area A and Area B in which the Specific Plan area is located; specifically, as shown in Figure 4.10-2, p. 4.10-11, there is a contour to establish a limit of 125 feet above ground level running northeast-southwest located south of the Specific Plan area and a contour to establish a limit of 150 feet north of the Specific Plan area. As also shown in Figure 4.10-2, p. 4.10-11, the Specific Plan area falls within the 100 to 150 feet above ground level range for SFO’s critical aeronautical surfaces.

Noise
The ALUCP contains noise compatibility policies intended to minimize the exposure of residents and occupants of future noise-sensitive development to excessive noise. CNEL noise contours identify areas where noise exposure is great enough to warrant land use controls to promote noise compatibility. As shown in Figure 4.10-3, p. 4.10-12, the airport’s forecasted 70 dB CNEL noise contour bisects the Specific Plan area in a diagonal northwest-to-southeast direction. The portion of the Specific Plan south of the contour line (approximately half of the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site) is within the 70 dB noise compatibility zone, while the portion north of the contour line 380
101

S AIRPORT BLVD
82 SHAW RD

UTAH AVE

SNEATH LN

JENEVEIN AVE

S LINDEN AVE

W SAN BRUNO AVE

S SPRUCE AVE

E SAN BRUNO AVE

SAN MATEO AVE
7TH AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

EVA DLEIFELTTIL

CRYSTAL SPRINGS RD

WH ITMA N WY

SAN ANTONIO AVE

SCOTT ST

EVA OETAM NAS

HUNTINGTON AVE

EL CAMINO REAL

THE CROSSINGS

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HIGH SCHOOL

BELLE AIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
DECIMA M. ALLEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

PARKSIDE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL
San Bruno San Bruno
South San Franci South San Franciscscoo
10 R
10 L
2 3
1 4
101
101

GOLDEN GATE

NATIONAL

CEMETERY

SHOPS AT TANFORAN

SAN BRUNO TOWNE CENTER
U n i n c . U n i n c .

U n i n c . U n i n c .

SIERRA MORENA SCHOOL

KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CENTER

WALNUT ST

EDGEMONT SCHOOL

ANGUS AVE

PINE ST

EUCLID AVE

KAINS AVE

BAYHILL DR

NOOR AVE
3 5
5 East of 101
Area Plan
U.S. Navy Site
Specific Plan Area
San Bruno Transit
Corridors Plan
Project Site
Source: City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 2012.

LEGEND
Safety Compatibility Zones
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Open Space
Commercial
Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
Public
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Mixed Use
Transit Oriented Development
Planned Land Use Per General Plans
1 - Runway Protection 1 - Runway Protection Z Zone-Object one-Object F Free Area ree Area 2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone 2 - Inner Approach/Departure Zone 3 - Inner 3 - Inner T Turning Zone urning Zone
4 - Outer Approach/Departure 4 - Outer Approach/Departure Z Zone one 5 - Sidel 5 - Sidelinine Zones e Zones
Miles
0 .25 .50
Figure 4.10-1
ALUCP Safety Compatibility Zones
Graphics …00082.20 (6/30/21) AB
Source: City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 2012.

LEGEND
Municipal Boundary Road
Freeway
Railroad
Airport Property
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Elevation of critical aeronautical surfaces, feet
Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), North American
Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88)
100
Height of Critical Aeronautical Surfaces, Feet Above
Ground Level (AGL)
AC
35 and lower
35- 65
65 - 100
100 - 150
150 and more
Miles
0 .501
Project Site
Graphics … 00082.20 (6/30/21) AB
Figure 4.10-2
ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces
280
380
101
101

EL CAMINO REAL

GRAND AVE

SNEATH LN

PARK WY

OAKMONT DR

FLEETWOOD DR

ARROYO DR

S AIRPORT BLVD

N MCDONNELL RD

LOMITA AVE

S SPRUCE AVE

CHESTNUT AVE

E GRAND AVE

WESTB OROUGH BLVD

HOLLY AVE

S LINDEN
AVE

UTAH AVE
CRES

JENEVEIN AVE

MADIS O N AVE

CRY S TAL S PRINGS RD

E SAN BRUNO AVE

W SAN BRUNO AVE

W O RANGE AVE

ALTA MESA DR

PARK BLVD

ROL LINGWOOD DR
MAGNO
ORANGE
AVE

SAN MATEO AVE

OLYMPIC DR

JUNIPERO SERRA BLVD

GLENVIEW DR

WHITMAN WY

EARL A V E

CRESTWOOD DR
7TH AVE

SKYLINE BOULEVARD

A VALON DR

EVA DLEIFELTTIL

EL CAMINO REAL

EUCALYPTUS
AVE
82 GRAND AVE

W SAN BRUNO AVE

SNEATH LN

EVA OETAM NAS

HUNTINGTON AVE

SNEATH LN
San Bruno San Bruno
South San Franci South San Franciscscoo
SSanan Francisco Francisco
Internatio Internationanal Airport l Airport
SSanan Francisco Francisco
Bay Bay
CNEL 75 dB
Elevation 13.2 F Elevation 13.2 Feeeett
10 L
10 R
19 R
CNEL 70 dB
CNEL 65 dB
Regional Park or Recreation Area
CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast
Open Space
Planned use not mapped
Public
Multi-Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Commercial
Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
Mixed Use
Transit Oriented Development
Planned Land Use Per General Plans:

Miles
0 .25 .50
Source: City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, Comprehensive Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 2012.

LEGEND
Project Site
101
Graphics … 00082.20 (6/30/21) AB
Figure 4.10-3
ALUCP Noise Compatibility Zones
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
is within the 65 dB noise compatibility zone. Areas within the boundaries of CNEL contour map are subject to ALUCP noise compatibility policies set forth in Policy NP-2, Airport/Land Use Compatibility Criteria and Table IV-1 of the ALUCP. According to Table IV-1 in the ALUCP, commercial land uses, including office, business and professional, and general retail uses, in addition to industrial and production uses, are considered compatible uses in all of the designated noise compatibility zones in the ALUCP without restrictions.

BART Station Access Policy
The BART Station Access Policy is relevant to the project based on the project site’s proximity to the San Bruno BART Station, the proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation improvements within BART’s jurisdiction, and comments received on the NOP. In June 2016, the BART Board adopted the new Station Access Policy to guide access practices and investments through 2025. The policy identified six key goals and three strategy areas:
9 Goals
⚫ Safer, Healthier, Greener – Advance the region’s safety, public health, and greenhouse gas (GHG) and pollution-reduction goals.
⚫ More Riders – Invest in station access to connect more riders cost effectively, especially where and when BART has available capacity.
⚫ More Productive and Efficient – Manage access investments, programs, and current assets to achieve goals at the least cost.
⚫ Better Experience – Be a better neighbor, and strive for an excellent customer experience, including on the first and last mile of the trip to and from BART stations. ⚫ Equitable Services – Invest in access choices for all riders, particularly those with the fewest choices.
⚫ Innovation and Partnerships – Be an innovation leader, and establish durable partnerships with municipalities, access providers, and technology companies.

Strategies
⚫ Plan, Innovate and Partner – Plan for systemwide access mode shift to reduce drive alone rates; partner with interested stakeholders to improve access to the BART system, and; plan all BART facilities to be accessible to all users.
⚫ Invest and Implement – Invest in the pedestrian and bicycle network, on and off BART property; invest in transit connections; prioritize station access investments that support reverse peak travel, and; invest in strategic parking resources.
⚫ Manage and Assess – Manage existing assets and; regularly collect station access data. 9 Bay Area Rapid Transparent. 2016. BART Station Access Policy. Adopted June 9. Available:
https://www.bart.gov/about/planning/station-access/policy. Accessed November 2, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.10.3.4 Local
South San Francisco General Plan10
The City’s General Plan, originally adopted in 1999 and amended since that time, provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the city, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The General Plan provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the city, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The General Plan is currently being updated as part of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. 11 The General Plan
remains active until completion and adoption of the new general plan. The General Plan contains the following chapters:
⚫ Land Use
⚫ Planning Sub-Areas
⚫ Transportation
⚫ Parks, Public Facilities, and Services
⚫ Economic Development
⚫ Open Space and Conservation
⚫ Health and Safety
⚫ Noise
The General Plan chapters above cover six of the seven elements required by state law (land use, open space, conservation, housing, circulation, noise, and safety) and optional elements (Planning Sub-Areas and Economic Development), described below, that address local concerns and regional requirements. The seventh required element is the Housing Element, which is updated on a more regular basis than the General Plan and published under a separate volume. The Planning Sub-Areas Element of the General Plan complements citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. The project site is located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area.

Of the eight elements included in the General Plan, this section addresses the four elements that apply to land use: Land Use, Planning and Sub-Areas, Transportation, and Parks, Public Facilities, and Services. The remaining four elements are addressed within the relevant topical sections of this EIR. For example, the Noise Element and the policies relevant to the project are addressed in Ch.

4.11, Noise and Vibration, of this EIR.

Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44, presented at the end of this section, outlines the City of South San Francisco General Plan goals and policies that have been identified as applicable to the project and 10 City of South San Francisco. 1999. South San Francisco General Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division/general-plan.

Accessed: October 18, 2020.
11 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/. Accessed:

September 13, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and describes environmental effects for both the project and Phase 1.

Land Use Element
The General Plan contains a Land Use Element,12 which provides a framework to guide land use decision making citywide. As discussed in Section 4.10.2, according to the Land Use Element, nearly all of the Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres) is designated as Office, a designation intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices in locations proximate to BART or Caltrain stations. A small, approximately 0.3-acre portion of the Specific Plan area is designated as Parks and Recreation; this is a linear strip that runs in a southwest-northeast direction, corresponding with an historic rail easement. The maximum permitted floor area ratio (FAR) in the Office designation is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards criteria. In addition, the General Plan provides that the zoning ordinance can provide specific exceptions to FAR limitations for uses with low employment densities. The General Plan Update, Shape SSF 2040 General Plan proposes to maintain the existing land use designation for the bulk of the Specific Plan area in the preferred alternative, which would ultimately serve as the basis for the updated Land Use Element, although it renames the designation from Office to Business and Professional Office. 13 The Land Use Element includes the following guiding and implementing policies applicable to the project:
⚫ 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas.
⚫ 2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco’s prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access.
⚫ 2-G-3: Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent locations. ⚫ 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use residential, retail, and office development in centers where they would support transit, in locations where they would provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack such facilities, and in corridors where such developments can help to foster identity and vitality.
⚫ 2-G-8: Provide incentives to maximize community orientation of new development, and to promote alternative transportation modes.
⚫ 2-I-3: Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards. ⚫ 2-I-4: Require all new developments seeking an FAR bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to achieve a progressively higher alternative mode usage. The requirements of the TDM Program are detailed in the Zoning Ordinance. (Amended by Resolution 98-2001, adopted September 26, 12 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Land Use Element. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=15526. Accessed: October 18, 2020. 13 City of South San Francisco, 2021. Shape SSF Preferred Alternative. Available: https://shapessf.com/ preferredalternative/. Accessed: September 13, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
2001). The requirements of the TDM program for projects seeking an FAR bonus are based on the percentage trip reduction that is achieved.
⚫ 2-I-9: Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods. ⚫ 2-I-22: Require that all future development conforms with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport, with the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council, and to the extent necessary, approved through the local agency override process, consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq.

Planning Sub-Areas Element
The General Plan’s Planning Sub-Areas Element features policies to complement citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements.
14 Some of these sub-areas have detailed area plans,
specific plans, or redevelopment plans. Where appropriate, the General Plan provides guidance as to how these plans may need to be changed to conform with the policy direction provided by the General Plan. The sub-areas, 14 in all, were collectively derived from analysis of land use and urban design patterns and existing and needed planning efforts and activities. The Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those standards found in the General Plan’s Land Use element.

The Planning Sub-Areas Element identifies the Specific Plan area as located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, which, according to the General Plan, is the only large-scale industrial area in the city located west of U.S. 101, and is comprised of a range of commercial uses including small business parks. The Lindenville Planning Sub-Area is an area that the City has identified as needing “upgrading and rehabilitation.”15 (P. 3-14.). Access to the area is constrained, and often trucks must negotiate downtown streets to access U.S. 101 at the Grand Avenue intersection, creating bottlenecks at major entryways to the city of South San Francisco. The General Plan indicates that the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area’s proximity to the San Bruno BART station will provide opportunities for redevelopment. To that end, the General Plan includes a number of policies that encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, such as providing better connectivity to San Bruno BART station, including via extension of South Linden Avenue through the Specific Plan area, enhancing the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements, improving the buffering between industrial areas in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area and surrounding residential neighborhoods, and encouraging new office development in areas designated for that use.

The Planning Sub-Areas Element includes the following guiding and implementing policies applicable to the project:
⚫ 2-G-1: Preserve the scale and character of established neighborhoods, and protect residents from changes in non-residential areas.
14 City of South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 3 p. 3-11 to 3-18. 1999. 15 City of South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 3 p. 3-14. 1999.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ 3.2-G-1: Maintain the industrial character in the area from roughly the Spruce Avenue corridor in the west to San Mateo Avenue in the east, and south of Railroad Avenue to the San Bruno BART station.
⚫ 3.2-G-2: Develop new streets and through connections to facilitate truck movement; improve access to U.S. 101, and provide better connectivity between the proposed San Bruno BART station and downtown.
⚫ 3.2-G-3: Enhance the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements.
⚫ 3.2-G-4: Improve buffering between industrial areas in Lindenville and surrounding residential neighborhoods.
⚫ 3.2-I-2: Encourage new office development to locate in Downtown, Business Commercial, or Office districts; not in areas designated as Mixed Industrial. Ensure that existing offices continue to be recognized as conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance. ⚫ 3.2-I-7: Establish requirements for common loading and parcel access for Lindenville in the Zoning Ordinance.
⚫ 3.2-I-10: Prepare and implement a streetscape improvement plan for South Linden Avenue and South Spruce Avenue that recognizes the streets’ role as the connector between the San Bruno BART station and downtown.
 The San Bruno BART station, south of Lindenville, will be exactly one mile away from the center of downtown, whereas the South San Francisco station will be at a two-mile distance.

Thus, Lindenville streets, especially South Linden Avenue, are likely to become important gateways into the city in general, and downtown in particular. These considerations should be reflected in streetscape, signage and other urban design aspects. Components of the streetscape plan could include emphatic street trees that help visually link Downtown with the BART station, street lighting to ensure pedestrian safety, undergrounding of overhead utilities, construction of sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks, and bike lanes if feasible. ⚫ 3.2-I-12: Minimize any new curb-cuts on Victory and South Linden avenues; encourage site access from side streets wherever possible.
⚫ 3.2-I-14: Provide new street extensions in Lindenville as outlined in Chapter 4: Transportation.

These include a new interchange at South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101, extension of Victory Avenue to the interchange, extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station, extension of Mission Street to South Maple Avenue, and Shaw Avenue extension north to Produce Avenue.
⚫ 3.2-I-15: Explore the feasibility of requiring the new development in the Lindenville area to pay its fair share for any interchange and other improvements in the area.

Transportation Element
The General Plan contains a Transportation Element, which includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide new linkages.16 The Transportation Element of the 16 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Transportation Element. Amended by Resolution 136-2014, adopted December 10, 2014. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=15530. Accessed: October 18, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan proposes a new street extension that crosses the Specific Plan area between South Linden and South Maple Avenues extending to Sneath Lane, which is intended to provide a connection between downtown South San Francisco and the San Bruno BART station, to provide vehicle and truck access to Interstate 380, and to increase overall access to the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan preferred land use alternative maintains the proposed new street extension that crosses the Specific Plan area between South Linden and South Maple Avenues. The Transportation Element includes the following policies applicable to the land use elements of the project:
⚫ 4.2-G-1: Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging employment areas such as in the East of 101 area. ⚫ 4.2-G-8: Use the Bicycle Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access.
⚫ 4.2-G-9: Use the Pedestrian Master Plan to identify, schedule, and implement roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access.
⚫ 4.2-G-10: Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of the various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled. ⚫ 4.2-G-11: Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active efforts to undertake transportation improvements.
⚫ 4.2-G-13: Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation. (Amended by Resolution 136-2014, adopted December 10, 2014) ⚫ 4.2-G-14: Make Complete Streets practice a routine part of South San Francisco’s everyday operations. (Amended by Resolution 136-2014, adopted December 10, 2014) ⚫ 4.2-G-17: Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a Citydesignated ferry terminal, from LOS standards ⚫ 4.2-I-2: Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2, […] South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. This would dramatically increase access to Lindenville and enable trucks to get to I-380 without going through Downtown. This connection is also extremely critical to ensure connection between Downtown and the (San Bruno) BART Station. ⚫ 4.2-I-7: Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required in the Lindenville area. (Amended by Resolution 98-2001, adopted September 26, 2001)
⚫ 4.2-I-10: In planning, designing, and constructing Complete Streets: Include infrastructure that promotes a safe means of travel for all users along the right of way, such as sidewalks, shareduse paths, bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders.  Include infrastructure that facilitates a safe crossing of the right of way, such as accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, and pedestrian signals; such infrastructure must meet the needs of people with different types of disabilities and people of different ages.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
 Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, public transportation stops and facilities, and other aspects of the transportation right of way are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act and capable of meeting the needs of people with different types of disabilities, including mobility impairments, vision impairments, hearing impairments, and others. Ensure that the South San Francisco Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan includes a prioritization method for enhancements and revise if necessary.  Prioritize the incorporation of street design features and techniques that promote safe and comfortable travel by pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation, such as traffic-calming circles, additional traffic-calming mechanisms, narrow vehicle lanes, raised medians, dedicated transit lanes, transit priority signalization, transit bulb-outs, road diets, a high level of street connectivity, and physical buffers and separations between vehicular traffic and other users.
 Ensure use of additional features that improve the comfort and safety of users; provide pedestrian-oriented signs, pedestrian-scale lighting, benches and other street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, and comfortable and attractive public transportation stops and facilities. Encourage street trees, landscaping, and planting strips, including native plants where possible, in order to buffer traffic noise and protect and shade pedestrians and bicyclists. Reduce surface water runoff by reducing the amount of impervious surfaces on the streets.
⚫ 4.2-I-11: In all street projects, include infrastructure that improves transportation options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and users of public transportation of all ages and abilities. ⚫ Ensure that this infrastructure is included in the planning, design, approval, construction, operational, and maintenance phases of street projects. ⚫ Incorporate this infrastructure into all construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, and alteration projects as well as the of repair of streets, bridges, and other portions of the transportation network.
⚫ 4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
⚫ 4.3-G-5: In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. ⚫ 4.3-I-4: Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office/ institutional uses. ⚫ 4.3-I-6: Expand pedestrian facilities in new development, using the PMP [Pedestrian Master Plan] for pedestrian design guidelines and to identify other improvements that should be considered for projects proposed in areas that are identified in PMP concept plans. (Amended Resolution 26-2014, adopted February 26, 2014)
⚫ 4.3.I-10: As part of redesign of South Linden Avenue (see Section 3.2), provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to downtown.
⚫ 4.4-1-11: As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development and redevelopment projects.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ 4.3-I-14: Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations— South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station—and the surroundings. Components of the program should include:
 Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed;
 Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use;  Providing intersection “bulbing” to reduce walking distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas;  Continuing with the City’s current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and
 Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. ⚫ 4.3-I-18: Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by:
 Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed use development.  Requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. (Amended by Resolution 98-2001, adopted September 26, 2001) Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element
The General Plan contains a Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element, which includes policies and standards to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities (amended by City Council Resolution 89-2015, adopted July 22, 2015). 17 The Parks, Public Facilities, and
Services Element includes the following policies applicable to the project:
⚫ 5.1-G-1: Develop additional parkland in the city, particularly in areas lacking these facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new residents and employees. ⚫ 5.1-G-5: Develop linear parks in conjunction with major infrastructure improvements and along existing public utility and transportation rights-of-way. ⚫ 5.1-I-4: Develop new parks in locations and sizes shown on Figure 5-1. (Lindenville Linear Park.

Another rail-to-trail conversion, this park measures 1.6 acres in size and is located between South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue near the City boundary with San Bruno. This park should provide picnic facilities and benches for nearby office workers.) South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance18
The City of South San Francisco Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, is the primary document that implements the General Plan. As shown in Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the majority of the Specific Plan area (approximately 17 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element. Amended by City Council Resolution 89-2015, adopted July 22, 2015. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=468. Accessed: October 18, 2020. 18 City of South San Francisco. 2020. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Title 20: Zoning. Chapter 20.090 Commercial, Office, and Mixed-Use Districts Available:
http://qcode.us/codes/southsanfrancisco/view.php?topic=20. Accessed: September 13, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

26.2 acres), which corresponds with the Office land use designation under the General Plan, is currently zoned Business and Professional Office (BPO) under the Zoning Ordinance. The small 0.3- acre portion of the Specific Plan area corresponding with the Parks and Recreation land use designation is zoned Parks and Recreation. The BPO zoning district, which implements the General Plan’s Office designation, is intended to provide sites for development as administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices at locations close to BART or Caltrain stations.

Retail uses are limited to business services, food service and convenience goods for those who work in the area. New residential uses, including group residential facilities, are not permitted, but livework uses are allowed. The maximum FAR for administrative, financial, and other office uses is typically 1.0, but increases up to a maximum FAR of 2.5 may be permitted for development that meets specific transportation demand management, off-site improvement, or design requirements or criteria. Building heights within the BPO district may not exceed 80 feet.

South San Francisco Climate Action Plan19
The City of South San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2014 and includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375. GHG reduction strategies identified in the plan include a Development Review Checklist to identify applicable plan measures for discretionary projects. Measures identified in the plan, which include bike-share programs or facilities for employees, renewable energy feasibility, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, and more, can be considered mandatory conditions of approval or may be adopted as mitigation.

The City’s CAP is currently undergoing an update as part of the General Plan Update. The 2014 CAP remains active until completion and adoption of the new CAP. Additional detail related to the 2014 CAP is presented under Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR.

San Bruno Plans and Policies
As further described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within San Bruno in areas that are completely developed, consisting of rights-of-way and easements developed with roadway, sidewalk, and utility improvements; the project would not develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. The specific off-site improvements that are wholly or partially located within San Bruno include: constructing a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue; improving Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue; converting Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue; and realigning the existing storm drain main within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. Development of these improvements would be subject to applicable San Bruno plans and policies.

This section identifies and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant land use and planning policies from the San Bruno General Plan, Transit Corridors Plan, and Walk ‘n Bike Plan as related to the portions of the off-site improvements located within San Bruno’s jurisdiction. For 19 City of South San Francisco. 2014. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Prepared by PMC. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=5640. Accessed: October 29, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with San Bruno’s transportation-focused plans and policies, refer to Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR. For additional discussion of San Bruno’s infrastructure-focused plans and policies, including the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan, see Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR.

San Bruno General Plan
The San Bruno General Plan 2025, adopted in 2009, establishes a vision and action plan for the City’s long-term development. The plan outlines goals and policies to encourage balanced development that conserves and revitalizes established neighborhoods and commercial areas, while promoting mixed-use and transit-supportive developments adjacent to transit stations. The General Plan contains goals and policies related to Land Use and Urban Design, Economic Development, Transportation, Open Space and Recreation, Environmental Resources and Conservation, Health and Safety, and Public Facilities and Services.

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within San Bruno, but would not develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. As such, this analysis focuses on the proposed off-site improvements located within San Bruno’s jurisdiction and evaluates consistency with relevant policies from the San Bruno General Plan Land Use and Urban Design and Transportation elements.

Land Use and Urban Design Element
The San Bruno General Plan contains a Land Use Element, which provides a framework to guide land use decision making citywide.20 The San Bruno Land Use Element includes the following guiding and policies applicable to the proposed off-site improvements in the City of San Bruno:
⚫ LUD-9: Provide safe and comfortable pedestrian routes through residential areas by requiring sidewalks on both sides of streets, planting trees adjacent to the curb, allowing on-street parking, and minimizing curb cuts.
⚫ LUD-33: Plant additional street trees along the existing buffer between Huntington Avenue and the residential frontage road due east of the San Bruno BART Station.

Transportation Element
The Transportation Element of the San Bruno General Plan includes guiding and implementing policies addressing all modes of transportation in San Bruno, including roadway and highway systems, scenic corridors, transit systems, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 21 These policies
include measures such as providing efficient local transit to BART and Caltrain, maintaining acceptable LOS for vehicular movement along the street network, and focusing San Bruno’s efforts on improvements to the nonmotorized transportation system adjacent to transit corridors and stations. These measures support multi-modal transportation design throughout the City of San Bruno while promoting efficient, safe, and pleasant movement for all transportation modes. 20 City of San Bruno. 2009. City of San Bruno General Plan, Land Use & Urban Design Element. Adopted March 24.

Available: https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24009. Accessed December

16. 2020
21 City of San Bruno. 2009. City of San Bruno General Plan, Transportation Element. Adopted March 24. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24017. Accessed September 14, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4-8 and Figure 4-7 in the Transportation Element identify recommended intersection improvements at the following intersections in San Bruno to maintain acceptable LOS:

A. San Mateo Avenue/Huntington Avenue
B. El Camino Real/Noor Avenue
C. Skyline Boulevard/San Bruno Avenue
D. Skyline Boulevard/College Drive/Berkshire Drive
E. Skyline Boulevard/Westborough Boulevard/Sharp Park Road F. Skyline Boulevard/Sneath Lane
G. Sneath Lane/Sequoia Avenue
H. El Camino Real/San Mateo Avenue
The Transportation Element includes the following policies that are applicable to the proposed offsite improvements in the City of San Bruno:
⚫ T-A: Provide for efficient, safe, and pleasant movement for all transportation modes— vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians.
⚫ T-B: Maintain acceptable levels of service for vehicular movement along the city’s street network. Acceptable level of service could vary based on characteristics of the area under consideration.22
⚫ T-F: Provide efficient local transit—such as a shuttle system—to the BART and Caltrain stations to avoid dependence on individual motor vehicles.
⚫ T-G: Protect residential areas from congestion and associated noise resulting from BART and Caltrain spillover traffic.
⚫ T-2: Ensure that all transportation improvements— roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian— are designed and constructed according to Americans with Disabilities Act standards. Improve existing facilities so they are compliant with American Disability Act standards. ⚫ T-6: Maintain LOS standards for intersections for AM and PM peak periods as shown in Figure 4-

2. ⚫ T-22: Apply turning restrictions to major arterials during peak hours to improve general traffic flow.
⚫ T-47: Improve multi-modal access—specifically for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit passengers—to the BART and Caltrain stations through improvements along Huntington Avenue.
⚫ T-70: Identify funding for and implement as a priority bicycle/pedestrian paths along the BART and Caltrain track alignments (Huntington Avenue and Herman Avenue) within the city limits.

Coordinate with the Linear Park planned in South San Francisco and Millbrae. ⚫ HS-17: Synchronize traffic signals between El Camino Real, Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, and San Bruno Avenue, to improve traffic flows into and out of the San Bruno BART Station. 22 This policy is included for informational purposes because under SB 743, levels of service or similar measures of traffic congestion are no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan23
The San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan was adopted by the San Bruno City Council on February 12, 2013. The plan articulates the community's vision for revitalized commercial corridors in proximity to the San Bruno Caltrain Station and BART Station. The plan presents a vision and specific steps to improve the public and private realms within the Transit Corridors Area, which includes street frontages along El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, and Huntington Avenue in San Bruno. The Transit Corridors Plan outlines detailed policies, design guidelines, and development standards to steer future public and private realm improvements in the Transit Corridors Area. The project’s proposed off-site improvements along Huntington Avenue overlap with the Transit Corridors Area.

Chapter 6 of the Transit Corridors Plan includes public realm design guidelines that apply to development within City-owned roadways, medians, sidewalks, planter strips, and public open spaces within the Transit Corridors Area. The intent of the public realm design guidelines is to enhance the pedestrian environment along the Transit Corridors Area’s key roadways, as well as within its public open spaces, facilitating a balance between the needs of transit, automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including those with disabilities. Furthermore, the design guidelines provide opportunities for “green” design features in the public realm, supporting San Bruno’s sustainability goals. The following public realm design guidelines are relevant to the off-site improvements along Huntington Avenue:
⚫ A1-1: Reduce pedestrian crossing distance at crossing locations by utilizing features such as bulb-outs in parking lanes between parking spaces and at corners. Provide well-designed traffic calming devices on along corridors, including traffic circles, bollards, bulb-outs and chicanes to create pleasant livable environment.
⚫ A1-3: Provide adequate buffer between pedestrian zones and vehicle driving zones consisting of landscaping and/or curbside parking to ensure safe and appealing pedestrian environment within the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone.
⚫ A2-2: Ensure that all crosswalks have ramps and warning strips that comply with Americans with Disabilities Act standards.
⚫ A2-5: Provide bulb-outs along El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue, and Huntington Avenue at intersections and pedestrian crossing locations.
⚫ A2-6: Consider development of new mid-block pedestrian crossing locations on El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue and Huntington Avenue when justified by pedestrian traffic study, in conjunction with site development or in response to existing pedestrian demand. ⚫ A2-7: Encourage the design of corner bulb-outs at intersections to function as pocket plazas with pedestrian amenities such as landscaping, seating, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks. ⚫ A3-1: Ensure that all streets have continuous sidewalks conforming to the Americans with Disabilities Act standard of a minimum width of five feet. Where possible, encourage a minimum six-foot wide pedestrian zone to provide comfortable pedestrian circulation. 23 City of San Bruno. 2014. Transit Corridors Plan. Adopted February 12, 2013. Updated 2014. Available at:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24032. Accessed February 24, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ A4-1: Provide both pedestrian-oriented and automobile-oriented street lighting within the whole Transit Corridors Plan area, with first priority to the Pedestrian Emphasis Zones designed to meet established lighting standards to provide safe and comfortable pedestrian environment. ⚫ A4-2: Provide pedestrian-friendly streetscape amenities—including seating, trash receptacles and public art—at key nodes along El Camino Real, San Bruno Avenue, San Mateo Avenue, and Huntington Avenue.

The Transit Corridors Plan also includes private realm development standards and design guidelines for future development located on privately-owned lots and parcels in the Transit Corridors Area. The private realm development standards and design guidelines do not apply to the proposed off-site improvements along Huntington Avenue because the improvements are located within the public right-of-way.

San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan24
The City of San Bruno Walk ‘N Bike Plan, adopted in July 2016, promotes mobility within the City of San Bruno by outlining specific improvements to ensure that walking and biking are safe, comfortable, and convenient. The plan includes improvements for pedestrian projects, the citywide bicycle network, and programs/initiatives.

The Walk ‘n Bike Plan Map 6, Proposed Pedestrian Projects, shows one proposed pedestrian improvement within the off-site improvement areas – referred to as Streetscape Improvement “X23” located along Huntington Avenue from the intersection of Sneath Avenue heading south to San Bruno Avenue West. The Walk ‘N Bike Plan provides a key for each identified improvement on Map 6, Proposed Pedestrian Projects, and indicates that Streetscape Improvement “X-23” is a type “I1” improvement which refers to crossing improvements at the intersection of two major streets. The Walk ‘N Bike Plan describes I1 pedestrian improvements as follows, which includes planning-level cost estimates.
⚫ Proposed at wide signalized intersections with multiple through lanes and turn pockets, large corner curb radii that allow for high-speed right turns, and long pedestrian crossing distances. ⚫ Improvements consist of installing corner bulb-outs to shorten pedestrian crossing distance and reduce corner curb radii, removing turn pockets where capacity is not needed, narrowing travel lanes to provide a pedestrian refuge, and providing supplemental signal faces and signal push buttons or other detectors, as needed.
⚫ Planning-level cost estimate: $350,000 per intersection.

Map 7, Citywide Bikeway Network, of the plan includes one continuous proposed bicycle circulation improvements within the off-site improvement areas, located along Huntington Avenue and traveling south past the San Bruno BART station. The portion adjacent to the BART station is identified on Map 7 as a “Proposed Separated Bikeway (Class IV).” The Walk ‘N Bike Plan also provides a key for each identified improvement on Map 7, Citywide Bikeway Network, and indicates that the Proposed Separated Bikeway (Class IV) is anticipated as a 0.8-mile-long improvement identified as a type “B6/B7” improvement. The Walk ‘N Bike Plan describes B6/B7 improvements as follows, which includes planning-level cost estimates.
24 City of San Bruno. 2016. Walk ‘n Bike Plan, p. 64. and p. 82 Available: https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/ civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=27455. Accessed February 25, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Proposed for corridors where separated bikeways could be added without any road widening, and where bicyclists could benefit from additional separation from vehicular traffic. ⚫ Improvements consist of, at minimum, painted bike lanes, a painted horizontal buffer, and raised posts or other vertical feature. On-street parking could be incorporated into the design as an additional buffer for the bicycle facility (B6).
⚫ An enhanced improvement could construct the bikeway separation with a raised concrete curb buffer rather than the painted buffer (B7).
⚫ Planning-level cost estimate: Painted / raised post buffer (B6), $250,000 per mile; raised curb buffer (B7), $1.25 million per mile.

Figure 6 of the plan provides a conceptual design for the Huntington Avenue Proposed Separated Bikeway (Class IV) improvement. However, the Walk ‘n Bike plan states that provided concept drawings, including Figure 6, will require a “closer look and more detailed design drawings before improvements are approved and implemented.” Moreover, the Walk ‘n Bike plan states that the conceptual design for the Huntington Avenue Proposed Separated Bikeway (Class IV) improvement would require further traffic study and coordination with Caltrain to evaluate potential impacts to local traffic and circulation patterns.

4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to land use and planning for the proposed project, including Phase 1. It describes the methods and thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Feasible measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion, when necessary.

4.10.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant land use and planning impact if it would:
⚫ Physically divide an established community, or
⚫ Result in a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

4.10.4.2 Approach to Analysis
The evaluation of land use and planning impacts of the proposed project is based on a review of the applicable land use plans and policies described in the Regulatory Framework section above. Per the significance criteria addressed above, a project that involves a change or intensification in land use would not be considered to have a significant impact related to land use and planning unless the project would physically divide an established community. In addition, conflicts of a project with land use policies do not, in and of themselves, constitute significant environmental impacts related to land use and planning unless the conflicts are with a land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Such conflicts constitute significant environmental impacts only when the resulting direct environmental effects are significant. The analysis provided under Impact LU-2 evaluates this topic for that limited purpose.

Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44, presented at the end of this section, outlines the City of South San Francisco General Plan goals and policies that have been identified as applicable to the project and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and describes environmental effects for both the project and Phase 1.

This environmental determination differs from the larger policy determination of whether a proposed project is consistent with a jurisdiction’s general plan. The former determination, which is intended for consideration in a CEQA document, is based on, and limited to, a review and analysis of environmental effects. The latter determination, by comparison, is made by the decision-making body of the jurisdiction(s) with review and permitting authority and is based on the jurisdiction’s broad discretion to assess whether a proposed project would conform to the policies and objectives of its general plan, specific plan, zoning and related land use controls, as a whole. In addition, the broader general plan consistency determination considers all evidence in the record concerning the project characteristics, its desirability, and its economic, social, and other non-environmental effects.

Discussion of certain policy compatibility, while not required under CEQA, is provided for informational purposes. It does not present a comprehensive analysis of project conformity with applicable local, regional, and state plans and policies. Such analyses would be undertaken independent of the CEQA process, as part of the decision-makers’ action to approve, modify, or disapprove the project or aspects thereof.

Moreover, implementation of certain off-site improvements would require approval of certain entitlements and approvals from public agencies other than the City, such as the City of San Bruno and BART. This EIR is intended to provide CEQA clearance for approvals that may be required from other agencies to implement the off-site improvements, so this section analyzes the various land use and planning policies that would apply to those off-site improvements. The specific policy determination by those agencies of whether the relevant off-site improvements conform to the relevant land use controls, as a whole would be made by the decision-making body of the jurisdiction(s) with review and permitting authority.

To the extent that physical environmental impacts may result from conflicts with land use plans or policies, this EIR discloses and analyzes these physical impacts under the relevant environmental topic sections in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. For example, impacts resulting from a change or intensification of employment on the project site are embodied in environmental impacts related to the capacity of existing facilities and services to adequately serve the Specific Plan area, such as those described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Section

4.13, Public Services, Section 4.14, Recreation, Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, and Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. Physical impacts of construction and/ or operation of the proposed project on the environment are embodied in physical impacts related to environmental topics such as Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, Section 4.5, Energy, Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, and Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources.

Buildout Scenario Studied (Office Scenario and Life Sciences Scenario) As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the proposed project would allow for development of the commercial campus as either office or research-anddevelopment (R&D) uses, or a combination of both, up to a total buildout of 2,800,000 square feet.

For the purposes of program-level EIR analysis, two projected buildout scenarios were identified which would represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the proposed project: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario. Each section within Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyses the buildout scenario that City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
represents the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.

The Office Scenario would develop up to seven buildings with office uses up to seven stories tall and the four-story amenity building for a total of 2,800,000 square feet (FAR of approximately 2.4). The Life Sciences Scenario would develop up to nine buildings with R&D uses, including laboratory and office spaces, up to six stories tall and the four-story amenity building for a total of 2,025,050 square feet (FAR of approximately 1.75).

The Office and Life Sciences Scenarios may result in different types and magnitudes of environmental impacts, and each section of this EIR presents the scenario that would generate the most severe impact on that topic. For the analysis of potential impacts related to the physical division of an established community (Impact LU-1) and the analysis of conflicts with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over a project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect (LU-2), the environmental analysis addresses all potential development that would be permitted under the Specific Plan rather than a particular buildout scenario.

4.10.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact LU-1: The project would not physically divide an established community. (Project:

Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
Overall, the proposed project would not physically divide an established residential or neighborhood-serving commercial community. The existing site is characterized by the existing commercial and industrial uses, and is surrounded by industrial, commercial, and residential uses.

The proposed project, during Phase 1 and project buildout, would construct new office/R&D uses within the Specific Plan area under the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to the off-site improvements. The proposed project would not introduce new uses to the project vicinity in a manner that would physically divide the existing uses. Instead, the proposed project would develop a transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D facilities, and supporting commercial services (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations.

More specifically, the physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge, that would affect mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area. The project does not involve the construction of any of the linear features discussed above and would not remove any means of access. Instead, the project would develop multimodal transportation improvements, including a new east-west roadway to connect downtown South San Francisco to the San Bruno BART station, streetscape enhancements, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements, which would enhance connectivity within the project site and improve linkages with surrounding areas. By improving connectivity and land use transitions, the project would make it easier for people to travel throughout the community, city, and region.

Specifically, the project’s proposed new streets, pedestrian network improvements to access to the San Bruno BART station, minor reconfiguration to Centennial Way Trail, and roadway reconfigurations for compatibility with a future grade separation of the Caltrain would support connectivity with neighborhoods surrounding the project site. As such, the proposed project’s City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
improvements to existing roadways and infrastructure would not introduce new physical divisions and instead would provide better multi-modal connectivity between existing surrounding residential communities, the project site, and local or regional destinations.

The existing configuration of the proposed Specific Plan area does not include any internal circulation. While the development of new office buildings under the project would result in larger building footprints than what currently exists within the Specific Plan area, and development within the Specific Plan area would improve connectivity within that area and to the surrounding community by incorporating new or rehabilitated vehicle roadways, transit access, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

The Specific Plan, under which development within the Specific Plan area would be regulated, incorporates policies for prioritizing and facilitating transit and pedestrian connectivity between the project site and local mass transit services, which would further promote connectivity between the project site and the surrounding community. In addition, the project would promote infill development in an existing urbanized area. Rather than divide the existing community, the project would reduce the potential for conflict between differing land uses through streetscape improvements and policies that would apply to new development, including:
⚫ Circulation Improvements: The project would implement a network of internal private roadways that would provide access to parking, loading, and building areas within the Specific Plan area, in addition to several off-site improvements that would improve circulation within the project site vicinity. These improvements include construction of the new Southline Avenue providing an east-west connection between Huntington and South Linden Avenues (refer to Figure 3-16 in Chapter 3, Project Description),25 pedestrian improvements, new bike facilities, and new off-site improvements.
 Development of Southline Avenue between Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue would provide two travel-lanes in each direction, a center median, a Class II bike lane on both sides, a sidewalk separated from the roadway by a landscaped planting area, and new signalization at the new intersection at Huntington Avenue and at the new intersection midblock within the Specific Plan area.26  The on-site pedestrian facilities would provide on-site walkable connectivity between buildings, on-site vehicle and bicycle parking areas, the Southline Commons open space area (described in Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.6.2.10), mobility hubs, and connectivity across Southline Avenue (refer to Figure 3-18 in Chapter 3, Project Description, which provides a conceptual layout of potential pedestrian facilities located on and adjacent to the project site).
 Bicycle circulation would be integrated throughout the project site and would include Class II bike lanes on both sides of Southline Avenue, and Class III bike routes on internal roadways where bicyclists and slower-moving vehicles would share the road. Short-term bicycle parking would be provided on surface-level bike racks, located adjacent to the Southline Retail Plaza (described in Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.6.2.10) and 25 As discussed under Impact LU-2, the proposed extension of Southline Avenue is consistent with South San Francisco General Plan policies calling for the extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station. 26 The project would involve other new signalized intersections, including: Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue at the project entrance and at South Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue/ Southline Avenue.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
proximate to building entries. Long-term bicycle parking would be provided in below- and above-grade parking structures.
 The project’s off-site circulation improvements (refer to Figure 3-18 in Chapter 3, Project Description) would reconfigure Tanforan Avenue to create a cul-de-sac, reducing residential cut-through traffic, and provide new signalizations of certain intersections located outside of the Specific Plan area, subject to review and/or approvals by the City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, BART, SamTrans, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and/or the California Public Utilities Commission, as may be required.
⚫ Land Use and Building Design: The Specific Plan would establish new land use development standards and design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan area, including various chapters on these topics including: Chapter 2, Land Use Plan & Development Standards, Chapter 5, Design Guidelines, and Chapter 6, Implementation. The Specific Plan design guidelines are intended to implement a number of the Specific Plan objectives including to promote the highquality development envisioned for the Specific Plan area; promote cohesive design and identify for the Specific Plan area that respects the Specific Plan area’s industrial past and reflects the overall character of Lindenville; provide well-designed retail and publicly available open spaces to increase community participation and usage of the Specific Plan area; create new publicly accessible open spaces including plazas, courtyards, and green spaces within the Specific Plan area; and promote walkability and provide opportunities for social interaction.

In summary, given that the project would not introduce any physical barriers to the project site and would improve connectivity within the community through design guidelines, development standards, and proposed improvements, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The Phase 1 improvements include the majority of the project’s off-site circulation improvements addressed above. Many of these improvements would occur at the outset of the project, such that connectivity would be improved within Phase 1. Specifically, improvements to the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection, Huntington Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and the Southline Avenue/South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue intersection would occur under Phase 1. The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project as a whole because Phase 1 is a component of the project, which would not introduce any physical barriers to the surrounding community. Phase 1 would also be subject to the design guidelines and development standards set forth in the Specific Plan. Phase 1 development impacts related to the physical division of an established community would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact LU-2: The project would not result in an environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
environmental effect. (Project: Less than Significant with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Federal Plans
14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 77
Project
In accordance with the proposed Specific Plan, the maximum heights of new buildings within the Specific Plan area would comply with the height regulations and restrictions as established by FAA and ALUCP criteria. Pursuant to these proposed height regulations, new buildings exceeding the FAA Part 77 height limits will be subject to FAA review and may be required to provide marking and/or lighting, or such buildings may not be acceptable to the FAA if found to have unexpected impacts to the safety or efficiency of operations at SFO. Under federal law, the project applicant is required to comply with all notifications and other requirements described in 14 CFR Part 77. The project applicant would be required to file Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA to determine whether the project would constitute a hazard to air navigation, and if any airspace safety design features (e.g., lighting) would be necessary. Compliance with FAA and ALUCP regulations (also addressed under the analysis related to Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility, below) would ensure that the project does not result in new buildings that exceed applicable ALUCP building height limits and would therefore be consistent with the ALUCP criteria.

Therefore, impacts of the project related to conflicts with 14 CFR Part 77 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project because Phase 1 is a component of the project. The impacts related to consistency with the 14 CFR Part 77 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Regional Plans
Plan Bay Area
Project
As discussed in Section 4.10.3, Regulatory Framework, Plan Bay Area 2040 promotes compact, mixed-use, infill development within walkable/bikeable neighborhoods close to public transit, jobs, schools, shopping, parks, recreation, and other amenities in order to reduce GHG emissions and adverse health impacts; increase housing opportunities, employment opportunities, access to affordable housing, and non-automotive mode share and the effectiveness of the transportation system; and focus development within the existing urban footprint.

Plan Bay Area 2040 also promotes the reduction of GHG emissions through the identification of TPAs, or areas within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop such as an existing or planned rail station or bus routes with headways of 15 minutes or better during morning and evening peak periods. As stated above, the entirety of the project site is within a TPA. Because the Specific Plan encourages the concentration of development within a TPA, it is consistent with the general policy direction of Plan Bay Area 2040.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The project is consistent with the key objectives of Plan Bay Area 2040, including the goal of fostering compact infill development and jobs in proximity to transit to reduce vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions. Furthermore, the project would be located on infill sites within an urbanized area and focus growth on an area adjacent to the Transit Corridor and El Camino Real PDA. The project also calls for pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly streets within the Specific Plan area, while proposed land use classifications provide for compact, jobs-generating development close to transit. The project would provide for a net increase in jobs served by regional transit via the Caltrain and BART stations in a configuration intended to reduce reliance on automobiles. These features of the project are consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area 2040.

While residential uses are not permitted at the project site under the City’s current General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, and housing would not be an allowed use under the Specific Plan, the new employment generated by the Specific Plan could indirectly generate new residents and housing in the City. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, employment growth under the Office Scenario (the worst case scenario) could generate approximately 1,705 new residents and 559 new households in the City. The project’s indirect population and housing growth would be within the range of anticipated growth for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward core-based statistical area (CBSA)27 under ABAG’s Projections 2040. Therefore, impacts of the project related to conflicts with Plan Bay Area 2040 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project because Phase 1 is a component of the project, which would be consistent with the goals of Plan Bay Area 2040. Phase 1 impacts related to conflicts with Plan Bay Area 2040 would therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Project
As discussed under Section 4.10.3, Regulatory Setting, the ALUCP outlines the types of land uses that are compatible in the vicinity of SFO. The project site is located within both Airport Influence Area A and Area B. With respect to ALUCP safety zones, as shown in Figure 4.10-1, p. 4.10-10, the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area, overlapping with the Phase 1 site, is located within Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. As shown in Figure 4.10-2, p. 4.10-11, the Specific Plan area falls within a 100 to 150 feet above ground level contour range per SFO’s critical aeronautical surfaces map. As shown in Figure 4.10-3, p. 4.10-12, a portion of the Specific Plan area is within the 65dB CNEL noise contour, and approximately half of the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site, is within the 70dB CNEL noise contour.

The determination of consistency of the project with the ALUCP considers issues such as general compatibility, safety, height, and noise. Pursuant to state law, when a general plan amendment, adoption or amendment of a specific plan, and/or zoning amendment are proposed within Airport Influence Area B of an adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan, a referral must be made to the San 27 The United States Office of Management and Budget defines a CBSA as a multi-county area anchored by an urban center of at least 10,000 people plus adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA comprises Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Francisco Airport Land Use Commission for a consistency determination. Given that implementation of the proposed project would include certain qualifying land use actions, including General Plan amendments, adoption of the Southline Specific Plan, and a rezoning, the project would be required to be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission for a determination of consistency with the relevant policies of the 2012 SFO ALUCP regarding safety, height, noise.

Safety. As noted above, a small portion of the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area is located within Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. The remainder of the Specific Plan area is not within any of the ALUCP’s established Safety Compatibility Zones. ALUCP Policy SP-2 and Table IV-2 define incompatible uses within each Safety Compatibility Zone. Incompatible uses for Zone 4 include:

Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities, children’s schools, large child day care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, stadiums, arenas, hazardous uses (other than biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities), and critical public utilities.28 The project would include development within that portion of the site located within Zone 4 during Phase 1; however, development would be limited to streetscape, open space, and the four-story commercial amenities use building; these uses are not restricted under the ALUCP and so the project is not inconsistent with the ALUCP policies regarding its safety zones.

Height Limitations. As noted above, the Specific Plan area falls within a 100 to 150 feet above ground level contour range per SFO’s critical aeronautical surfaces map. Specifically, there is a contour to establish a limit of 125 feet above ground level running northeast-southwest located south of the project site and a contour to establish a limit of 150 feet north of the site. Development within the Specific Plan area would be subject to certain height limitations pursuant to the FAA and ALUCP regulations. In accordance with the proposed Specific Plan, the maximum heights of new buildings within the Specific Plan area would comply with the height regulations and restrictions as established by FAA and ALUCP criteria; applicable maximum height requirements would vary across the Specific Plan area, up to a maximum of approximately 120 feet. Compliance with FAA and ALUCP regulations would ensure that the project does not result in new buildings that exceed applicable ALUCP building height limits and would therefore be consistent with the ALUCP criteria. Therefore, development of the Specific Plan would be consistent with height clearances established in the ALUCP.

Noise. As noted above, the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area falls within the 65 dB noise contour, and the southwest portion of the Specific Plan area is within the 70 dB noise contour. Areas within the boundaries of CNEL contour map are subject to ALUCP noise compatibility policies set forth in Policy NP-2, Airport/Land Use Compatibility Criteria and Table IV-1 of the ALUCP.

According to Table VI-1 in the ALUCP, commercial land uses, including office, business and professional, and general retail uses, in addition to industrial and produces uses, are considered compatible uses in all of the designated noise compatibility zones in the ALUCP without restrictions.

The project proposes a range of commercial land uses, such as office, R&D, and related amenity uses, all of which are permissible in the 65 dB and 70 dB noise compatibility zones without restrictions.

Refer to Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, of this EIR, for an analysis of the project’s consistency with SFO ALUCP noise policies.
28 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, p. VI-31—32. Available:
https://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf.

Accessed: October 27, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Given the project’s consistency with the ALUCP’s policies regarding safety, heights, noise, and notification requirements, the project would result in a less-than-significant land use impact with respect to the ALUCP’s policies. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project because Phase 1 is a component of the project. Given that the Phase 1 site is within the ALUCP Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone but that the uses proposed under Phase 1 are not restricted uses, and the project overall is consistent with the ALUCP’s policies regarding safety, heights, noise, and notification, the impacts related to consistency with the ALUCP’s policies would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

BART Station Access Policy
Project
While development within the Specific Plan area would not be subject to specific policies identified in the 2016 BART Station Access Policy, the proposed off-site improvements under Phase 1 that are located within BART jurisdiction (refer to Table 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR) would require certain BART construction approvals pursuant to its applicable policies, including the 2016 BART Station Access Policy. The proposed off-site improvements would support the goals and strategies identified in the 2016 BART Station Access Policy. Specifically, pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station would be improved along a portion of Huntington Avenue, primarily within City of San Bruno and BART jurisdiction, from the new intersection at Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue. Proposed off-site improvements would also include extension of the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station, providing a 15- to 17-foot-wide multi-use path along the west side of Huntington Avenue. The project would also create a new shared bicycle and pedestrian path on the east side of Huntington Avenue and a new crosswalk and pedestrian bulb-out on the south side of the SamTrans Transit Center driveway to provide a more direct connection between the BART station to the eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue. Improvements would also include installing transit signal priority devices on the signal masts at the Huntington/Southline Avenues intersection for SamTrans and shuttle buses to create a dedicated signalized bus entrance to the SamTrans transit center.

These off-site improvements would directly support the BART Station Access Policy goal to provide a “Better Experience,… including the first and last mile of the trip to and from BART stations,” and the strategy of “Invest and Implement – Invest in the pedestrian and bicycle network, on and off BART property; invest in transit connections… and; invest in strategic parking resources.” Therefore, impacts of the project related to conflicts with the 2016 BART Station Access Policy would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project because the proposed offsite improvements in BART’s jurisdiction would be completed under Phase 1. Therefore, the impacts related to consistency with the 2016 BART Station Access Policy would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Local Plans and Regulations
The project includes features located within the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno; as such, local land use plans and regulations that cover the various elements of the project site include the policies from both cities. City of South San Francisco plans and regulations considered include the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and CAP. City of San Bruno plans and regulations considered include the City of San Bruno General Plan, Transit Corridors Plan, and Walk ’n Bike Plan.

South San Francisco General Plan
Project
The General Plan Land Use Element identifies policies intended to shape future development within the City and its respective planning areas and districts. The current General Plan classification for most of the Specific Plan area is Office.29 This classification permits supporting commercial uses, such as the project’s amenity building that may include restaurant uses, a private cafeteria for campus tenants, a private gym for campus tenants, and an auditorium/event space. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to permit and regulate the orderly development of the Specific Plan area in furtherance of the City’s General Plan, as it may be amended for implementation of the Specific Plan.

While the General Plan is the primary guide for growth and development in South San Francisco, the Specific Plan focuses on the unique characteristics of the Specific Plan area and sets forth land use regulations and policies that reflect the vision for redevelopment of the Specific Plan area. To that end, the Specific Plan defines the Southline Campus (S-C) district unique to the Specific Plan area and describes the following: development standards and permitted uses that shall be applied to the land use district; circulation and mobility guidelines; design guidelines; conceptual infrastructure improvements; and implementation procedures for future development within the Specific Plan area.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would require certain amendments to the General Plan to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the Specific Plan, including amending Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, to increase the allowable building height on the Specific Plan area from 80 feet up to 120 feet, consistent with FAA and ALUCP criteria. This revision is consistent with the intent of General Plan Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, which states that for areas subject to airport-related height limitations, building heights must be in accordance with the limits indicated in the most recently adopted ALUCP. The ALUCP has been amended and updated since the 1999 General Plan was adopted by the City, and effective height regulations and limitations are not more precisely defined. The project proposes maximum heights that would be consistent with FAA and ALUCP regulations, and as such, would be consistent with the policies for height limits in this area.

A General Plan amendment would also be required to re-designate the approximately 0.3-acre linear parcel designated as Parks and Recreation, corresponding with a former rail spur, to the Office designation, consistent with the remainder of the Specific Plan area. In addition, the General Plan Land Use Diagram would be updated to reflect the creation of the new Specific Plan land use classification and its application to the Specific Plan area. Other minor General Plan amendments 29 The General Plan Update, Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, which is currently underway, proposes to maintain the existing land use designation for the bulk of the Specific Plan area in the preferred alternative, which would ultimately serve as the basis for the updated Land Use Element, although it renames the designation from Office to Business and Professional Office.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
may be required to ensure consistency with the Specific Plan, as deemed necessary by the City prior to approval of the project. Approval of the requested General Plan amendments would make the project consistent with the General Plan. The potential environmental effects that could result from approving the General Plan amendments and developing the proposed new and intensified land uses at the Specific Plan area are evaluated throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR.

The proposed Specific Plan and associated Southline Campus (S-C) land use district are consistent with existing surrounding development patterns and with several goals of the General Plan to encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Sub-Area, such as providing better connectivity to San Bruno BART station, including via extension of South Linden Avenue; enhancing the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements; improving the buffering between industrial areas in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area and surrounding residential neighborhoods; and encouraging new office development in areas designated for that use, as set forth under various policies under the Land Use and Planning SubAreas Elements including Policies 2-I-22; 2-G-3; 2-G-8; 3.2-G-2; 3.2-G-3; and 3.2-I-14.

The project would incorporate circulation improvements that directly implement the General Plan’s vision for the Specific Plan area, including to establish Southline Avenue, a new east-west connection between Sneath Avenue and S. Linden Avenue that would provide connection to the San Bruno BART station and improved connectivity within the surrounding vicinity. Overall, the Specific Plan would implement the General Plan’s vision for Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. No substantive conflicts have been identified for the proposed project with a General Plan policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44, presented at the end of this section, outlines the City of South San Francisco General Plan goals and policies that have been identified as applicable to the project and adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and describes environmental effects for both the project and Phase 1. This table includes a determination of “Consistent” or “Inconsistent” for each policy. The determination of whether the project would conflict with applicable policies is based on the environmental analysis provided in the applicable resource sections of this EIR. As shown, the proposed project would not be inconsistent with any of the General Plan policies identified in Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44.

As described in Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44, the project was found to be consistent with the relevant land use and planning related policies from the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Elements of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendments, including the land use classifications described above and revisions to Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, would, on balance, meet the overall intent of the land use policies as described in detail below and in Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44. Given that the project is generally consistent with the General Plan’s goals for the Specific Plan area and includes provisions to update the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance consistent with state law to ensure consistency as discussed above, impacts from implementation of the project related to conflicts with local plans and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
Approval of the requested General Plan amendments would make Phase 1 consistent with the General Plan. The potential environmental effects that could result from approving the General Plan City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
amendments and developing the proposed new and intensified land uses proposed as part of Phase 1 are evaluated throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. As described in Table 4.10-1, p. 4.10-44, Phase 1 is found to be consistent with the Land Use, Planning Sub-Areas, Transportation, Parks, Public Facilities, and Services, and Economic Elements of the General Plan. Given that Phase 1 is consistent with the General Plan’s applicable goals, policies, and actions, Phase 1 impacts due to conflicts with the General Plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance
Project
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance identifies the Specific Plan area as BPO, which implements the General Plan’s Office designation, is intended to provide sites for development such as administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices at locations close to BART or Caltrain stations. The maximum base FAR for administrative, financial, and other office uses is typically 1.0, but increases up to a maximum FAR of 2.5 may be permitted for development that meets specific transportation demand management, off-site improvement, or design requirements or criteria. Building heights under the BPO district may not exceed 80 feet. The small

0.3-acre portion of the Specific Plan area corresponding with the Parks and Recreation land use designation is also zoned Parks and Recreation.

The proposed project would establish a new zoning district unique to the Specific Plan area, referred to as the Southline Campus District (S-C District) that would implement the development standards and regulations under the Specific Plan; project approvals to implement the project would include a zoning map and zoning text amendments. The S-C District is intended to implement the development standards and requirements established under the Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3- 10 in Chapter 3, Project Description, the S-C District would cover the entire Specific Plan area.

Permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the S-C District include various types of office; employment and commercial; eating and drinking; public and semi-public; transportation, communications, and utility; and temporary and interim uses. Uses that are illegal under local, state, or federal law would not be allowed. Similar to the BPO district, the S-C District would allow for development up to a FAR of approximately 2.4.
30 With approval of the zoning map and zoning text amendments, the project would be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The potential environmental effects that could result from approving the zoning map and zoning text amendments and developing the proposed new and intensified land uses at the Specific Plan area are evaluated throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project because Phase 1 is a component of the project., and subject to the Specific Plan’s proposed development standards and design guidelines. Given that the project would be consistent with the proposed zoning map and 30 Total allowable floor area and floor area ratio (FAR) shall be calculated based on entire Specific Plan area (inclusive of Southline Avenue and other dedicated improvements) rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. The total allowable floor area shall be 2,800,000 square feet across the entire Specific Plan area, which equates to approximately 2.4 FAR, exclusive of the campus parking structure.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
zoning text amendments under project approvals, Phase 1 impacts due to conflicts with Zoning Ordinance would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
Project
As previously discussed, the City’s CAP is currently being updated. The 2014 CAP remains active until completion and adoption of the new CAP. Therefore, this discussion addresses the project’s consistency with the 2014 CAP. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR, the project would include a TDM Plan designed to meet the 45 percent mode-share target required by the City. The TDM Plan would provide direct access to transit, on-site amenities for bicycle and pedestrian access, shuttle service, carpooling and vanpooling facilities and services, mode shift incentives, and other TDM features, resulting in a reduction in VMT, and, consequently GHG emissions. Additionally, as addressed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, the proposed project would be designed to enhance resource efficiency and ensure good indoor environmental quality, as well as reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation; specifically, it would be designed to meet the standards of the South San Francisco CAP and South San Francisco Municipal Code and 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen.

Table 4.7-7 in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR presents the consistency analysis of the proposed project and the applicable CAP emission reduction measures. As discussed therein, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, the project construction fleet would be required to use renewable diesel fuel, thereby being consistent CAP Measure 2.2. The proposed project would be consistent with all the other CAP emission reduction measures without mitigation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, this discussion addresses the project’s consistency with the 2014 CAP. Table 4.7-8 in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR presents the consistency analysis of Phase 1 and the CAP’s Development Review Checklist for new development. The proposed project would be consistent with nearly all of the Development Review Checklist’s measures, except for a potential inconsistency with a measure related to exceeding CALGreen standards for water fixture flow rates and another measure related to capturing rainwater for irrigation. Even with this potential inconsistency, Phase 1 is consistent with the CAP’s Development Review Checklist as a whole, given its consistency with all other measures. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

San Bruno General Plan
Project
As shown in Table 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, and further described under Section 3.6.2.7, Circulation and Mobility, Phase 1 of the project includes off-site improvements in the City of San Bruno including the following:
⚫ Construct new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and related sidewalk and streetscape improvements and utility installations;
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ New pedestrian / ADA-compliant ramps at intersections, wider ramps and crosswalks on the Centennial Way Trail adjacent to South Maple Avenue;
⚫ Transit signal priority devices on the signal masts at the Huntington / Southline Avenues intersection for SamTrans and shuttle buses;
⚫ Improve Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue;
⚫ A new dedicated, signalized northbound left turn lane on Huntington providing a new entrance into the transit center for SamTrans buses;
⚫ Bulb-outs and high-visibility crosswalks at the BART station garage intersection to facilitate safe pedestrian crossing; and
⚫ Convert Tanforan Avenue to cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue.

The off-site improvements do not involve any buildings or structures. This section considers the consistency of these off-site improvements with the San Bruno General Plan land use classification, and Land Use and Urban Design and Transportation elements as outlined under Section 4.10.3.4, above.

With respect to land use designation, the project’s off-site improvements located in the City of San Bruno, which include various circulation and utilities improvements, would be located within existing rights of way. Because the project proposes to improve these areas with circulation and utility infrastructure and does not contain any buildings or structures that would conflict with the identified land uses, the project would not conflict with the land use intent of the San Bruno General Plan.

With respect to the San Bruno Land Use and Urban Development Element, the project would also not conflict with City of San Bruno policies. Specifically, the project is found to be consistent with the San Bruno General Plan’s Land Use and Urban Design policies that seek to improve conditions related to pedestrian safety and street frontage improvements near the San Bruno BART station and Huntington Avenue (LUD-9 ) because the project would provide a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and improve Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection for pedestrian access. With respect to policy LUD-33, which calls for street trees and buffering between the Huntington Avenue and the residences to the east of the San Bruno BART station, the project would be consistent with this policy as it would improve the street front conditions in that area and would establish significant new plantings within the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet immediately adjacent to that residential area.

With respected to the San Bruno Transportation Element, as discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, the project would not conflict with the General Plan except for policies related to LOS, as further described below. That is, the project would not conflict with policies that seek to improve conditions for all transportation modes and improve connections to transit corridors and stations given that it includes the addition of bicycle lanes and pedestrian improvements such as wider sidewalks and intersection crossing improvements, with the goal of increasing connectivity within the Specific Plan area and to surrounding neighborhoods and transit corridors and stations. Specifically, by providing a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue with related sidewalk and streetscape improvements to be more visible and ADA-compliant on the Centennial Way Trail adjacent to South City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Maple Avenue, and by converting Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue, the project would directly implement Policies T-A, T-F, T-G, T-2, T-22, T-47, T-70 and HS-17. The project is thus consistent with the General Plan’s policies that seek to improve conditions for all transportation modes and improve connections to transit corridors and stations.

San Bruno General Plan Policy T-B establishes that the City of San Bruno strives to maintain acceptable levels of service for vehicular movement along San Bruno’s street network but acknowledges that acceptable levels of service could vary based on characteristics of the area under consideration. Implementing Policy T-6 indicates that LOS D should be maintained for intersections shown in Figure 4-2 for AM and PM peak periods, including the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane intersection, which would be reconfigured in connection with the proposed project’s off-site improvements. As demonstrated in the LOS analysis for the project, which is attached to the Southline Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix 4.15-1), under project buildout conditions, six intersections in San Bruno would experience LOS E or F conditions, and five of those intersections would not meet the LOS standards in San Bruno’s General Plan. San Bruno General Plan Policy T-B states that “acceptable levels of service could vary based on characteristics of the area under consideration,” and the intersections that would operate at LOS E or F are located in heavily congested areas, as indicated by the existing LOS levels which range from LOS C to LOS E. Nevertheless, the project would contribute to inconsistency with the Transportation Element’s LOS policies. However, as described in Section

4.15, Transportation and Circulation, vehicle delay (LOS) is not considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA. Therefore, while the City of San Bruno may consider these inconsistencies as it evaluates project approvals, this inconsistency is not a significant impact on the environment.

Table 4-8 and Figure 4-7 in the San Bruno General Plan Transportation Element identify recommended intersection improvements at certain intersections in San Bruno to maintain acceptable LOS. The proposed new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue is not identified in Table 4-8 and Figure 4-7; however, the City of San Bruno maintains discretion to evaluate the proposed off-site improvements within its jurisdiction for consistency with its General Plan. The environmental impacts of constructing and operating the new intersection are evaluated throughout the resource sections in this EIR.

Overall, given that the off-site improvements in San Bruno are consistent with the General Plan’s intended land use and policies, and because the transportation related inconsistencies are not associated with adverse environmental impacts under CEQA, the project would be consistent with the majority of applicable goals, policies, and actions in the San Bruno General Plan, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
Phase 1, as an element of the project, would similarly not conflict with the San Bruno General Plan.

For the same reasons as stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1’s compatibility with the Transportation Element is classified as inconsistent with LOS policies set forth in the General Plan.

However, while the City of San Bruno may evaluate potential vehicle delay and the General Plan’s LOS policies in its planning considerations, vehicle delay is not considered to be an environmental impact under CEQA (see Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, for further discussion). Given that the project is consistent with the San Bruno General Plan’s applicable goals, policies, and actions (with the exception regarding LOS policy discussed above), the Phase 1 impacts due to conflicts with the General Plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan
Project
As identified in Table 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project incorporates several off-site improvements that would directly implement the public realm design guidelines identified the City of San Bruno’s Transit Corridors Plan. The new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and related sidewalk and streetscape improvements would be consistent with measures A1-1, A1-3, A2-2, A2-5 A2-6, and A3-1. The Huntington Avenue improvements from the new intersection at Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection would be consistent with measures A1-1, A1-3, A2-2, A2-5, A2-7, and A3-1. The project would not interfere with the implementation of the policies described in the San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan, and would fulfill the vision of the Transit Corridors Plan to enhance the pedestrian environment along the Transit Corridors Area’s key roadways, as well as within its public open spaces, facilitating a balance between the needs of transit, automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including those with disabilities. Impacts due to conflicts with the San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project because Phase 1 is within the Specific Plan area, and subject to the Specific Plan’s proposed development standards and design guidelines. Furthermore, Phase 1 would construct the off-site improvements that would directly implement improvements identified the City of San Bruno San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan. Phase 1 impacts due to conflicts with the San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan would be less than significant.

No mitigation is required.

San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan
Project
Per Table 3-5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, Phase 1 of the project incorporates a number of offsite improvements that would directly implement improvements identified the City of San Bruno’s Walk ‘N Bike Plan (see also Section 3.6.2.7, Circulation and Mobility and Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21, of this EIR for further descriptions related to off-site circulation improvements). As described in Section 4.10.3.4, above, the Walk ’n Bike Plan calls for streetscape improvements “X-23” located along Huntington Avenue from the intersection of Sneath Avenue heading south to San Bruno Avenue West, in addition to a Class IV separated bikeway along the eastern side Huntington Avenue.

The Walk ‘N Bike Plan notes that this improvement would require subsequent evaluation, study, and coordination with Caltrain to evaluate potential impacts to local traffic and circulation patterns prior to implementation.

With respect to the identified streetscape improvements, the western portion of the proposed intersection improvement at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue would include a pedestrian crossing for the Centennial Way Trail, with high visibility crosswalks provided on the remaining northern, southern, and eastern legs of the intersection. These improvements would include new pedestrian / ADA-compliant ramps at the intersection, including wider ramps and crosswalks on the Centennial Way Trail adjacent to South Maple Avenue.

With respect to bicycle infrastructure, the project off-site improvements along Huntington Avenue would extend the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station, providing a 15- to 17- foot- City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-42 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
wide multi-use bicycle and pedestrian path along the west side of Huntington Avenue and a new crosswalk and pedestrian bulb-out on the south side of the SamTrans Transit Center driveway that would provide a more direct connection between the BART Station to the eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue. The project would not directly implement a Class IV separated bikeway along the eastern side Huntington Avenue, but it would not result in interference with implementation of that improvement at a later date. The project contains specific mobility improvements that support the goals and objectives of the Walk ‘n Bike Plan and does not contain any policies that would interfere with the implementation of the goals or projects described in the Walk ‘n Bike Plan, impacts due to conflicts with the Walk ‘n Bike Plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project because Phase 1 is within the Specific Plan area, and subject to the Specific Plan’s proposed development standards and design guidelines. Furthermore, Phase 1 would construct the off-site improvements that would directly implement improvements identified the City of San Bruno Walk ‘N Bike Plan. Given that the project is consistent with the Walk ‘n Bike Plan, Phase 1 impacts due to conflicts with the Walk ‘n Bike Plan would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Conclusion
Based on the analysis above, with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-4, the project would not result in an environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Phase 1 would not result in an environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

4.10.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative analysis examines the effects of the project, inclusive of Phase 1, in the relevant geographic area in combination with those of other current projects, probable future projects, and projected future growth. Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, identifies reasonably foreseeable projects in the city within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. These reasonably foreseeable projects include residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Impact C-LU-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not physically divide an established community. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed above, the physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a linear feature, such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks, or removal of a means of access, such as a local bridge, that would affect mobility within an existing community or between a community and outlying area.

The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified in Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, would not introduce any physical features that could divide established communities, nor would it remove a means of access among established communities.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-43 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
These cumulative projects, along with the project, would increase the intensity of land uses within the area, but would be consistent with the City’s anticipated land use conditions under its General Plan. Moreover, other cumulative projects are anticipated to be consistent with land use plans and policies in effect at the time of approval. However, to the extent that other cumulative projects may not be fully consistent with the City’s General Plan or other land use plans, policies and regulations, such inconsistencies do not represent a cumulative CEQA impact unless such inconsistencies cause a significant environmental effect. For these reasons, cumulative impacts related to the division of an established community are therefore less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact C-LU-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not result in an environmental impact due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) As discussed under Section 4.10.4.2, Approach to Analysis, CEQA requires an EIR to consider whether a proposed project may conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation that was adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. This environmental determination differs from a determination of whether a proposed project is consistent with a jurisdiction’s general plan. Even if inconsistent, the policy inconsistency may not relate to an environmental impact. With respect to consistency with regional plans (Plan Bay Area 2040), cumulative impacts from development would occur if the growth associated with a particular project, in combination with other projects in the jurisdiction, was not accounted for in a given jurisdiction’s planning documents. The plans of the Bay Area’s jurisdictions are one of the bases for regional growth projections by ABAG, and regional growth projections are the foundation for regional plans. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Plan Bay Area 2040 calls for an increasing percentage of Bay Area growth to occur as infill development in areas with good transit access and the services necessary to accommodate daily living in proximity to housing and jobs.

Section 4.12, Population and Housing includes a cumulative environmental impact assessment regarding the project’s consistency with the population projections provided by Plan Bay Area 2040.

The section concludes that the increase in the number of residents under the project in combination with reasonably foreseeable future projects would not exceed with the population and housing growth projected by regional forecasts and therefore, would not constitute substantial unplanned population growth. Ultimately, because the project is located on infill sites and in proximity to transit, cumulative impacts related to inconsistency with regional planning initiatives would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-44 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.10-1. Comparison of the Project to City of South San Francisco General Plan Goals and Policies General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1 Land Use and Urban Design Element
2-G-1: Preserve the scale and
character of established
neighborhoods, and protect
residents from changes in nonresidential areas.

CONSISTENT. The Specific Plan includes the Southline Campus (S-C) Development Standards that includes setbacks for all development adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In
addition, the project would include the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, which would be within an approximately 40-foot buffer setback on the north side of Tanforan Avenue.

This privately-owned park would provide a transition between the Specific Plan area and the residential neighborhood located to the south, and would be accessible to the public, including the surrounding community, residents and employees.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1, which would be
constructed under the Specific Plan, would
adhere to setbacks established under the
Southline Campus (S-C) Development
Standards for all development adjacent to
residential neighborhoods. In addition, the
Phase 1 would include the creation of the
publicly-accessible Tanforan Avenue
Community Parklet, which would provide a
transition between the Specific Plan area
and the residential neighborhood located to
the south.
2-G-2: Maintain a balanced land use
program that provides
opportunities for continued
economic growth, and building
intensities that reflect South San
Francisco’s prominent inner bay
location and excellent regional
access.

CONSISTENT. The project consists of infill and intensification of development at the intersection of South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue with office and R&D uses that would provide opportunities for continues economic growth. This site, currently approved for office land uses, provides regional access at it is serviced by U.S. 101, I0-380, and I-280, the San Bruno BART station the San Bruno Caltrain station.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of infill and
intensification of development within the
Specific Plan area with new professional
offices and R&D uses with regional access.
2-G-3: Provide land use
designations that maximize
benefits of increased accessibility
that will result from BART
extension to the city and adjacent
locations.

CONSISTENT. The project consists of infill and intensification of office and R&D land uses located in close proximity to the San Bruno BART and the San Bruno Caltrain stations. In
addition, the project would improve pedestrian and bicycle access to the San Bruno BART station by providing a new crosswalk and new path along a portion of Huntington Avenue as part of its Phase 1 construction,
CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of infill and
intensification of development within the
Specific Plan area with new professional
offices R&D uses with regional access and
includes improved BART station access as
addressed under the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-45 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1 2-G-7: Encourage mixed-use
residential, retail, and office
development in centers where they
would support transit, in locations
where they would provide
increased access to neighborhoods
that currently lack such facilities,
and in corridors where such
developments can help to foster
identity and vitality.

CONSISTENT. The project promotes mixed-uses, specifically, office, other employment and commercial, eating and drinking, public and semi-public, transportation, and other uses such as public events. The project is in an underutilized industrial area in proximity to transit services and residential uses. By promoting these mixed-uses in this underutilized area, the project would support transit, provide increased access to neighborhoods that currently lack these mixed-use facilities, and help to foster identity and vitality.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of building,
site access, and landscaping/open space
improvements within the Specific Plan area
that would support transit, provide
increased access to neighborhoods that
currently lack these mixed-use facilities, and
help to foster identity and vitality.
2-G-8: Provide incentives to
maximize community orientation
of new development, and to
promote alternative transportation
modes.

CONSISTENT. The project includes a new Southline Avenue roadway (to be dedicated as a public roadway) that would provide connectivity through the Specific Plan area as well as new open spaces and community uses: the Southline
Commons, Southline Retail Plaza and Tanforan Avenue
Community Parklet. It also includes a TDM Plan designed to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share with elements that include improved bus service access to the San Bruno BART station and SamTrans Transit Center, new shuttle service from the site to Caltrain, stations and carpooling/vanpooling services.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of building,
site access, and landscaping/open space
improvements within the Specific Plan area
that would support community uses and
support alternative transportation modes
through the site. New community uses
under Phase 1 include the Southline Retail
Plaza and Tanforan Avenue Community
Parklet.
2-I-3: Undertake planned
development for unique projects or
as a means to achieve high
community design standards, not
to circumvent development
intensity standards.

CONSISTENT. The project consists of infill and intensification of uses currently approved under the General Plan including the maximum proposed intensity of development, which would not exceed a FAR of 2.5. Subsequent Precise Plans under the Southline Specific Plan would be required to comply with Specific Plan Design Guidelines (Chapter 5) and objectives related to design quality and would be subject to Design Review by the City.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of infill and
intensification of office and R&D
development within the Specific Plan area
subject to the Southline Specific Plan, which
would operate as the zoning for the Specific
Plan area. Phase 1 would be subject to
Design Review prior to approval.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-46 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1 2-I-4: Require all new
developments seeking an FAR
bonus set forth in Table 2.2-2 to
achieve a progressively higher
alternative mode usage. The
requirements of the TDM Program
are detailed in the Zoning
Ordinance. (Amended by
Resolution 98-2001, adopted
September 26, 2001)
The requirements of the TDM
program for projects seeking an
FAR bonus are based on the
percentage trip reduction that is
achieved.

CONSISTENT. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, the project would include a TDM Plan designed to meet the 45 percent mode-share target required by the City.

The TDM Plan would provide direct access to transit, on-site amenities for bicycle and pedestrian access, shuttle service, carpooling and vanpooling facilities and services, mode shift incentives, and other TDM features, resulting in a reduction in VMT.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
implement elements of the TDM consistent
with the General Plan as addressed under
the project.
2-I-9: Ensure that any design and
development standards and
guidelines that are adopted reflect
the unique patterns and
characteristics of individual
neighborhoods
CONSISTENT. Per the Specific Plan Objectives (Specific Plan Chapter 1), the Plan is intended to “Create a state-of-the-art transit-oriented commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation of the Specific Plan area,” and to “Establish a commercial campus development with
sophisticated, unified architectural and landscape design and site planning, resulting in a distinctive campus identity and strong sense of place.” Overall, the project consists of infill and intensification of uses currently approved under the General Plan. Subsequent Precise Plans under the Southline Specific Plan would be required to comply with Specific Plan Design Guidelines (Chapter 5) and objectives related to design quality and would be subject to Design Review by the City and would thus reflect the unique patterns and characteristics of the area.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of infill and
intensification of office and R&D
development within the Specific Plan area
subject to the Southline Specific Plan
objectives and goals, which would operate
as the zoning for the Specific Plan area.

Phase 1 would be subject to Design Review
prior to approval and would reflect the
unique patterns and characteristics of the
area as established by the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-47 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1 2-I-22: Require that all future
development conforms with the
relevant height, aircraft noise, and
safety policies and compatibility
criteria contained in the most
recently adopted version of the San
Mateo County Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Plan for the
environs of San Francisco
International Airport, with the
exception of projects deemed
appropriate by the City Council,
and to the extent necessary,
approved through the local agency
override process, consistent with
Public Utilities Code Section 21670
et seq.

CONSISTENT. The project includes specific General Plan
amendments to reflect adoption of the Specific Plan, including amending Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations, to increase the allowable building height on the Specific Plan area from 80 feet up to ALUCP and FAA limits, which vary across the Specific Plan area, up to a maximum of approximately 120 feet.

This amendment would continue to comply with the relevant height, aircraft noise, and safety policies and compatibility criteria contained in the most recently adopted version of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the environs of San Francisco International Airport.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of infill and
intensification of development within the
Specific Plan area subject to the Southline
Specific Plan Special Area Height
Limitations, which would continue to
comply with the relevant height, aircraft
noise, and safety policies and compatibility
criteria contained in the most recently
adopted version of the San Mateo County
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for
the environs of San Francisco International
Airport.

Planning Sub-Area Element, Lindenville

3.2-G-1: Maintain the industrial
character in the area from roughly
the Spruce Avenue corridor in the
west to San Mateo Avenue in the
east, and south of Railroad Avenue
to the San Bruno BART station.

CONSISTENT. The project development would maintain the
industrial character of the area per Section 5.2, Architectural Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan, which encourages a contemporary interpretation of the existing industrial motif using glass, metal and “brick-like” materials in a rich color palette, reflecting the industrial history of the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
be completed consistent with the design
guidelines outlined in Chapter 5 of the
Specific Plan and would thus maintain the
industrial character of the area.

3.2-G-2: Develop new streets and
through connections to facilitate
truck movement; improve access to
U.S. 101, and provide better
connectivity between the proposed
San Bruno BART station and
downtown.

CONSISTENT. The project development would construct a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath
Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue that could connect to the project’s new roadway extension of Southline Avenue east to west through the Specific Plan area between Huntington and South Linden Avenues during Phase 1, as envisioned by the General Plan. The extension of Southline Avenue would
facilitate vehicular movement, improve access to U.S. 101, and provide better connectivity between the San Bruno BART
station and the downtown area of South San Francisco.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the street and connection
improvements addressed under the project
and would thus facilitate vehicular
movement, improve access to U.S. 101, and
provide better connectivity between the San
Bruno BART station and the downtown area
of South San Francisco.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-48 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

3.2-G-3: Enhance the appearance of
the area by undertaking
streetscape and other
improvements.

CONSISTENT. The project includes several varied streetscape improvements that include the construction of the new
Southline Avenue, pedestrian improvements, new bike
facilities, and new off-site improvements, along with
landscaping improvements. These features are addressed
under the Specific Plan Chapter 2: Land Use Plan &
Development Standards, Chapter 3, Circulation and Mobility, and Chapter 5: Design Guidelines, all of which would serve to enhance the appearance of the project site.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
be completed consistent with the policies
outlined in the Specific Plan and would thus
enhance the appearance of the area by
providing improvements contemplated in
those policies.

3.2-G-4: Improve buffering
between industrial areas in
Lindenville and surrounding
residential neighborhoods.

CONSISTENT. The Specific Plan, which would change the land uses to redevelop industrial uses, also includes the Southline Campus (S-C) Development Standards that include setbacks for development adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In
addition, the project would include the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, which would be within an approximately 40-foot buffer setback on the north side of Tanforan Avenue.

This privately owned park would provide a transition between the Specific Plan area and the residential neighborhood located to the south, and would be accessible to the public, including the surrounding community, residents, and employees.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1, which would be
constructed under the Specific Plan, would
adhere to setbacks established under the
Southline Campus (S-C) Development
Standards for all development adjacent to
residential neighborhoods. In addition, the
Phase 1 would include the creation of the
publicly-accessible Tanforan Avenue
Community Parklet, which would provide a
transition between the Specific Plan area
and the residential neighborhood located to
the south.

3.2-I-2: Encourage new office
development to locate in
Downtown, Business Commercial,
or Office districts; not in areas
designated as Mixed Industrial.

Ensure that existing offices
continue to be recognized as
conforming uses in the Zoning
Ordinance.

CONSISTENT. The project consists of infill and intensification of new office and R&D uses in an area that is currently designated as Office, and not an area designated as Mixed Industrial. The project involves specific zoning map and zoning text amendments to reflect adoption of the Specific Plan such that office uses would continue to be recognized as conforming uses in the Zoning Ordinance.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 consists of infill and
intensification of office and R&D
development within the Specific Plan area
subject to the Southline Specific Plan, which
would operate as the zoning for the
developments thereunder.

3.2-I-7: Establish requirements for
common loading and parcel access
for Lindenville in the Zoning
Ordinance.

CONSISTENT. The project contains policies promote loading and delivery zones away from pedestrian circulation areas and adjacent residential neighborhoods to the greatest extent practicable. The Specific Plan also outlines the Southline Campus (S-C) Development Standards that establish minimum loading requirements per building.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 includes Parking
Structure C and would comply with all
loading policies and guidelines established
by the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-49 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

3.2-I-10: Prepare and implement a
streetscape improvement plan for
South Linden Avenue and South
Spruce Avenue that recognizes the
streets’ role as the connector
between the San Bruno BART
station and downtown.

CONSISTENT. The project development would modify the
existing intersection at South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue for the new roadway extension of Southline Avenue east to west through the Specific Plan during Phase 1. These improvements would support the role of South Linden Avenue as a connector between the San Bruno BART station and
downtown.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the street and connection
improvements addressed under the project
and would provide better connectivity
between San Bruno BART station and
downtown.

3.2-I-12: Minimize any new curbcuts on Victory and South Linden avenues; encourage site access
from side streets wherever
possible.

CONSISTENT. The project includes improvements in the area transportation network to create improved connectivity and circulation for the surrounding community. Along South
Linden Avenue, the project would improve an existing curb-cut into the Plan area and would reconfigure the existing
intersection with Dollar Avenue.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include improvements in its roadway
network as addressed under the project.

3.2-I-14: Provide new street
extensions in Lindenville as
outlined in Chapter 4:

Transportation. These include a
new interchange at South Airport
Boulevard/U.S. 101, extension of
Victory Avenue to the interchange,
extension of South Linden Avenue
to the San Bruno BART station,
extension of Mission Street to
South Maple Avenue, and Shaw
Avenue extension north to Produce
Avenue.

CONSISTENT. The project development would construct a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath
Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue, and it would modify the existing intersection at South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue in connection to the new roadway extension of
Southline Avenue east to west between Huntington and South Linden Avenues during Phase 1. The construction of the new Southline Avenue would be consistent with General Plan
policies calling for the extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the street and connection
improvements addressed under the project
and would thus be consistent with General
Plan policies calling for the extension of
South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno
BART station.

3.2-I-15: Explore the feasibility of
requiring the new development in
the Lindenville area to pay its fair
share for any interchange and
other improvements in the area.

CONSISTENT. By including on-site and off-site site interchange and vehicular circulation improvements the project would contribute to improvements within this area by incorporating those components within the proposed project.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the street and connection
improvements addressed under the project
and would thus be consistent with the policy
to pay its fair share for any interchange and
other improvements in the area.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-50 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1 Transportation Element

4.2-G-1: Undertake efforts to
enhance transportation capacity,
especially in growth and emerging
employment areas such as in the
East of 101 area.

CONSISTENT. The project includes several improvements in the transportation network to accommodate increased
development and transportation capacity of the Specific Plan area. By providing these improvements the project would be consistent with this policy’s goal to enhance transportation capacity employment areas such as in the East of 101 area.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include infrastructure and design features in
its street design and construction to create
safe and inviting environments for people to
walk, bicycle, and use public transportation
as addressed under the project.

4.2-G-8: Use the Bicycle Master
Plan to identify, schedule, and
implement roadway improvements
that enhance bicycle access.

CONSISTENT. As described in Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan and shown in Figure 3-19 in this EIR, the project includes several improvements in the transportation network to accommodate bicyclist safety. These improvements include a new Class II bike lanes on the new Southline Avenue, along with new Class I and Class III bike facilities throughout the project area. These improvements would support the
existing Bicycle Master Plan, as described in Section 4.15.3.4 of this EIR, and would support preliminary recommendations for the Bicycle Master Plan update for a new Class II lane through the project area.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include bicycle improvements in its street
design and construction as addressed under
the project.

4.2-G-9: Use the Pedestrian Master
Plan to identify, schedule, and
implement roadway improvements
that enhance pedestrian access.

CONSISTENT. As described in Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan and shown in Figure 3-18 of this EIR, the project includes several improvements in the transportation network to improve pedestrian safety. These improvements include new streets and trails, along with improved pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station. By creating safe and inviting environments for pedestrians the project would be consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include pedestrian improvements in its
street design and construction as addressed
under the project.

4.2-G-10: Make efficient use of
existing transportation facilities
and, through the arrangement of
land uses, improved alternate
modes, and enhanced integration
of the various transportation
systems serving South San
Francisco, strive to reduce the total
number of vehicle miles traveled.

CONSISTENT. In addition to a project TDM plan, the project includes several improvements in the transportation network to carry out transportation and circulation policies under the South San Francisco General Plan. These improvements include enhancing pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station and to the SamTrans center, as well as bus prioritization with signal masts. Each of these features would serve to reduce the total number of vehicle miles traveled.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include infrastructure and design features in
its street design and construction to reduce
the total number of vehicle miles traveled as
addressed under the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-51 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

4.2-G-11: Coordinate local actions
with regional agencies, and
undertake active efforts to
undertake transportation
improvements.

CONSISTENT. As addressed in Section 3.7 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project would require agency coordination and approval for various actions including coordinated transportation improvements. Identified agencies outside of the City of South San Francisco that are involved in transportation elements of the project include the City of San Bruno and BART.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
take place following coordination with local
and regional agencies as addressed under
the project.

4.2-G-13: Integrate Complete
Streets infrastructure and design
features into street design and
construction to create safe and
inviting environments for people to
walk, bicycle, and use public
transportation. (Amended by
Resolution 136-2014, adopted
December 10, 2014)
CONSISTENT. As further described in Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan, the project includes several improvements in the transportation network to accommodate increased development capacity of the Specific Plan area; create improved connectivity and circulation for the
surrounding community; improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and carry out transportation and circulation policies under the South San Francisco General Plan. These
improvements include new streets and trails, improving
pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station,
neighborhood traffic calming, and compatibility with a future grade separation of the Caltrain tracks that would be consistent with the Complete Streets vision of the General Plan, which envisions street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include infrastructure and design features in
its street design and construction to create
safe and inviting environments for people to
walk, bicycle, and use public transportation
as addressed under the project.

4.2-G-14: Make Complete Streets
practice a routine part of South San
Francisco’s everyday operations.
(Amended by Resolution 136-
2014, adopted December 10, 2014)
CONSISTENT. As further described in Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan, the project’s street improvements would be consistent with the Complete Streets practice of the General Plan, which envisions street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include improvements consistent with the
Complete Streets practice of the General
Plan as addressed under the project.

4.2-G-17: Exempt development
within one-quarter mile of a
Caltrain or BART station, or a Citydesignated ferry terminal, from LOS standards.

CONSISTENT. The project site is located within one-quarter mile of the San Bruno BART station, and as such, the project is exempt from the LOS standards included in Policies 4.2-G-15 and 4.2-G-16 of the General Plan.

CONSISTENT. The Phase 1 site is located
within one-quarter mile of a BART station,
and as such, Phase 1 is exempt from the LOS
standards included in Policies 4.2-G-15 and

4.2-G-16 of the General Plan.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-52 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

4.2-I-2: Undertake street
improvements identified in Figures
4-1 and 4-2. - South Linden Avenue
extension to Sneath Lane. This
would dramatically increase access
to Lindenville and enable trucks to
get to I-380 without going through
Downtown. This connection is also
extremely critical to ensure
connection between Downtown
and the (San Bruno) BART Station.

CONSISTENT. The project would construct a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue that would connect to the project’s new roadway extension of Southline Avenue east to west through the Specific Plan area between Huntington and South Linden Avenues during Phase 1, as envisioned by the General Plan. The extension of Southline Avenue would facilitate vehicular movement, improve access to U.S. 101, and provide better connectivity between the San Bruno BART station and the downtown area of South San Francisco.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the street and connection
improvements addressed under the project
and would thus facilitate vehicular
movement, improve access to U.S. 101, and
provide better connectivity between the San
Bruno BART station and the downtown area
of South San Francisco.

4.2-I-7: Continue to require that
new development pays a fair share
of the costs of street and other
traffic and transportation
improvements, based on traffic
generated and impacts on service
levels. Explore the feasibility of
establishing impact fee, especially
for improvements required in the
Lindenville area. (Amended by
Resolution 98-2001, adopted
September 26, 2001)
CONSISTENT. By including on-site and off-site interchange and vehicular circulation improvements the project would
contribute to transportation improvements within this area.

The project would also pay required transportation impact fees to offset its impacts to the circulation network. The project would thus be consistent with the policy to pay its fair share for any transportation improvements in the area.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the street and connection
improvements addressed under the project,
as well as required transportation impact
fees.

4.2-I-10: In planning, designing, and
constructing Complete Streets:

Include infrastructure that
promotes a safe means of travel for
all users along the right of way, such
as sidewalks, shared-use paths,
bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders.

CONSISTENT. As described in Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan, the project’s street improvements would be consistent with the Complete Streets policy of the General Plan, which envisions street design and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include improvements consistent with the
Complete Streets practice of the General
Plan as addressed under the project.

4.2-I-11: In all street projects,
include infrastructure that
improves transportation options
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
users of public transportation of all
ages and abilities.

CONSISTENT. As addressed under Policy 4.2-1-10, the project’s street improvements would be consistent with the Complete Streets policy of the General Plan, which envisions street design and construction to create safe and inviting
environments for people to walk, bicycle, and use public transportation.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include improvements consistent with the
Complete Streets practice of the General
Plan as addressed under the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-53 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

4.3-G-2: Provide safe and direct
pedestrian routes and bikeways
between and through residential
neighborhoods, and to transit
centers.

CONSISTENT. The project includes pedestrian circulation and safety improvements both on-site for campus users, and offsite in the adjacent community, particularly through enhanced access to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include safe and direct pedestrian routes
and bikeways between and through the site
and to transit centers consistent the General
Plan as addressed under the project.

4.3-G-5: In partnership with
employers, continue efforts to
expand shuttle operations.

CONSISTENT. Under the project’s TDM plan it would provide first/last mile shuttle service to the South San Francisco and/or San Bruno Caltrain stations as well as ride-matching services for carpools and vanpools users thorough 511.org and/or other programs.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
continue efforts to expand shuttle
operations consistent the General Plan as
addressed under the project.

4.3-I-4: Require provision of secure
covered bicycle parking at all
existing and future multifamily
residential, commercial, industrial,
and office/ institutional uses.

CONSISTENT. The Specific Plan incorporates a number of
policies and regulations regarding the proposed bicycle parking requirements within the Specific Plan area. Short-term bicycle parking would be provided on surface-level bike racks, located adjacent to the Southline Retail Plaza and proximate to building entries, conveniently located to serve shoppers, customers, messengers, guests and other Campus visitors.

Long-term bicycle parking would be provided in below- and above-grade parking structures that would serve employees and others who generally stay for longer periods of time.

Where appropriate, buildings would include showers and
lockers to accommodate long-term users (i.e. employees).

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
provide secure covered bicycle parking at all
proposed uses consistent the General Plan
as addressed under the project.

4.3-I-6: Expand pedestrian facilities
in new development, using the
PMP [Pedestrian Master Plan] for
pedestrian design guidelines and to
identify other improvements that
should be considered for projects
proposed in areas that are
identified in PMP concept plans.
(Amended Resolution 26-2014,
adopted February 26, 2014)
CONSISTENT. As addressed under Policy 4.2-G-9, the project would expand pedestrian facilities under the Specific Plan and off-site improvements. Figure 3-18 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR provides a conceptual layout of potential pedestrian facilities located on and adjacent to the project site in a manner that is consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan pedestrian design guidelines.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
expand pedestrian facilities consistent the
Pedestrian Master Plan as addressed under
the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-54 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

4.3-I-10: As part of redesign of
South Linden Avenue (see Section

3.2), provide continuous sidewalks
on both sides of the street,
extending through the entire
stretch of the street from San
Bruno BART Station to downtown.

CONSISTENT. The project proposes continuous sidewalks
along both sides of the new Southline Avenue extension, which provides access from San Bruno BART Station to downtown.

Figure 3-4: Conceptual Pedestrian Connectivity Plan within Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan, presents the project’s proposed new sidewalk and connection plan.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include continuous sidewalks along both
sides of the new Southline Avenue
extension, which provides access from San
Bruno BART Station to downtown.

4.3-I-11: As part of any
development in Lindenville or East
of 101, require project proponents
to provide sidewalks and street
trees as part of frontage
improvements for new
development and redevelopment
projects.

CONSISTENT. The project proposes continuous sidewalks and landscaping including street trees throughout the Specific Plan area. Figure 3-4: Conceptual Pedestrian Connectivity Plan within Chapter 3: Circulation & Mobility of the Specific Plan, presents the project’s proposed new sidewalk and connection plan.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include new sidewalks and landscaping as
addressed under the project.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-55 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

4.3-I-14: Undertake a program to
improve pedestrian connections
between the rail stations—South
San Francisco and San Bruno BART
stations and the Caltrain Station—
and the surroundings. Components
of the program should include:
⚫ Installing handicapped ramps at
all intersections as street
improvements are being
installed;
⚫ Constructing wide sidewalks
where feasible to accommodate
increased pedestrian use;
⚫ Providing intersection “bulbing”
to reduce walking distances
across streets in Downtown,
across El Camino Real and
Mission Road, and other high
use areas;
⚫ Continuing with the City’s
current policy of providing
pedestrian facilities at all
signalized intersections; and
⚫ Providing landscaping that
encourages pedestrian use.

CONSISTENT. The project improves pedestrian connections between rail stations consistent with the City’s General Plan.

The project would provide:
⚫ pedestrian and roadway improvements along Tanforan
Avenue, as well as along Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the BART garage intersection;
⚫ new pedestrian / ADA-compliant ramps at intersections, wider ramps and crosswalks on the Centennial Way Trail
adjacent to South Maple Avenue;
⚫ an upgrade to the existing signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue / BART garage entry;
⚫ the construction of new signalized intersections at:

Huntington Avenue / Sneath Lane / Southline Avenue
/Maple Avenue, at Southline Avenue /Main Campus Entry,
and at South Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue/ Southline
Avenue
These improvements, as with the project, would also include features consistent with the General Plan’s program
improvements by providing handicap accessible ramps,
bulbing, signalization of intersections, and new pedestrianoriented landscaping.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development,
completed as part of the project would
include features consistent with the General
Plan’s program improvements by providing
handicap accessible ramps, bulbing,
signalization of intersections, and new
pedestrian-oriented landscaping.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-56 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

4.3-I-18: Establish parking
standards to support trip reduction
goals by:
⚫ Allowing parking reductions for
projects that have agreed to
implement trip reduction
methods, such as paid parking,
and for mixed use development.
⚫ Requiring projects larger than
25 employees to provide
preferential parking for
carpools and vanpools.
(Amended by Resolution 98-
2001, adopted September 26,
2001)
CONSISTENT. The Specific Plan establishes parking standards applicable within the Specific Plan area, as set forth under Table 2-1 of the Specific Plan (which includes parking at a range of up to 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use, with valet parking permitted within that range). The project would also incorporate a TDM Plan designed to reduce the project’s single-occupancy vehicle trips and parking demand consistent with the goals set forth in the City’s municipal code. The TDM Plan is designed to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share, consistent with City
requirements for comparable projects proposing a floor area ratio (FAR) up to 2.5. The project is thus consistent with the General Plan’s goal to establish parking standards that support trip reduction goals; the project includes a reduced parking standard compared to comparable office/R&D projects within the city, and the TDM Plan includes a mix of trip reduction measures and reserved parking for carpooling and vanpooling services.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the same parking standards to
support trip reduction as addressed under
the project and would thus be consistent
with the General Plan’s goal to establish
parking standards that support trip
reduction goals.

Parks, Public Facilities and Services Element

5.1-G-1: Develop additional
parkland in the city, particularly in
areas lacking these facilities, to
meet the standards of required
park acreage for new residents and
employees.

CONSISTENT. The project would provide approximately
313,550-341,800 square feet of open space. Landscaping and open space within the Specific Plan area would include a network of pedestrian walkways and landscaped edges,
“gateway” entries, lobby plazas, and three distinct open space/public realm areas: Southline Commons, the Southline Retail Plaza, and the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet. By constructing new parkland open space, and landscaping in an urbanized area with limited access to recreational
opportunities the project would be consistent with the City’s goal to provide park acreage for new residents and employees.

CONSISTENT. By constructing new parkland
open space, and landscaping in an urbanized
area with limited access to recreational
opportunities Phase 1 would be consistent
with the City’s goal to provide park acreage
for new residents and employees.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.10-57 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis: Project Consistency Analysis: Phase 1

5.1-G-5: Develop linear parks in
conjunction with major
infrastructure improvements and
along existing public utility and
transportation rights-of-way.

CONSISTENT. In addition to providing three distinct open space/public realm areas throughout the Specific Plan area, the project would include streetscape improvements along all project roadways. Pedestrian rights-of-way improvements include landscaping, benches, tables, and chairs; litter and recycling receptacles; bicycle storage facilities; and transit shuttle shelters; exterior lighting and signage. The project also includes the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, which
would be within an approximately 40-foot buffer setback on the north side of Tanforan Avenue; thus providing an example of a linear park consistent with this policy.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the streetscape improvements along
all project roadways and the Tanforan
Avenue Community Parklet as addressed
under the project and would thus be
consistent with General Plan goal for linear
parks along transportation rights-of-way.

5.1-I-4: Develop new parks in
locations and sizes shown on
Figure 5-1. (Lindenville Linear
Park. Another rail-to-trail
conversion, this park measures 1.6
acres in size and is located between
South Maple Avenue and Tanforan
Avenue near the city boundary
with San Bruno. This park should
provide picnic facilities and
benches for nearby office workers.)
CONSISTENT. The project includes a General Plan amendment to reflect adoption of the Specific Plan, including the redesignation of the approximately 0.3-acre parcel associated with a former abandoned rail spur that is designated as Parks and Recreation to Office. While the project would not construct the Lindenville Linear Park as presented in the General Plan Figure 5-1, the project would provide approximately 313,550 square feet of open space along rights-of-way and within three distinct open space/public realm areas: Southline Commons, the Southline Retail Plaza, and the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet. By constructing new parkland open space of a similar nature to that identified by the General Plan for the Lindenville area the project would be consistent with the City’s policy to provide picnic facilities and benches for nearby office workers.

CONSISTENT. Phase 1 development would
include the parkland improvements as
addressed under the project and would thus
be consistent with General Plan policy to
provide picnic facilities and benches for
nearby office workers in the Lindenville
area.

Source: City of South San Francisco. 1999. 1999 General Plan Chapters. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planningdivision/general-plan. Accessed October 15 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.11 Noise and Vibration

4.11.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the Southline Specific Plan and off-site improvements (proposed project), including the first phase of development under the Specific Plan (Phase 1), on noise and vibration. This section also describes existing conditions at the project site, including the Phase 1 site, as well as the regulatory framework for this analysis. The impacts of the proposed project are generally analyzed at a program level, and the impacts of Phase 1 are analyzed at a project level. Impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project, impacts resulting from implementation of Phase 1, and cumulative impacts are described. Feasible mitigation measures, where applicable, are also described. Relevant technical documentation used in this analysis includes noise modeling files and other data (Appendix 4.11-1).

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. NOP comments pertaining to noise include concerns related to construction noise as well as operational noise issues. These issues are addressed below in Section 4.11.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.

4.11.2 Environmental Setting

4.11.2.1 Fundamentals of Noise and Sound
Overview of Noise and Sound
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Because noise is an environmental pollutant that can interfere with human activities, CEQA requires an evaluation of noise when considering the environmental impacts of a proposed project.

Sound is mechanical energy (i.e., vibration) transmitted by pressure waves over a medium such as air or water. Sound is characterized by various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (i.e., frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (i.e., amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor for characterizing the loudness of an ambient (i.e., existing) sound level. The decibel (dB) scale, which is a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing; however, the dB scale does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum. Therefore, noise measurements are weighted more heavily toward the frequencies to which humans are sensitive in a process called A-weighting, written as dBA and referred to as Aweighted decibels. Table 4.11-1, p. 4.11-2, defines sound measurements and other terminology used in this chapter, and Table 4.11-2, p. 4.11-3, summarizes typical A-weighted sound levels for different noise sources.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-1. Definition of Sound Measurements
Sound Measurements Definition
Decibel (dB) A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale that indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude with respect to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micropascals.

A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.

C-Weighted Decibel (dBC) The sound pressure level in decibels measured using the C-weighting filter network. C-weighting is very close to an unweighted or flat response. C-weighting is used only in special cases (i.e., when lowfrequency noise is of particular importance). A comparison of the measured A- and C-weighted level gives an indication of lowfrequency content.

Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period.

Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period.

Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The equivalent steady-state sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy.

Percentile-Exceeded Sound
Level (Lxx)
The sound level exceeded X% of a specific time period. L10 is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time, and L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time. L90 is often considered to be representative of the background noise level in a given area.

Day-Night Level (Ldn) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL)
The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24hour period, with 5 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 10 dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Ambient Noise Level The all-encompassing composite of noise (from all sources near and far) associated with a given environment. The normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Vibration Velocity Level (or
Vibration Decibel Level, VdB)
The root-mean-square velocity amplitude for measured ground motion, expressed in dB.

Peak Particle Velocity
(Peak Velocity or PPV)
A measurement of ground vibration, defined as the maximum speed (measured in inches per second) at which a particle in the ground is moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually expressed in inches per second.

Frequency: Hertz (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-2. Typical A-weighted Sound Levels
Common Outdoor Activities
Noise Level
(dBA) Common Indoor Activities
—110— Rock band
Jet flyover at 1,000 feet
—100—
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet
—90—
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet —80— Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawnmower at 100 feet —70— Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet —60—
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime —50— Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime —40— Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime
—30— Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) —20—
Broadcast/recording studio
—10—
—0—
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report 0123.

Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: August 10, 2020.

In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 1 dB cannot typically be perceived by the human ear, a change of 3 dB is barely noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level as it increases or decreases, respectively.

Different types of measurements are used to characterize the time-varying nature of sound. These measurements include the equivalent sound level (Leq), the minimum and maximum sound levels (Lmin and Lmax), percentile-exceeded sound levels (such as L10, L20), the day-night sound level (Ldn), and the CNEL. Ldn and CNEL values differ by less than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such. These measurements are defined in Table 4.11-1, p. 4.11-2.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
For a point source, such as a stationary compressor or a piece of construction equipment, sound attenuates (i.e., lessens in intensity), based on geometry, at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

For a line source, such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance perpendicular to the source.1 Atmospheric conditions, including wind, temperature gradients, and humidity, can change how sound propagates over distance and can affect the level of sound received at a given location. The degree to which the ground surface absorbs acoustical energy also affects sound propagation. Sound that travels over an acoustically absorptive surface such as grass attenuates at a greater rate than sound that travels over a hard surface such as pavement. The increased attenuation is typically in the range of 1 to 2 dB per doubling of distance. Barriers such as buildings or topographic features that block the line of sight between a source and receiver also increase the attenuation of sound over distance.

Community noise environments are generally perceived as quiet when the 24-hour average noise level is below 45 dBA CNEL, moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA CNEL range, and loud above 60 dBA CNEL. Very noisy urban residential areas are usually around 70 dBA CNEL. Along major thoroughfares, roadside noise levels are typically between 65 and 75 dBA CNEL. Incremental changes of 3 to 5 dB in the existing 1-hour Leq, or the CNEL, are commonly used as thresholds for an adverse community reaction to a noise increase. However, there is evidence that incremental thresholds in this range may not be adequately protective in areas where noise-sensitive uses are located and the CNEL is already high (i.e., above 60 dBA). In these areas, limiting noise increases to 3 dB or less is recommended.2 Noise intrusions that cause short-term interior noise levels to rise above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Exposure to noise levels greater than 85 dBA for 8 hours or longer can cause permanent hearing damage.

Noise from Multiple Sources
Because sound pressure levels in decibels are based on a logarithmic scale, they cannot be added or subtracted in the usual arithmetical way. Adding a new noise source to an existing noise source, with both producing noise at the same level, will not double the noise level. If the difference between two noise sources is 10 dBA or more, the higher noise source will dominate, and the resultant noise level will be equal to the noise level of the higher noise source. In general, if the difference between two noise sources is 0 to 1 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 3 dBA higher than the higher noise source, or both sources if they are equal. If the difference between two noise sources is 2 to 3 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 2 dBA above the higher noise source. If the difference between two noise sources is 4 to 10 dBA, the resultant noise level will be 1 dBA higher than the higher noise source.

Attenuation of Noise
A receptor’s distance from a noise source affects how noise levels attenuate (i.e., how noise levels decrease). Transportation noise sources tend to be arranged linearly such that roadway traffic attenuates at a rate of 3.0 to 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on the intervening surface (paved or vegetated, respectively). Point sources of noise, such as stationary 1 California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020. 2 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report 0123.

Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: August 10, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
equipment or construction equipment, typically attenuate at a rate of 6.0 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending on the intervening surface.3 For example, a sound level of 80 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source will be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet, 68 dBA at 200 feet, and so on, based on the 6 dB point-source reduction over a non-absorptive surface (e.g., pavement instead of vegetation). Noise levels can also be attenuated by “shielding” or providing a barrier between the source and the receptor. With respect to interior noise levels, noise attenuation effectiveness depends on whether windows are closed or open. Based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) national average, closed windows reduce noise levels by approximately 25 dBA, and open windows reduce noise levels by about 15 dBA.4 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses typically may include but are not limited to single- and multi-family residential areas, health care facilities, churches, lodging facilities, and schools. Noise-sensitive land uses where people typically sleep are typically more sensitive to noise during nighttime hours (when people are typically sleeping). Recreational areas where quiet is an important part of the environment as well as some commercial areas, such as outdoor restaurant seating areas, can also be considered sensitive to noise.

Overview of Ground-borne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.

Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude; one is peak particle velocity (PPV); another is root-meansquare (RMS) velocity. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal.

Vibration is typically measured in inches per second or millimeters per second.

Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile-driving equipment and other impact devices (e.g., pavement breakers), creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of and downward into the ground. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of this type of equipment can result in effects that range from annoyance for people to damage for structures. Variations in geology and distance result in different vibration levels, including different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increased distance.

Perceptible ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they cause rock and soil particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten thousandths- to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude, referred to as PPV. 3 The 1.5 dBA variation in attenuation rate (6 dBA vs. 7.5 dBA) can result from ground-absorption effects, which occur as sound travels over soft surfaces such as soft earth or vegetation (7.5 dBA attenuation rate) versus hard surfaces such as pavement or very hard-packed earth (6 dBA rate) (U.S. Housing and Urban Development. 1985.

The Noise Guidebook, p. 24. Available: https://www.hudexchange.info/onecpd/assets/File/Noise-GuidebookChapter-4.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020.) 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Appendix B, Table B-4, p. B-6. March.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Vibration amplitude attenuates over distance. This is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground and the soil or rock conditions through which the vibration is traveling. The following equation is used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions:
5 PPV = PPVref x (25/Distance)1.5
PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet (Table 4.11-3, p. 4.11-7).

Construction Vibration
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use of pile-driving, excavation equipment and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest construction-related ground-borne vibration levels. The activities that are typical of single-impact (transient) or low-rate, repeated impact vibration include blasting and the use of drop balls, impact pile drivers, “pogo stick” compactors, and crack-and-seat equipment.6 Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by human activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. In general, such vibration is only an issue when sensitive receptors are located in close proximity. Since rubber tires provide vibration isolation, rubber- tire vehicles rarely create substantial ground-borne vibration effects unless there is a discontinuity or bump in the road that causes the vibration. The PPV descriptor is the most common measure of construction vibration. Table 4.11-3 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment at a reference distance of 25 feet and other distances, as determined with use of the attenuation equation above.7 Tables 4.11-4 and 4.11-5, p. 4.11-7, summarize the guidelines developed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for annoyance and damage potential from the transient and continuous vibration that is usually associated with construction activity.

With the exception of long-term occupational exposure, vibration levels rarely affect human health.

Instead, most people consider vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep or interfere with activities. Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to 0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of physical setting and the type of vibration. Vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown in Table 4.11-4, p. 4.11-7, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. On the other hand, persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels such as people in an urban environment may tolerate a higher vibration level. People may tolerate infrequent, short-duration vibration levels, but human annoyance to vibration becomes more pronounced if the vibration is continuous or occurs frequently.

As shown in Table 4.11-5, p. 4.11-7, high levels of vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with sensitive equipment. Depending on the age of the structure and type of vibration (transient, continuous, or frequent intermittent sources), vibration levels as low as 0.5 to 2.0 in/sec PPV can damage a structure.
5 Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report 0123.

Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transitnoise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: August 10, 2020. 6 Ibid.
7 California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-3. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
PPV at
25 Feet
PPV at
50 Feet
PPV at
75 Feet
PPV at
80 Feet
PPV at
100 Feet
Auger drill 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.016 0.011
Hoe ram 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.016 0.011
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.016 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0269 0.0146 0.013 0.010
Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124 0.0067 0.006 0.004
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0011 0.0006 0.001 0.0004
Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report 0123.

Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: August 10, 2020.

Table 4.11-4. Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines Human Response
Maximum PPV (inches per second)
Transient
Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.90 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.40
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgmapr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020.

Note: Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or the use of drop balls).

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Table 4.11-5. Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines Structure and Condition
Maximum PPV (inches per second)
Transient
Sources
Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.10
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.30
New residential structures 1.0 0.50
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.50
Source: California Department of Transportation. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.

April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgmapr2020-a11y.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020.

Note: Transient sources create a single, isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or the use of drop balls).

Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.11.2.1 Existing Noise Environment
Project Site
This section describes the existing noise environment at the project site, inclusive of the Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas.

Regional and Local Setting
The major noise sources affecting the project site vicinity are vehicular traffic, railroad activity, aircraft, and nearby commercial/industrial activities. The approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area is in the City of South San Francisco, northwest of U.S. 101 and Interstate (I) 380 interchange.

Specifically, the Specific Plan area is located on the border of the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno. The surrounding area is largely developed with commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities to the north and east. These types of uses tend to have a higher prevalence of loading activities or require the intermittent testing of emergency generators, which can increase noise levels in the vicinity. Predominately single-family residences are located to the south of the project site, and the San Bruno BART station, The Shops at Tanforan, and San Bruno Towne Center are located to the west. The nearest residential land uses are located immediately south of the Specific Plan area on Tanforan Avenue in the City of San Bruno. The Specific Plan area is approximately 0.1 mile from the San Bruno BART station, approximately 0.75 mile from the San Bruno Caltrain station, approximately 1.5 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain station and

1.1-mile northwest of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The off-site improvement areas are located adjacent to the Specific Plan area in the jurisdictions of the City of South San Francisco (City) and the City of San Bruno. Together, the approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area and off-site improvement areas comprise the approximately 33-acre project site.

Existing Uses at the Project Site
Existing uses within the Specific Plan area, which encompasses seven parcels, include a variety of occupied and unoccupied office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities. The existing structures within the Specific Plan area total nearly 344,000 square feet and include approximately 380 surface parking spaces. Surface parking lots and storage areas are interspersed among the buildings. The Specific Plan area currently lacks internal circulation; there are no routes through the project site from South Maple Avenue on the west to South Linden Avenue on the east. The off-site improvement areas consist of existing rights-of-way and easements developed with circulation and utility infrastructure improvements. The topography of the project site and surrounding area is relatively flat, with a slight slope toward the northeast. As further described in Chapter 3, Project Description, Phase 1 would involve the demolition of all existing uses within the Specific Plan area.

Existing Noise-Sensitive Uses in the Vicinity
The South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element defines sensitive land uses as including residences, schools, places of worship and hospitals.8 The nearest noise-sensitive land uses to the project site are the residences located south of the Specific Plan area along Tanforan Avenue. These residences are approximately 55 feet away from the southernmost portion of the project site (and Phase 1 site) construction areas. Off-site improvements are proposed along Tanforan Avenue, construction for which could temporarily occur as close as 10 feet from these residences. The nearest 8 South San Francisco General Plan, Noise Element, p. 9-2 City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
church to the project site appears to be located within the Shops at Tanforan, over 500 feet from the project site across Huntington Avenue. The nearest school to the project site is the South San Francisco High School, approximately 0.6 mile north of the project site. There are no hospitals in proximity to the project site. Although hotels are not specifically listed in the Noise Element as noise sensitive land uses, the Sonesta ES Suites San Francisco Airport San Bruno hotel is located west of the project site (west of the Centennial Way Trail), as close as 250 feet from proposed Specific Plan construction areas and approximately 200 feet from the nearest off-site improvement area (i.e., the proposed Rule 20 undergrounding work improvements along Maple Avenue and Huntington Avenue intersection improvements)

9. This hotel is located in proximity to State Road 82 and I-380, in addition to adjacent arterial roadways, all of which generate traffic noise. Noise reduction and insulation features are typically included in the design of these near-freeway hotels, although specific noise reduction features for this hotel have not been confirmed. Other land uses in the immediate project vicinity are primarily commercial and light industrial uses, which are not considered to be noise sensitive.

Existing Noise Levels
The existing ambient noise environment at the project site is characteristic of an urban environment (e.g., highway and local traffic, aircraft overflights, commercial noise sources). Traffic noise from vehicles traveling on surrounding local streets and freeways (e.g., U.S. 101 and I-380) is typically the dominant noise source in urban areas. Traffic noise is the dominant source of noise in the project vicinity. In addition to traffic noise, noise from aircraft traveling to or from SFO, approximately

1.1 miles to the southeast, is audible at the project site.

Because of state and local COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders that were in effect since March 2020 and during the time when the environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared, modeling of existing noise levels was based on traffic data from 2019 rather than noise measurements taken in the field. Traffic noise is usually the dominant source of overall ambient noise in urban areas.

Fieldwork conducted during the shelter-in-place orders would not accurately capture typical traffic noise levels given that many schools and businesses were closed and many people were working remotely, thereby decreasing traffic volumes. In addition, although other sources of noise, including loading or equipment noise in industrial areas and noise from public transportation sources such as BART and Caltrans, could result in increases to the ambient noise level, it is difficult to predict how these sources would affect a 24-hour average ambient noise level without conducting measurements. In addition, it is more conservative to underestimate than overestimate existing ambient noise levels because the higher the ambient noise, the more noise a project can contribute to the environment without causing a specific decibel level to increase over the estimated ambient level. Therefore, the modeled traffic noise levels provide a reasonable approximation for typical ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, and are the most appropriate method to characterize ambient noise levels for the purpose of this analysis.

Estimates of existing ambient noise levels at and near the project site were based on traffic noise modeling that relied on traffic data provided by Fehr & Peers and data based on the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5. Refer to Table 4.11-6, p. 4.11- 10, for modeled existing noise levels along roadway segments in the general project vicinity. 9 As measured on Google Earth.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-10 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-6. Modeled Existing Noise Levels in the Specific Plan Vicinity Roadway Segment
Existing
Noise Level
(dBA Ldn)
Sneath Lane Between I-280 and Cherry Avenue 66.5
Sneath Lane Between Cherry Avenue and El Camino Real 69.7 El Camino Real Between Sneath Lane and I-380 71.3
El Camino Real Between I-380 on-/off-ramps 71.7
Sneath Lane Between El Camino Real and Huntington Avenue 64.9 Huntington Avenue Between San Bruno Ave and Forest Lane 63.9 Huntington Avenue Between Forest Lane/Herman Street and Sneath Lane 63.6 San Mateo Avenue Between South Linden and South Airport Boulevard 67.6 South Linden Avenue Between Grand Avenue and San Mateo Avenue 67.1 South Linden Avenue Between Dollar Avenue and San Mateo Avenue 60.5 Tanforan Avenue Huntington Avenue and Dollar Avenue 58.6 South Maple Avenue Tanforan Avenue and Victory Avenue 60.5 Dollar Avenue/Herman Street Between Tanforan Avenue and Scott Street 60.8 Note: Because of the COVID-19 shelter-in-place orders that were in effect when the EIR was prepared, modeling of existing noise levels was based on traffic data for 2019 rather than noise measurements taken in the field. Traffic noise is usually the dominant source of overall ambient noise in urban areas. Fieldwork conducted during the shelter-in-place orders would not accurately capture typical traffic noise levels, with schools and many businesses closed and many people working remotely, thereby decreasing traffic volumes. Therefore, the modeled traffic noise levels provide a reasonable approximation for typical ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site.

Source: Traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. Modeling relied on a spreadsheet that was based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5, using a fixed distance of 33 feet from the roadway centerline (i.e., the approximate closest distance to receptors from roadway centerlines along the modeled segments).

To provide additional information about ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, noise measurements from the 410 Noor Avenue Noise Study,
10 a noise study done for a nearby housing
development approved by the City in December 2020, are included in Table 4.11-7 and Table 4.11- 8, p. 4.11-11. The Noor Avenue Noise Study measurements provide additional context regarding the project site’s existing setting because of the proximity of the 410 Noor Avenue site to the proposed project site (i.e., approximately 700 feet northwest of the project site). Noise conditions would be expected to be similar at the 410 Noor Avenue site and the project site, with the Noor Avenue site potentially having slightly lower noise levels as it is further from Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane than the project site. Although the 410 Noor Avenue noise measurements are from 2017, the dominant noise source was nearby traffic activity. For noise from traffic to increase by 3 dB (considered a barely perceptible change), a doubling of traffic volumes would have to occur. It is unlikely that a doubling of traffic has occurred since these measurements were taken in 2017.

Therefore, it is expected that these measurements would likely be similar (i.e., within approximately 3 dB) to measurements taken in the present day. Note that these measurements are not quantitatively used in the analysis and are included for informational purposes only. 10 City of South San Francisco, 410 Noor Residences Environmental Noise Study, February 2020, Available: City of South San Francisco - File #: 20-869 (legistar.com) (Exhibit H). Accessed: March 2, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-7. Long-Term Noise Measurements from the 410 Noor Avenue Noise Study Long-Term
Measurement
Measurement Location and
Approximate Distance to
Southline Project Site Start Date End Date
5-day
Average
dBA
CNEL
LT-1 Along Huntington Avenue
between Noor Avenue and
South Spruce Street (900 to 950
feet)
Thursday August
17, 2017
Tuesday
August 22, 2017

71.7 LT-2 North of Noor Avenue, west of
Huntington Avenue (900 to 950
feet)
Thursday August
17, 2017
Tuesday
August 22, 2017

71.8 Table 4.11-8. Short-Term Noise Measurements from the 410 Noor Avenue Noise Study Short-Term
Measurement
(15 minutes)
Measurement Location and
Approximate Distance to
Southline Project Site Date/Time
dBA
Leq
dBA
Lmin
Single
Event
dBA
Lmax
ST-1 North of Noor Avenue, west of
Huntington Avenue, south of LT2 (850 to 900 feet)
Wednesday August
16, 2017/1:35 p.m.
68 50 84, 86
(aircraft)
ST-2 South of South Spruce Street,
west of Huntington Avenue,
north of LT-1 (1,100 to 1,200
feet)
Wednesday August
16, 2017/2:20 p.m.
70 50 82, 90
(aircraft)
ST-3 North of Noor Avenue, west of
Huntington Avenue and
northwest of the LT-2 (1,100 to
1,50 feet)
Wednesday August
23, 2017/8:45 a.m.
53 46 89
(loud car)
ST-4 Northwest of the intersection of
Noor Avenue and Huntington
Avenue (700 to 750 feet)
Wednesday August
23, 2017/8:45 a.m.
65 51 89
(loud car)
Phase 1 Site
The Phase 1 site is located along the southern perimeter of the proposed Specific Plan area, just north of Tanforan Avenue, west of Dollar Avenue/Herman Street, and west of South Maple Avenue.

The existing regional and local setting, as well as the existing uses at the Phase 1 site, existing noisesensitive uses, and existing noise levels in the vicinity, are the same as described above for the proposed Specific Plan area.

4.11.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of noise and vibration plans and policies that are relevant to the proposed project. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Generally, the federal government sets noise standards for transportation-related noise sources that are closely linked to interstate commerce. These sources include aircraft, locomotives, and trucks. No federal noise standards are directly applicable to the project. The state government City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
sets noise standards for transportation noise sources such as automobiles, light trucks, and motorcycles. Noise sources associated with industrial, commercial, and construction activities are generally subject to local control through noise ordinances and general plan policies. Local general plans provide principles that are intended to guide and influence development plans. The state and local noise policies and regulations that are applicable to the project are described below.

4.11.3.1 State
California Noise Insulation Standards (Code of Regulations, Title 24) California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Sound Transmission, establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Under this regulation, interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 dB in any habitable room. The noise metric is either the Ldn or the CNEL. Compliance with Title 24 interior noise standards occurs during the permit review process and generally protects a proposed project’s users from existing ambient outdoor noise levels.

California Noise Control Act of 1973
The California Noise Control Act finds that excessive noise is a serious hazard to public health and welfare and that exposure to certain levels of noise can result in physiological, psychological, and economic damage. The act also finds that there is a continuous and increasing bombardment of noise in urban, suburban, and rural areas. The California Noise Control Act declares that the State of California has a responsibility to protect the health and welfare of its citizens by the control, prevention, and abatement of noise. It is the policy of the State to provide an environment for all Californians that is free from noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.

4.11.3.2 Regional
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for SFO (2012)11 Refer to Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR for a discussion of the 2012 SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Noise associated with airport and aircraft operations is considered one of the main areas of concern for airport land use commissions, especially in highly urbanized areas like the Bay Area.

According to the 2012 SFO ALUCP, the Airport Influence Area (AIA), the geographic area subject to the land use compatibility considerations identified in the ALUCP, is divided into two areas: Area A and Area B. Area A encompasses all of San Mateo County and the incorporated cities within it. Area B roughly follows noise compatibility and safety zone contours. The project site is located within both Area A and Area B and, as such, the compatibility criteria contained within the ALUCP are applicable to land use plans and development within the project site. 11 City/County Association of Governments. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November. Available: https://ccag.ca.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: May 4, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The 2012 SFO ALUCP has four primary areas of concern, two of which pertain to noise, as listed below.
a) Aircraft Noise Impact Reduction: To reduce the potential number of future airport-area residents who could be exposed to noise impacts from airport and aircraft operations. b) Overflight Notification: To establish an area within which aircraft flights to and from the airport occur frequently enough and at a low enough altitude to be noticeable by sensitive residents.

Within this area, real estate disclosure notices shall be required, pursuant to state law.

The ALUCP establishes boundaries within which noise compatibility policies apply. These boundaries depict “noise impact areas” or noise compatibility zones, defined by noise contours at the 65 dB CNEL, 70 dB CNEL, and 75 dB CNEL contours. Noise compatibility policies apply to each noise impact area or contour. Commercial uses (e.g., offices and business) or industrial and manufacturing uses and related structures are considered compatible without restrictions within all of these noise impact areas.

As shown in Figure 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR, a portion of the project site (including approximately half of the Specific Plan area) is within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, and the remaining portion of the project site (including the remainder of the Specific Plan area), is within the 70 dB noise contour. The Phase 1 Site is divided between the two noise contour areas. Areas within the boundaries of CNEL contour map are subject to ALUCP noise compatibility policies set forth in Policy NP-2, Airport/Land Use Compatibility Criteria and Table IV-1 of the ALUCP. As described in Table VI-1 of the ALUCP, commercial land uses, including office, business and professional, and general retail uses, in addition to industrial and produces uses, are considered compatible uses in all of the designated noise compatibility zones in the ALUCP without restrictions.

4.11.3.3 Local
Although the Specific Plan area is within South San Francisco, some of the off-site improvements are within theCity of San Bruno. Furthermore, development within the Specific Plan area has the potential to affect sensitive receptors in San Bruno. For this reason, both City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno noise regulations and guidelines are relevant to the assessment of project impacts. The City of San Bruno noise regulations and guidelines would apply to implementation of the off-site improvements.

South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with the City’s plans and policy standards. The General Plan contains a Noise Element, which is intended to ensure compliance with state requirements and promote a comprehensive, long-range program of achieving acceptable noise levels throughout the City.

The City General Plan includes the following policies applicable to noise and vibration:
⚫ Policy 9-I-7: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Policy 9-I-8: Require the control of noise at the source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques for new developments deemed to be noise generators.

Local plans, policy actions, or development activities within SFO’s 65 dB CNEL contour require approval from the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) prior to local permit issuance. To assist with this process, the ALUC has established noise/land use compatibility standards, which are the basis for plan review; these standards are included in the City’s General Plan Noise Element. The City also applies these standards in its review of development applications within the 65 dB CNEL boundary. The standards are shown below in Table 4.11.9, below.

South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 8.32, Noise Regulations, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance) contains the City’s noise regulations. The Municipal Code’s quantitative noise limits and construction noise regulations are described below.

Table 4.11-9. General Plan Land Use Criteria for Noise-Affected Areas Land Use CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria
Residential Less than 65 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed
Over 70 Development should not be undertaken
Commercial Less than 70 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed
Over 80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided
Industrial Less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and insulation as needed
Over 85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided
Open Less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Over 75 Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals Source: South San Francisco General Plan, Noise Element.

Table 4.11-10, below, specifies the maximum permissible sound levels to be generated by any property within the City, according to Section 8.32.030 of the City’s Noise Ordinance. The maximum allowable level is determined by the land use category of the receiving property as measured on any receiving property. All references to dB in the code use the A-weighted scale. Under the City’s Noise Ordinance, is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the City, or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed the limits as specified in Table 4.11-10, with limited exceptions including for permitted construction activity. If the measured ambient level for any area is higher than the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
standard set in the South San Francisco Municipal Code for a particular use (see Table 4.11-10), then the applicable threshold for that use is 5 dB above the measured ambient level. 12 Note that,
although these exact zoning district designations are no longer in effect, the City applies these guidelines generally to the corresponding current zoning districts.

Section 20.300.010(F) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code states that no vibration shall be transmitted through the ground and discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. Vibration from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trucks) are exempt from this standard.

Table 4.11-10. City of South San Francisco Receiver Site Noise Level Standards Land Use Category Time Period
Noise Level
(dB)a
R-E, R-1, and R-2 zones or any single-family or duplex
residence in a specific plan district
10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.
50 60
R-3 and D-C zones or any multi-family residence or mixed residential/commercial use in any specific plan district 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.
55 60
C-1, P-C, Gateway, and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district 10:00 p.m.–7:00 a.m.
7:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.
60 65
M-1, P-1 Anytime 70
Source: Table 8.32.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. a The noise level standard for each land use for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour (L50).

Standards increase for durations of less than 15 minutes per hour. ⚫ Section 8.32.050 (d) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code identifies a special provision that allows construction activities with a City permit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays (or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit) if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to 25 feet from the equipment as possible.
⚫ The noise level at any point outside the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB.

City of San Bruno Plans and Policies
As discussed above and further described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within the City of San Bruno (San Bruno) but would not develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. The improvements would occur on areas that are already developed with existing circulation improvements. The specific off-site improvements located within San Bruno include: constructing a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue; improving Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue; converting Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue; and realigning the existing utilities infrastructure within Huntington Avenue to 12 South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 8.32.030(a), (b) City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. This section identifies and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant policies from the San Bruno General Plan and the San Bruno Municipal Code related to noise and vibration as related to the portions of the off-site improvements located within San Bruno’s jurisdiction. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with San Bruno land use plans and policies, refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation.

San Bruno General Plan
The 2009 San Bruno General Plan outlines a vision for the long-range physical and economic development of the community through 2025. This vision includes balanced development, conservation of residential neighborhoods, and revitalization of downtown and other aging commercial and industrial areas. The San Bruno General Plan land use designations, policies, and implementing actions will guide City of San Bruno officials in making decisions on private development proposals and public facilities. The San Bruno General Plan contains a Health and Safety Element, which includes a number of goals and policies related to noise. Specifically, policies that are relevant to the proposed project’s off-site improvements, or the proposed project’s effects on San Bruno noise sensitive receptors, include:
⚫ HS-F: Protect the health and comfort of residents by reducing the impact of noise from automotive vehicles, San Francisco International Airport, railroad lines, and stationary sources. ⚫ HS-32: Encourage developers to mitigate ambient noise levels adjacent to major noise sources by incorporating acoustical site planning into their projects. Utilize the City’s Building Code to implement mitigation measures, such as:
 Incorporating buffers and/or landscaped berms along high-noise roadways or railways;  Incorporating traffic calming measures and alternative intersection design within and/or adjacent to the project;
 Using reduced-noise pavement (rubberized asphalt); and  Incorporating state-of-the-art structural sound attenuation measures. ⚫ HS-34: Discourage noise sensitive uses such as hospitals, schools, and rest homes from locating in areas with high noise levels. Conversely, discourage new uses likely to produce high levels of noise from locating in areas where noise sensitive uses would be impacted. ⚫ HS-38: Require developers to mitigate noise exposure to sensitive receptors from construction activities. Mitigation may include a combination of techniques that reduce noise generated at the source, increase the noise insulation at the receptor, or increase the noise attenuation rate as noise travels from the source to the receptor.
⚫ HS-44: Adopt traffic mitigations—including reduced speed limits, improved paving texture, and traffic signal controls—to reduce noise in areas where residential development may front on high-traffic arterials, such as El Camino Real.
⚫ HS-45 Where feasible and appropriate, develop and implement noise reduction measures when undertaking improvements, extensions, or design changes to San Bruno streets.

In addition, the Health and Safety Element outlines acceptable noise limits for new land uses outside the airport’s noise-affected areas, as shown in Table 4.11-11, below.

City of San Bruno
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-11. Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
San Bruno Municipal Code
The San Bruno Municipal Code contains regulations in Section 6.16 (the San Bruno Noise Ordinance) pertaining directly to noise. This section discusses noise limits for various noise sources in the jurisdiction. The relevant guidelines from the San Bruno Noise Ordinance are included below.

6.16.030, Ambient Noise Level Limits
Where the ambient noise level is less than designated in this section, the respective noise level shall govern (Sound Level A, decibels). Residential zone: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 45 dB; 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., 60 dB. (Ordinance 1354, Section 1; prior code: Section 16-4.3).

6.16.050, Noise Levels Exceeding Ambient Base Level
Any noise level exceeding the zone ambient base level at the property plane of any property, or exceeding the zone ambient base level on any adjacent residential area zone line or at any place of other property (or, if a condominium or apartment house, within any adjoining apartment), by more than 10 dB shall be deemed to be prima facie evidence of a violation of the provisions of this chapter. However, during the period of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the ambient base level may be exceeded by 20 dB for a period not to exceed 30 minutes during any 24-hour period. (Ordinance 1354, Section 1; prior code: Section 16-4.1-5).

6.16.060, Machinery Noise Levels
No person shall operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, air-conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical device in any manner so as to create any noise that would cause the noise level at the property plane of any property to exceed the ambient base noise level by more than 10 dB. However, during the period of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the ambient base level may be exceeded by 20 dB for a period not to exceed 30 minutes during any 24-hour period. (Ordinance 1354, Section 1; prior code: Section 16-4.6).

6.16.070, Construction of Buildings and Projects
No person shall, within any residential zone, or within a radius of 500 feet therefrom, operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on any building, structure, or other project or operate any pile driver, power shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, power hoist, or any other construction-type device that shall exceed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. a noise level of 85 dB, as measured at 100 feet, or exceed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. a noise level of 60 dB, as measured at 100 feet, unless such person shall have first obtained a permit therefor from the director of public works. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work. (Ordinance 1354, Section 1; prior code: Section 16-4.7).

4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to noise and vibration for the proposed project, including Phase 1. It describes the methods and thresholds used to determine whether an impact would be significant. Feasible measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) potentially significant impacts accompany each impact discussion, when necessary.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.11.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant noise and vibration impact if it would:
⚫ Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies;
⚫ Generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels; or ⚫ For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

The CEQA Guidelines do not provide a quantitative measurement to define “substantial” noise or “excessive” ground-vibration. Therefore, the following quantifiable thresholds were used to evaluate the significance of impacts, based on applicable regulations, ordinances, and policies.

Construction
Construction activities generate temporary noise level increases in the vicinity of project sites. Since noise generated by construction would be short-term and vary considerably day-to-day, construction noise is evaluated differently than operational noise. Prolonged construction activities could cause interference with normal activities at nearby land uses.

Chapter 8.32 of the City of South San Francisco’s Municipal Code establishes criteria for construction noise. Based on those requirements, for the purposes of this assessment, construction noise is considered significant if it:
⚫ Occurs during daytime allowable hours and exceeds the provisions of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.050(d) (i.e., any individual piece of equipment exceeding a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet or 90 dB at any point outside of the property plane); or
⚫ Occurs outside of daytime hours and causes ambient noise levels to exceed maximum permissible sound levels at nearby noise receptors (determined based on land use category of the receiving property, as identified in Table 4.11-10, p. 4.11-15).

Although the bulk of the project site is located within the City of South San Francisco, including all proposed structures, limited construction work would occur in San Bruno in connection with implementation of certain offsite improvements. In addition, construction that takes place in the City of South San Francisco may generate noise at nearby receptors in San Bruno. Accordingly, to provide for a thorough analysis, noise generated in San Bruno and activities that generate noise at receptors within San Bruno are compared to the applicable City of San Bruno criteria. • For daytime construction noise generated in or experienced by receptors in San Bruno, construction noise generated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. was assessed to determine if combined noise levels at a distance of 100 feet would be below 85 dBA. • For nighttime construction noise generated in or experienced by receptors in San Bruno, combined noise levels were compared to the appropriate nighttime noise criterion of 60 dBA, as measured at 100 feet during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Construction Haul Truck Noise
The municipal codes of San Bruno and South San Francisco do not include specific thresholds pertaining to construction haul truck noise. Therefore, anticipated daily haul truck noise was assessed to determine if a 3 dB increase over ambient noise levels, considered to be “barely perceptible,” would occur as a result of hauling activity.

Operational Noise and Exposure
South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 8.32.030 defines the maximum permissible sound levels as measured at specified land uses. As identified in Table 4.11-10, p. 4.11-15, maximum permissible sound levels are determined by the land use category of the receiving property.

Traffic Noise
In general, an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise is considered just noticeable, a change of 5 dBA in traffic noise is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dBA in traffic noise is perceived as a doubling.

This EIR applies the following thresholds of significance for traffic-related noise increases:
⚫ A project-generated increase of 5 dBA in traffic noise, if the resulting traffic noise would remain below the normally acceptable range at a noise-sensitive land uses (i.e., CNEL or Ldn in South San Francisco of 60 dBA for single-family residences, 65 dBA for multi-family residences, and 70 dBA for offices and retail; CNEL or Ldn in San Bruno of 65 dBA or less for residences and childcare and 70 dBA or less for offices and retail).
⚫ A 3 dBA or greater increase in traffic noise resulting from project implementation occurs when the future noise level is above the normally acceptable range for a noise-sensitive land use.

A cumulative impact related to traffic noise would be identified if:
⚫ A Project-generated increase of greater than 1 dBA to a cumulative traffic noise increase of 3 dBA or more, and where cumulative traffic noise levels would be above the normally acceptable range at a noise-sensitive land use
⚫ A Project-generated increase of greater than 1 dBA to a cumulative traffic noise increase of 5 dBA or more, and where cumulative traffic noise levels would remain within the normally acceptable range at a noise-sensitive land use
Construction Vibration
The following criteria are applied in this analysis for identifying potentially significant constructionperiod vibration impacts:
⚫ Generation of continuous/frequent intermittent construction-related ground-borne vibration levels exceeding the “strongly perceptible” level of 0.1 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) at offsite sensitive receptors (i.e., at residences, schools, childcare centers, etc.) during nighttime hours when people normally sleep.
⚫ Generation of continuous/frequent intermittent construction-related ground-borne vibration levels exceeding the modern industrial/commercial buildings damage standard of 0.5 in/sec PPV at on-site or off-site commercial/industrial buildings or exceeding the “older residential structure” damage standard of 0.3 PPV in/sec and nearby older residential structures (i.e., structural damage).

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.11.4.2 Approach to Analysis
This noise impact analysis evaluates temporary noise and vibration generated by construction activities, operational noise generated by on-site mechanical equipment, and traffic noise increases associated with project-related changes in traffic patterns for the proposed project and Phase 1.

Buildout Scenario Studied (Life Sciences Scenario and Office Scenario) As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan would allow for development of the commercial campus as either office or research-and-development (R&D) uses, or a combination of both, up to a total buildout of 2,800,000 square feet. For the purposes of program-level EIR analysis, two projected buildout scenarios were identified which would represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario. Each section within Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyzes the buildout scenario that represents the “worst-case” scenario for the resources area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.

For the purposes of the noise analysis, construction noise and vibration effects would generally be the same under either scenario since either scenario would involve substantially similar equipment mixes and construction activities on a maximum activity day.

With regard to operational sources of noise, both scenarios would be expected to require the use of heating, ventilation, and cooling equipment as well as emergency generators, which create noise during testing. For operational mechanical equipment noise (and most other operational noise topics), noise impacts would generally be the same under either buildout scenario. However, ventilation fans would be required for R&D uses but would not be expected to be required for office uses. Therefore, the Life Sciences Scenario (including ventilation fans) is the analysis scenario studied for mechanical equipment noise. With regard to traffic noise, the worst-case scenario, or the scenario that would generate the greatest number of vehicle trips, is the Office Scenario. Therefore, traffic volumes under the Office Scenario were used to evaluate to project-related traffic noise.

Construction and Demolition Impacts
Noise – Daytime Hours
Noise impacts associated with on-site demolition and construction were evaluated using the noise calculation method and construction equipment noise data in the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. The FHWA data includes the A-weighted -Lmax noise levels measured at a distance of 50 feet from the construction equipment and the utilization factors for the equipment. The utilization factor is the percentage of time each piece of construction equipment is typically operated at full power over the specified time period; the utilization factor is used to estimate Leq values from Lmax values. For example, the Leq value for a piece of equipment that operates at full power over 50 percent of the specified time period is 3 dB less than the Lmax value.13 13 Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05- 054. January. Available: https://www.gsweventcenter.com/Draft_SEIR_References/2006_01_Roadway_ Construction_Noise_Model_User_Guide_FHWA.pdf. Accessed: May 20, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Construction equipment data were provided by the Phase 1 applicant for the Phase 1 construction and demolition activities. This Phase 1 construction equipment data can be used as a reasonable proxy for construction of the Specific Plan buildout, generally. Construction noise levels of typical equipment from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model user guide were compared to the applicable construction noise thresholds in South San Francisco and San Bruno, as applicable, during daytime hours. Specifically, in the City of South San Francisco, construction noise generated between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. during weekdays was analyzed to determine if either all individual equipment would result in noise levels below 90 dBA at 25 feet or if combined construction noise at the property plane would be below 90 dBA. In the City of San Bruno, construction noise generated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. was assessed to determine if combined noise levels at a distance of 100 feet would be below 85 dBA.

Noise – Non-Daytime Hours
FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model calculation methods were used to estimate reasonable worst-case combined noise. Noise from the loudest three pieces of equipment proposed for use during a single construction phase was calculated. Estimated construction noise levels were compared to applicable local thresholds for non-daytime hours (or hours outside of the “daytime hours” defined in each jurisdiction, as specified below). Specifically, combined noise levels were compared to the maximum permissible sound levels for the adjacent land use, with the most sensitive existing adjacent land use within the City of South San Francisco being commercial, as identified in Table 4.11-10, p. 4.11-15. For this analysis, Leq is considered a reasonable proxy for assessing noise against the L50 standards14 in Table 4.11-10, p. 4.11-15.

Nighttime construction noise levels generated in South San Francisco between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are therefore compared to the nighttime criterion of 60 dBA at the nearest commercial land use and 55 dBA at the nearest multi-family residential use (including the approved 410 Noor Avenue project), which applies between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Construction noise generated during the hour of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. (which is the time period prior to commencement of the daytime exemption for construction noise) is compared to the daytime noise threshold of 65 dBA, consistent with the City of South San Francisco’s Noise Ordinance.

For nighttime construction noise generated in or experienced by receptors in the City of San Bruno, combined noise levels were compared to the appropriate nighttime noise criterion of 60 dBA, as measured at 100 feet during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., consistent with San Bruno’s Noise Ordinance.

Vibration
As discussed above, construction equipment data were provided by the Phase 1 applicant for the Phase 1 construction and demolition activities. Notably, drilled cast-in-place piles would be required; no pile-driving would occur, which is often a key source of construction vibration.

Guidelines developed by Caltrans were used to assess potential vibration-related damage and annoyance effects (refer to Table 4.11-4 and Table 4.11-5, p. 4.11-7). 14 L50 is the noise level standard for each land use for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Haul Trucks
Existing noise levels without project haul trucks and existing noise levels with project haul trucks along haul route segments were modeled using a spreadsheet based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model. Neither the City of South San Francisco nor the City of San Bruno has specific thresholds pertaining to construction haul truck noise. Therefore, anticipated daily haul truck noise was assessed to determine if a 3 dB, or “barely perceptible,” increase over ambient noise levels would occur at noise-sensitive receptors as a result of hauling activity.

This analysis assesses the potential noise impacts from construction-related haul trucks using the local roadway network related to project implementation. Construction details for Specific Plan development are not available at this time, including details about haul truck use. However, the haul truck usage for Phase 1 has been estimated by the Phase 1 applicant. The Phase 1 truck haul estimates are a reasonable proxy for estimating future haul truck activity under the remaining portions of the Specific Plan, generally; as such, this information is utilized for the haul truck noise analysis for the project buildout scenario. Specifically, the haul truck trip usage for the Specific Plan is approximated by scaling up the Phase 1 haul truck usage data based on square footage information for Phase 1 and the overall Specific Plan.

For Phase 1 construction, up to 192 round-trip haul truck trips could occur per day during the most hauling-intensive subphase of construction (i.e., during demolition and grading). According to the project applicant, Phase 1 would be the most hauling-intensive phase of all phases of the Specific Plan construction. Therefore, the Phase 1 worst-case haul truck noise modeling is also applicable to the Specific Plan. Although most subphases of construction would have fewer daily haul truck trips than this maximum, estimated maximum numbers of truck trips are analyzed to provide a reasonably conservative assessment of haul truck noise.

Operation Impacts
Traffic
Direct and cumulative traffic noise effects along nearby roadway segments resulting from project development were quantitatively modeled using average daily traffic (ADT), posted speeds, and existing vehicle-mix assumptions (i.e., the proportion of automobiles, trucks, buses, and other vehicles) provided by the project traffic engineer (Fehr & Peers). Traffic noise was provided for Existing, Year 2024 No Project, Year 2024 Plus Phase 1, Year 2040 No Project, and Year 2040 Plus Project. Quantitative modeling of traffic noise from the project was conducted using a spreadsheet that was based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5 for the following conditions:
⚫ Existing
⚫ Year 2040 No Project
⚫ Year 2040 Plus Project
The spreadsheet calculates the traffic noise level at a fixed distance from the centerline of a roadway according to the traffic volume, roadway speed, and vehicle mix predicted to occur under each condition. Traffic noise was evaluated in terms of how project-related noise increases could affect existing noise-sensitive land uses along the major project traffic access roadways. If significant traffic noise impacts were identified in the analysis of project buildout, a quantitative analysis of Phase 1 traffic-related noise would be required to identify Phase 1’s contribution to the significant impact. However, because project-level impacts were determined to be less than significant, a City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
quantitative analysis of Phase 1 traffic is not required, since it can be inferred that Phase 1 traffic noise would also be less than significant (given that Phase 1 is a component of the overall project).

In this case, a qualitative evaluation of Phase 1’s traffic-related noise impacts is provided.

Heating, Ventilation, and Cooling Equipment
Evaluations of operational noise impacts associated with proposed on-site activities and stationary sources of noise were based on information about the general proposed uses for the Specific Plan development and the proposed site plan layout and project specific information (provided by the project applicant) for Phase 1. Note that the portion of the Specific Plan area located closest to noise-sensitive land uses is the Phase 1 site. Therefore, the reasonable worstcase analysis of Specific Plan impacts related to heating, ventilation and cooling equipment focuses on the Phase 1 site. Note that future phases of the Specific Plan would include similar equipment, but would be located further from noise-sensitive uses. Noise at various distances from point sources (e.g., stationary operational equipment such as generators and heating and cooling equipment) was estimated using commonly accepted source noise data and a point-source attenuation of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

In accordance with applicable South San Francisco Municipal Code noise thresholds, the proposed mechanical equipment may not result in noise levels at nearby commercial land uses in excess of 65 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or in excess of 60 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., or at nearby multi-family residential uses (including the approved 410 Noor Avenue project) in excess of 60 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or in excess of 55 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, if measured ambient noise levels are higher than the standards presented in Table 4.11-10, p. 4.11-15, generated noise levels may exceed measured ambient noise levels by up to 5 dB. For purposes of this analysis, the thresholds outlined in Table 4.11-10, p. 4.11-15, which are conservative, are used.

Under the applicable San Bruno Municipal Code thresholds, noise levels from mechanical equipment must not exceed ambient conditions by 10 dB at the property plane of a sensitive use.

Emergency Generator Testing
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project would incorporate diesel generators to be utilized in cases of emergency power disruptions. While use of the generators would be limited to emergency circumstances, periodic testing would be required, as further described under the Impact NOI-1 analysis.

The evaluation of noise from testing project and Phase 1 emergency generators was based on assumptions about generator installations for future project uses as well as information related to the emergency generators proposed for Phase 1. Note that noise from operation of emergency generators during an emergency is considered exempt from local ordinances. However, the testing of emergency generators must comply with local noise limits for operational and equipment noise.

In accordance with applicable South San Francisco Municipal Code noise thresholds, emergency generator testing (although temporary) must comply with applicable noise criteria for adjacent commercial uses (i.e., 65 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 60 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and for nearby multi-family residential uses, including the approved 410 Noor Avenue project (i.e., 60 dBA during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 55 dBA during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). In San Bruno, emergency generator testing City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
noise must not exceed San Bruno Municipal Code thresholds (i.e., a 10 dB increase over ambient).

Noise from emergency generator testing at various distances was estimated using site plans, equipment specification data, and equipment layout information provided for Phase 1, along with the general point-source attenuation equation of 6 dB per doubling of distance.

Parking Garage Activity
A parking structure (Parking Structure C) is proposed in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area. The eastern portion of the “L-shaped” parking structure would be developed during Phase 1, and the northern portion would be developed in future phases. Parking garage activity noise during a reasonable worst-case hour after full buildout of the parking structure was estimated based on average peak hour segment volumes along the roadway segment (South Linden Avenue) that would provide access to the parking structure. Calculations from FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
15 were used to estimate peak-hour parking activity noise at this location, and to determine if parking activity noise would result in perceptible increases in noise at sensitive receptors in the project vicinity.

Loading Dock Activity
Loading dock noise is analyzed to determine if loading activity at the Specific Plan area would result in substantially greater noise levels in the vicinity of sensitive receptors compared with existing conditions. Although the amount of loading activity expected to occur under the project is not known at this time, general assumptions about the amount of loading expected under Phase 1 can be made with an understanding of the number of trips the Phase 1 area would generate and the expected vehicle mix (e.g., percentage of heavy trucks vs. personal vehicles). Based on this information, up to 12 heavy trucks would use the Phase 1 loading bays for loading/unloading activities on a given day. Although medium-size trucks (e.g., FedEx, UPS, USPS, and other local carriers) may also access the site, they generally do not involve long-term, noisy unloading activities.

In addition, these types of trucks would use curb-side or temporary loading areas at the project site during business hours, generally for short periods of time. Note that the Phase 1 site includes the portion of the Specific Plan area located closest to noise-sensitive land uses along Tanforan Avenue. Therefore, the reasonable worst-case analysis of loading dock noise effects focuses on the Phase 1 site. Note that future phases of the Specific Plan would include similar loading docks, but these loading docks would be located further from noise-sensitive uses, and due to noise attenuation due to distance and intervening structures, would result in comparatively reduced potential noise effects to receptors.

Phase 1 includes two loading docks, one at Building 1, which has two loading bays and would also serve Building 2, and one at Building 7. Assuming an even split of daily loading activities across the three buildings, there could be up to four loading dock activities at each building per day, or eight total per day at the Building 2 loading bays and four at the Building 7 loading dock. During a typical hour, it is unlikely that there would be more than one truck loading or unloading at a given dock.

However, it is possible that two trucks could be unloading or loading during a single worst-case hour at the Building 2 dock. Truck loading and unloading activity noise is assessed qualitatively to determine the potential for a substantial temporary increase in noise at nearby residential land 15 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FTA Report No. 0123, 2018, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibrationimpact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed August 10, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
uses; a quantitative analysis of loading noise would only be necessary if the development was a loading-intensive use (such as a distribution center).

Potential for Noise from New Stationary Sources to Combine The evaluation of stationary operational noise impacts is based on the potential for noise from the individual sources described above to exceed the applicable noise ordinance limits or criteria for each respective source. While it is possible for noise levels from multiple stationary sources to combine and result in greater noise levels, overall, noise levels are generally dominated by the loudest and closest source of noise. In order to ensure a reasonably conservative analysis, the analysis of each individual source includes realistic worst-case assumptions, based on the upper level of estimated noise levels that each source may generate at the closest reasonable distance between the source and the receiver. In addition, the municipal code criteria for operational noise sources in South San Francisco and San Bruno are based on individual equipment and/or sources because enforcement of noise ordinance limits would typically be based on measuring the noise emanated by an individual source. For these reasons, the analysis of stationary operational noise impacts evaluates potential noise levels from individual pieces of equipment or noise sources associated with the project, rather than theoretical scenarios with multiple pieces of equipment operating at the same time.

4.11.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact NOI-1a: Project construction would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable) Project
Although specific details are known regarding Phase 1 construction and demolition, construction details for future phases under the Specific Plan are not known in detail at this time. In general, the Specific Plan area would be developed with office and/or R&D uses, totaling up to 2,800,000 square feet. Development of the proposed project would include numerous commercial buildings, a parking garage, a publicly-accessible amenity building, and public open spaces. A phased development process for buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated. The construction activities that would be closest to sensitive receptors (i.e., the residential uses fronting Tanforan Avenue) would occur during Phase 1.

Therefore, because construction impact determinations are based on reasonable worst-case construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses, Phase 1 construction activities are the focus of the project construction noise and analysis.

Construction of Phase 1 is anticipated to commence in 2022 and end in 2024, lasting approximately 30 months. Some construction would take place within Tanforan Avenue, but most construction activities would occur north of Tanforan Avenue and at least 55 feet away from the nearest residences south of Tanforan Avenue. Noise levels for the equipment proposed for Phase 1 of the project, which is expected to be similar to equipment proposed for future project phases, are provided in Table 4.11-12, below.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-12. Noise from Equipment Proposed for Project Construction (Leq) Equipment Type Noise at 25 Feet (Leq)
Air compressor 80
Auger drill rig 83
Concrete saw 89
Crane 79
Crushing/processing equipment 88
Excavator 83
Compactor 82
Dozer 84
Scraper 86
Vacuum street sweeper 78
Tractor 86
Gradall 85
Water truck 78
Concrete mixer truck 78
Concrete pump truck 80
Front-end loader 81
Pavement breaker/impact hammer 89
Tractor 86
Welder 76
Man lift 74
Noise levels are based on source noise levels from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model Source: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP05-054. January. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/construction_noise/ rcnm/rcnm.pdf.

Accessed: October 18, 2020.

Daytime Construction
As described under Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework, construction activities in South San Francisco that are authorized by a valid City permit are allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. (or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit) if they meet at least one of two noise limitations. Construction would be allowed during the daytime hours specified on the permit as long as noise from each individual piece of equipment is limited to 90 dB at a distance of 25 feet or as long as combined construction noise at any point outside the property plane of the project does not exceed 90 dB.

As shown in Table 4.11-12, noise from each individual piece of equipment proposed for project construction would not be expected to exceed 90 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet. For this reason, construction that takes place during daytime hours defined by the South San Francisco Municipal Code would not conflict with City construction noise regulations.

Because the closest residences (along Tanforan Avenue) to the project site are in San Bruno, and because construction of some of the off-site improvements would occur in San Bruno, construction noise regulations for that jurisdiction are also considered in addition to those of South San City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Francisco. For Phase 1, most construction activities would take place at least 55 feet away from the nearest residences along Tanforan Avenue. However, limited construction (e.g., approximately 15 to 30 days of work) would occur at the western terminus of Tanforan Avenue to create a turnaround cul-de-sac at the intersection of Tanforan Avenue and Huntington Avenue. In addition, some utility work would be conducted along Tanforan Avenue, requiring limited work within the street. This would include sewer upsizing, which would occur directly within Tanforan Avenue and involve the use of concrete saws and excavators, and undergrounding of certain PG&E utilities, which would require further coordination with the City of San Bruno and with occupants of nearby residences to connect each individual home to the undergrounded system.

Daytime construction noise in San Bruno within 500 feet of residential land uses is restricted to a noise level of 85 dBA Leq, as measured at 100 feet (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.), unless a permit has been obtained to exceed that level. Additionally, City of San Bruno General Plan Policy HS-45 states that, where feasible and appropriate, noise reduction measures shall be developed and implemented when undertaking improvements, extensions, or design changes to San Bruno streets.

To provide a reasonable worst-case analysis of potential combined noise levels from project construction, this analysis assumes that the three loudest pieces of equipment proposed for a construction subphase of Phase 1 would also be the three loudest pieces of equipment that could be used during buildout of the project. The analysis also assumes that each piece of equipment would operate concurrently and in the same general location on the project site.

A screening analysis was conducted to determine during which phase the three loudest individual pieces equipment may operate concurrently. This screening analysis determined that abatement and demolition activities for Phase 1 construction, involving site preparation and implementation of the off-site improvements, would have the potential to produce the highest sound levels. These activities would involve potentially concurrent operation of a concrete saw, excavator, and a pavement breaker or hoe ram. Table 4.11-13, p. 4.11-29, identifies the combined noise levels from operation of these three pieces of construction equipment and the anticipated reasonable worstcase noise levels during construction at various distances from a given construction area.

As shown in Table 4.11-13, p. 4.11-29, reasonable worst-case combined construction noise (based on the assumptions described above) is expected to be approximately 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source. This level is below the City of San Bruno’s construction noise standard of 85 dBA at a distance of 100 feet between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Because construction noise is expected to be below the applicable City of San Bruno limits during daytime hours, construction that takes place during daytime hours would not conflict with City of San Bruno daytime construction noise regulations.

Because daytime construction would comply with the local noise regulations contained in the South San Francisco and San Bruno Municipal Codes, daytime construction noise impacts under the project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-13. Combined Project Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances (Lmax and Leq) Source Data:

Maximum
Sound
Level
(dBA)
Utilization
Factor
Leq Sound
Level (dBA)
Construction Condition: Abatement and Demolition for the Grading, Roads, and Intersections Subphase
Source 1: Concrete saw – sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 90 20% 83.0 Source 2: Excavator – sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 81 40% 77.0 Source 3: Hoe Ram – sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 90 20% 83.0 Calculated Data:

All Sources Combined – Lmax sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 93 Lmax All Sources Combined – Leq sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 87 Leq Distance
Between Source
and Receiver
(feet)
Geometric
Attenuation
(dB)
Calculated
Lmax Sound
Level
(dBA)
Calculated
Leq Sound
Level (dBA)
15 10 104 97
25 6 100 93
50 0 94 87
80 -4 89 83
100 -6 88 81
150 -10 84 77
200 -12 81 75
250 -14 80 73
300 -16 78 71
350 -17 77 70
400 -18 75 69
500 -20 74 67
600 -22 72 65
700 -23 70 64
800 -24 69 63
Source: Federal Highway Administration. 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWAHEP-05-054. January. Available:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/rcnm.pdf. Accessed: October 18, 2020.

Notes:

1. Results at 100 feet are bolded because this is the distance at which the threshold for construction noise in San Bruno applies.

2. Geometric attenuation based on 6 dB per doubling of distance.

3. This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding or ground attenuation from walls, topography, or other barriers that may reduce sound levels further.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Construction Outside Daytime Hours
Most construction activities under the project are expected to occur during the City of South San Francisco’s “daytime hours” of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays. In San Bruno, construction activities would occur primarily during the City of San Bruno’s “daytime hours” of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, a limited amount of project construction could be necessary outside these daytime hours. For example, construction for Phase 1 may begin as early as 7:00 a.m. on a typical day, which is 1 hour before the start of “daytime hours” in South San Francisco. Activities that may occur during this hour would include workers arriving onsite, pre-task planning for the work for the day, setting up work areas and materials, trucks, and other vehicles arriving on-site (as long as backup alarms are not needed), and the use of hand power tools.

Although noise-generating work would generally be limited during this time, in order to provide a conservative assessment, this analysis assumes that construction activities could begin prior to 8:00 a.m.

In addition to normal construction activity, it is anticipated that Phase 1 would require up to 18 concrete pours, which could begin as early as 5:00 a.m. Subsequent phases of project construction would be anticipated to also require nighttime concrete pours or construction activities to take place outside the daytime hours defined by the two jurisdictions.

The reasonable worst-case combined construction noise that could occur outside daytime hours must be estimated to determine potential construction noise impacts between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. in South San Francisco. Outside the daytime hours specified by the City of South San Francisco, construction noise would be regulated by Section 8.32.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Table

4.11-10, p. 4.11-15), which establishes a maximum allowable level as determined by the land use category of the receiving property and measured on any receiving property. The nearest adjacent uses within South San Francisco are zoned MI (Mixed Industrial); BC (Business Commercial); and ECRMX (El Camino Real Mixed-Use). While the ECRMX designation allows residential uses, there are no existing residential uses located in the ECRMX-designated properties in the vicinity of the project site.

However, an approved project (the 410 Noor Avenue project) is located approximately 700 feet from the project site, within the ECRMX zoning district, and could potentially be occupied during construction of the project. The applicable noise limit for construction noise to commercial uses during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., per Section 8.32.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, is 65 dBA L50. The applicable noise limit for construction noise to multi-family residential uses during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., per Section 8.32.030 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, is 60 dBA L50. Note that, for this analysis, Leq is considered a reasonable proxy for assessing noise against the L50 standards.
16 Although it is unlikely that the loudest activities proposed for construction would occur during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., it is conservatively assumed that all construction activities proposed for Phase 1 could occasionally begin during this hour. Similarly, louder construction activities could occur during this hour (or potentially other non-daytime hours) for future development under the Specific Plan. Therefore, it is assumed that the daytime reasonable worst-case potential combined noise levels described previously for daytime construction could occur during this hour for project construction.

The abatement and demolition activities for the Phase 1 construction phase involving site preparation and implementation of the off-site improvements, which would have the potential to 16 L50 is the noise level standard for each land use for a cumulative period of more than 30 minutes in any hour.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
produce the highest sound level, could result in the noise levels shown in Table 4.11-13, p. 4.11-29.

These activities could involve concurrent operation of a concrete saw, excavator, and hoe ram. As shown in Table 4.11-13, p. 4.11-29, reasonable worst-case combined construction noise could be up to approximately 81 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source, the distance to the nearest commercial land use in South San Francisco. This noise level is in excess of the 65 dBA L50 criterion for commercial uses for construction noise occurring outside of “daytime hours” in South San Francisco. With regard to the nearest multi-family residential use in South San Francisco, reasonable worst-case combined construction noise could be up to approximately 64 dBA Leq at a distance of 700 feet from the noise source (refer to Table 4.11-13, p. 4.11-29). This noise level is above the 60 dBA L50 criterion for multi-family residential uses which would apply during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. in South San Francisco. Therefore, noise impacts from construction activities occurring between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. in South San Francisco would be considered significant. Note that activities occurring between the hours of 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. would be in compliance with the City of San Bruno criterion of 85 dBA at 100 feet during this hour.

While the exact number of non-daytime concrete pours required for future development under the Specific Plan is not known at this time, there would be approximately 18 instances of non-daytime concrete pour activities during the Phase 1 construction window. Concrete pours could occur for Phase 1 starting at 5:00 a.m. and conclude at 8:00 p.m., and therefore could occur before and after the “daytime hours” outlined in the municipal code of either city. Phase 1 would not be expected to occur on back-to-back nights. Each Phase 1 structure would require six pours over a period of approximately six weeks, resulting in an average of one concrete pour per week. As previously noted, Phase 1 construction occurs closest to occupied residences along Tanforan Avenue. Since Phase 1 is the portion of the Specific Plan located closest to off-site sensitive uses, Phase 1 concrete pours would have the greatest potential noise effects to off-site uses for the entire Specific Plan development.

Table 4.11-12, p. 4.11-27, shows estimated noise levels for the three loudest pieces of construction equipment expected to operate concurrently during the non-daytime concrete pours (per the analysis approach detailed in Section 4.11.4.2, Approach to Analysis), which are a concrete mixer and two concrete pump trucks. As shown in Table 4.11-14, p. 4.11-32, noise levels from a concrete mixer and two concrete pump trucks are estimated to be approximately 77 dBA Leq at a distance of 100 feet, which is the closest distance that Phase 1 concrete pour activities would occur to the residences in San Bruno, south of Tanforan Avenue. This exceeds the City of San Bruno’s 60 dBA criterion for nighttime noise generated 100 feet from construction activities.

Note that concrete pour locations for later phases of development are not known at this time.

However, it is reasonably foreseeable that concrete pours would occur in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area; associated noise from that activity would be approximately 69 dBA Leq at the nearby hotel in San Bruno (at a distance of at least 250 feet). Therefore, estimated nighttime noise levels would also exceed the City of San Bruno noise standard of 60 dBA at 100 feet for concrete pours that may occur in the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan. In addition, concrete pours may result in noise in excess of 60 dBA and 55 dBA at the nearest commercial and multi-family residential uses in South San Francisco, respectively, during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Estimated noise from concrete pour activity could be up to 60 dBA Leq at the site of the proposed 410 Noor Avenue residences (at a distance of approximately 700 feet from the project site) and noise levels from the equipment at a distance of 50 feet, the approximate distance to the nearest commercial uses in South San Francisco, would be approximately 83 dBA Leq.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-14. Noise from Potential Nighttime Concrete Pours (Lmax and Leq) Source Data:

Maximum
Sound Level
(dBA)
Utilization
Factor
Leq Sound
Level (dBA)
Construction Condition: Nighttime Concrete Pour
Source 1: Concrete mixer truck – sound level (dBA) at 50 feet =
79 60% 76.8
Source 2: Concrete pump truck No. 1 – sound level (dBA) at 50 feet =
81 60% 78.8
Source 3: Concrete pump truck No. 2 – sound level (dBA) at 50 feet =
81 60% 78.8
Calculated Data:

All Sources Combined – Lmax sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 85 Lmax All Sources Combined – Leq sound level (dBA) at 50 feet = 83 Leq Distance Between
Source and
Receiver (feet)
Geometric
Attenuation (dB)
Calculated
Lmax Sound
Level
(dBA)
Calculated
Leq Sound
Level (dBA)
50 0 85 83
100 -6 79 77
200 -12 73 71
250 -14 71 69
300 -16 70 67
400 -18 67 65
500 -20 65 63
600 -22 64 61
700 -23 62 60
Notes:
• Geometric attenuation based on 6 dB per doubling of distance. • This calculation does not include the effects, if any, of local shielding or ground attenuation from walls, topography, or other barriers that may reduce sound levels further.

Because construction noise may occur from project construction during the non-daytime hours of 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and during the daytime, but non-standard, hour of 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., noise from concrete pours and other noise-generating construction activities may be in excess of the applicable criteria for both the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and impacts would be considered significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which includes measures to reduce noise from construction activity during all hours, including non-daytime hours, would be implemented to reduce the project’s significant impact related to non-daytime construction noise. While this mitigation measure would reduce construction noise effects, it may not be possible to reduce noise levels during all nondaytime construction activities to less-than-significant levels. For example, locating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive uses and equipping equipment with mufflers and sound control devices would reduce noise, but may not reduce noise to below significance criteria. Mitigation City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Measure NOI-1b, which includes the installation of a temporary construction noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue for the majority of the construction period, would reduce construction noise effects to the nearby residences. However, in order for temporary noise barriers to be effective, they must block the full line-of-sight between the noise source and the receiver, which may not be feasible in all locations for all construction activities taking place before 8:00 a.m. due to the proximity between the source and the receiver. For example, the noise barrier would need to be removed during construction of sidewalk improvements and utility installation. In addition, installing a temporary construction noise barrier may not reduce noise from all activities to below significance criteria at the nearest receptors, even if noise is somewhat reduced. Therefore, even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: Construction Noise Control Plan to Reduce Noise Outside Standard Construction Hours in the City of South San Francisco (All Phases) The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans and/or the contractor(s) for Phase 1 and future Precise Plans shall obtain a permit to complete work outside the standard construction hours outlined in the South San Francisco and/or San Bruno Municipal Code for work within each respective jurisdiction. In addition, the applicant and/or contractor(s) shall develop a construction noise control plan to reduce noise levels and comply with municipal daytime and nighttime noise standards. Specifically, for noise generated in or experienced by receptors in South San Francisco, the plan shall demonstrate that noise from construction activities that occur daily between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. weekdays and on Saturday will comply with the applicable City of South San Francisco noise limit of 65 dBA at the nearest existing commercial land use and 60 dBA at the nearest multi-family residential land use, and construction activities that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will comply with the applicable City noise limit of 60 dBA at the nearest existing commercial land use and 55 dBA at the nearest multi-family residential land use. In addition, the plan shall demonstrate that noise generated in or experienced by receptors in San Bruno from construction activities that occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not exceed a noise level of 60 dBA, as measured at 100 feet. Measures to help reduce noise from construction activity during nonstandard construction hours to these levels shall be incorporated into this plan and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
⚫ Plan for the noisiest construction activities to occur during daytime hours in both jurisdictions when the quantitative standards are less stringent and when people are less sensitive to noise. ⚫ Require all construction equipment be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) that are in good condition (at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer) and appropriate for the equipment. ⚫ Maintain all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. ⚫ Locate construction equipment as far as feasible from adjacent or nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
⚫ Require all stationary equipment be located to maintain the greatest possible distance to the nearby existing buildings, where feasible.
⚫ Require stationary noise sources associated with construction (e.g., generators and compressors) in proximity to noise-sensitive land uses to be muffled and/or enclosed within City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
temporary enclosures and shielded by barriers, which can reduce construction noise by as much as 5 dB.
⚫ Install noise-reducing sound walls or fencing (e.g. temporary fencing with sound blankets) around noise-generating equipment during nighttime/non-standard daytime hours. ⚫ Prohibit the use of impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) during nighttime/non-standard daytime hours.
⚫ Prohibit idling of inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods during nighttime/nonstandard hours (i.e., more than 2 minutes). ⚫ Provide advance notification in the form of mailings/deliveries of notices to surrounding land uses regarding the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. ⚫ Provide the name and telephone number of an on-site construction liaison through on-site signage and on the notices mailed/delivered to surrounding land uses. If construction noise is found to be intrusive to the community (i.e., if complaints are received), the construction liaison shall take reasonable efforts to investigate the source of the noise and require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.
⚫ Use electric motors rather than gasoline- or diesel-powered engines to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools during nighttime hours. Where the use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust could be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by about 10 dB. External jackets on the tools themselves could be used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dB.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: Construction of Temporary Noise Barrier along Tanforan Avenue (Phase 1 Only)
The Phase 1 contractor(s) shall install a temporary noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue that abuts project construction activities, located within the direct line-of-sight path between the noise source and nearby sensitive receptor(s), in advance of project construction. The barrier shall be constructed of material that has a surface weight of at least 1 pound per square foot and has an acoustical rating of at least 25 STC (Sound Transmission Class). This can include a temporary barrier constructed with plywood supported on a wood frame, sound curtains supported on a frame, or other comparable material.

Construction Haul Truck Noise
As described previously, specific construction details for future development under the Specific Plan are not available at this time, including details about haul truck use and routes. However, information regarding the anticipated haul truck usage for Phase 1 has been provided by the Phase 1 applicant. Phase 1 construction would involve the most hauling of any Specific Plan construction phase.

Therefore, because construction impact determinations are based on reasonable worst-case construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses, Phase 1 construction activities are the focus of the project construction noise analysis. During the most hauling intensive subphases of Phase 1 construction, up to 192 round-trip haul truck trips per day, or 384 one-way trips per day, would occur.

The municipal codes of San Bruno and South San Francisco do not include specific thresholds pertaining to construction haul truck noise. Therefore, anticipated daily haul truck noise was City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
assessed to determine if a 3 dB increase over ambient noise levels, considered to be “barely perceptible,” would occur.

The temporary addition of up to 192 round trip, or 384 one-way, haul trucks per day on the local roadway network to access the freeways in proximity to the project site is analyzed to determine if hauling activity would result in substantial increases to the ambient noise levels. As discussed in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR, project trucks would primarily use the following haul routes:
(1) to/from I-380 via El Camino Real, South Spruce Avenue, Victory Avenue and South Maple Avenue, and (2) to/from U.S. 101 via South Airport Boulevard, San Mateo Avenue, and South Linden Avenue.

Although not planned for use, this analysis also looks at the potential for haul trucks to travel to/from I-280 via Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane. The haul routes would be the same for Phase 1 and future development phases of the Specific Plan. Note that no residential uses are located along the haul route to/from U.S. 101 described above. Therefore, haul truck noise modeling conducted for this analysis assumed all haul trucks would use the other routes described above to ensure a conservative assessment of haul truck noise on segments closer to noise-sensitive receptors.

According to the Phase 1 applicant, approximately 80 percent of truck trips would utilize I-380 via El Camino Real, South Spruce Avenue, Victory Avenue and South Maple Avenue and approximately 20 percent of truck trips would utilize another identified haul route. This analysis conservatively assumes that 100 percent of haul trucks would use each modeled haul route.

Average daily traffic noise levels with and without the addition of Phase 1 haul truck trips (e.g., an “existing plus project haul truck” condition) were modeled. The analysis assumed a total of 384 oneway truck trips per day would travel along all analyzed haul routes. Table 4.11-16, below, shows estimated worst-case Specific Plan traffic noise levels along analyzed roadway segments under existing conditions and under “existing plus project haul truck” conditions based on the conservative assumptions described above (noting that Phase 1 is the most hauling-intensive phase of the Specific Plan).

Table 4.11-15. Existing and Existing plus Haul Truck Noise Levels along Segments near Residential Uses
Roadway Segment
Existing
Noise
Level
(dBA Ldn)
Phase 1
Haul
Truck
Noise Only
(dBA Ldn)
Existing
plus Phase 1
Haul Truck
Noise Level
(dBA Ldn)
Phase 1 Haul
Truck–
Related
Increase
(dB)
El Camino Real Between Sneath Lane and I380 Ramps65.9 54.5 66.2 0.3 El Camino Real South of South Spruce
Avenue

67.2 56.4 67.5 0.3
South Spruce
Avenue
East of El Camino Real 64.6 56.9 65.3 0.7
Sneath Lane Between Huntington
Avenue and El Camino Real

59.5 55.2 60.9 1.4
Sneath Lane Between I-280 and Cherry
Avenue

61.1 54.1 61.9 0.8
Notes:

Only segments with sensitive (e.g., residential uses) were modeled.

Conservatively assumes all 384 daily haul trucks would use all routes City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Estimated noise level from existing conditions and existing conditions with haul truck activity at a distance of 120 feet for all segments, because that is the closest distance between any roadway segment and residential/sensitive land uses (e.g., it is 120 feet to nearest residences from roadway centerline of Sneath Lane, west of Cherry Avenue).

As shown in Table 4.11-16, p. 4.11-38, increases in traffic noise from haul truck activity along routes with sensitive uses would be in the range of 0.3 to 1.4 dB for Phase 1 assuming all haul trucks would use all analyzed routes. Therefore, a less than a 3 dB increase in traffic noise levels would occur along all analyzed routes. Note that a change of 3 dB is considered barely noticeable. During most subphases of Phase 1 and overall Specific Plan construction, there would be fewer daily haul truck trips than presented in this analysis. In addition, it is unlikely that 100 percent of haul trucks would use any single route. Therefore, this analysis represents a reasonable worst-case condition for haul truck noise effects.

Potential temporary noise increases from haul trucks along the project haul route near residences would result in a less-than-significant impact related to a substantial temporary increase in noise during Specific Plan construction. Therefore, temporary noise impacts related to project haul truck use would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Phase 1
Daytime Construction
As previously stated, estimated daytime construction noise from Phase 1 is analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 includes the closest daytime construction activities to off-site noisesensitive land uses. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, daytime construction noise impacts for the Phase 1 development would be less than significant.

Construction Outside Daytime Hours
As previously stated, estimated non-daytime construction noise from Phase 1 is analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 includes the closest non-daytime construction activities to off-site noise-sensitive land uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, described previously, which includes measures to reduce noise from construction activity during non-standard construction hours, would be implemented to reduce this potentially significant impact related to construction noise outside daytime hours to a less-than-significant level to the extent feasible. In addition, Mitigation Measure NOI-1b requires the construction of a temporary noise barrier along the southern perimeter of the project site, which would reduce noise effects to residences south of Tanforan Avenue.

However, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b, which would be required for Phase 1, this impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Construction Haul Truck Noise
As previously stated, estimated construction haul truck noise from Phase 1 is analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 would be the most hauling-intensive phase of construction. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, construction haul truck noise impacts for Phase 1 would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact NOI-1b: Project operation would not generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Project: Less than Significant with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Project
The project would introduce new operational noise sources. Typical operational noise sources evaluated below include project-generated traffic; heating, cooling and ventilation equipment; emergency generator testing; loading dock activity; vehicle activity in Parking Structure C (noise from subterranean parking garages located in other areas of the Specific Plan would not result in meaningful noise increases above ground); and human activity in outdoor gathering areas. Noise from landscape maintenance is not evaluated since landscape maintenance activities are allowed during daytime hours without specific numeric noise restrictions in the City of South San Francisco, and the project does not propose landscaping activities outside of daytime hours.

Traffic
As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would lead to an increase in traffic in the vicinity of the project site, distributed broadly across the existing circulation network as modified and expanded by the project.

Quantitative modeling of traffic noise increases resulting from project implementation was conducted using a spreadsheet that was based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5.

The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.11-17, p. 4.11-40, which shows that the project-related noise changes on roadway segments in the project site vicinity would range from +0.2 to +3.0 dB, with the exception of Tanforan Avenue between Huntington Avenue and Dollar Avenue, which would experience a decrease of -4.5 dB due to the reconfiguration of Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac resulting in reduced through-traffic in that location. Note that the applicable land use noise compatibility standard was used for each roadway segment, based on the jurisdiction in which it is located (i.e., South San Francisco or San Bruno). As shown in Table 4.11-17, projectrelated traffic noise would not result in a 5 dB or greater increase in areas where future noise levels are within the normally acceptable range for the types of land uses present and would not result in a 3 dB or greater increase in areas where future noise levels are above the normally acceptable range for the types of land uses present. Project-related traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-16. Modeled Traffic Noise Impacts on Existing Land Uses Roadway Segment
2040
Without
Project
(dB Ldn)
2040
With
Project
(dB Ldn)
ProjectRelated
Increase
(dB)
Most
Sensitive
Adjacent
Land Use
Type
City in
Which
Segment
Is Located
Applicable
Compatibility
Standard
Exceeds
Compatibility
Standard?
Allowable
Increase
Exceeds
Allowable
Increase?
Sneath Lane Between I-280 and Cherry
Avenue

67.3 67.7 0.4 MFR SB 65 Yes 3 No
Sneath Lane Between Cherry Avenue
and El Camino Real

70.0 70.7 0.7 C/O/I SB 70 Yes 3 No
El Camino Real Between Sneath Lane and
I-380

71.9 72.2 0.3 C/O/I SB 70 Yes 3 No
El Camino Real Between I-380 on-/offramps72.3 72.6 0.3 NA SB NA NA NA NA Sneath Lane Between El Camino Real
and Huntington Avenue

65.4 67.1 1.7 C/O/I SB 70 No 5 No
Huntington
Avenue
Between San Bruno Ave
and Forest Lane

64.7 65.1 0.5 SFR SB 60 Yes 3 No
Huntington
Avenue
Between Forest Lane/
Herman Street and Sneath
Lane

64.4 64.8 0.4 SFR SB 60 Yes 3 No
Tanforan
Avenue
Huntington Avenue and
Dollar Avenue

59.8 55.4 -4.5 SFR SB 60 No 5 No
Dollar Avenue/
Herman Street
Between Tanforan Avenue
and Scott Street

62.1 62.3 0.2 SFR SB 60 Yes 3 No
San Mateo
Avenue
Between South Linden and
South Airport Boulevard

67.9 68.7 0.8 C/O/I SSF 70 No 5 No
South Linden
Avenue
Between Grand Avenue and
San Mateo Avenue

67.6 69.1 1.5 SFR SSF 65 Yes 3 No
South Linden
Avenue
Between Dollar Avenue
and San Mateo Avenue

61.8 64.7 2.9 C/O/I SSF 70 No 5 No
South Maple
Avenue
Tanforan Avenue and
Victory Avenue

61.7 64.6 3.0 C/O/I BOTH 70 No 5 No
Source: Traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. Modeling conducted using a spreadsheet that was based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5, at a fixed distance of 33 feet from the roadway centerline.

NA: Not applicable because the area between the I-380 ramps is undeveloped.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Equipment
The heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment for future phases under the Specific Plan (not including Phase 1) have not been selected at this time. In general, air handling units and standard heating and cooling package units can produce sound levels in the range of about 70 to 75 dBA at 50 feet, depending on the size of the unit.17 With regard to cooling towers, a typical 100-horsepower propeller-driven cooling tower generates a noise level of approximately 74 dBA at 50 feet. Depending on cooling capacity, a chiller generates a sound power level of 97 to 103 dBA, which equates to a noise level of 65 to 71 dBA at 50 feet.18 A typical boiler generates a sound power level in the range of 96 to 99 dBA,
19 which equates to a noise level of 64 to 67 dBA at 50 feet. Pumps generate noise levels at 50 feet of approximately 81 dBA, and exhaust/ventilation fans generate noise levels at 50 feet of approximately 79 dBA.20
Although the heating and cooling equipment for future phase development has not been selected at this time, general details about the heating and cooling equipment for Phase 1 are known. Because the Phase 1 site is the portion of the Specific Plan area closest to residential or sensitive land uses, and because overall noise levels are typically dominated by the loudest and closest sources (noting that noise from heating and cooling equipment on further away buildings would be attenuated by shielding from intervening buildings), this analysis focuses on potential noise effects from the Phase 1 heating and cooling systems.

Phase 1 heating and cooling equipment would include one chilled water plant per building, which would be located in a rooftop penthouse. The plant would consist of centrifugal chillers and pumps.

Boilers would also be included in the heating and cooling system and located within an interior plant room. Cooling towers, along with fan array-style air handling units with supply and return fans, would be located outside the chiller plant within architectural screened enclosures. For Phase 1, this equipment would specifically be shielded on the roof by walls that would be at least as high as the equipment. Note that no heating, cooling, or similar equipment will be installed within the offsite improvement areas constructed during Phase 1 or later phases.

To not exceed applicable thresholds in San Bruno, mechanical equipment must not result in noise levels of 10 dB above ambient at the nearest property plane of a sensitive use. The ambient noise level along Tanforan Avenue can conservatively be estimated, based on traffic noise modeling results for this segment. This provides a conservative estimate of ambient noise because it would account for only traffic noise along this segment and would not include traffic noise generated by nearby roadways or other noise sources, such as aircraft overflights. Utilizing a lower ambient base level allows for a smaller increase in ambient noise attributable to the project (e.g., offers a conservative assessment). The existing 24-hour Ldn noise level along Tanforan Avenue was estimated to be 58.6 dBA Ldn, based on traffic alone. The 1-hour average peak-hour Leq was estimated to be 58.2 dBA Leq, based on peak-hour vehicle trips along this segment.

The nearest off-site sensitive land uses to the project site are the residences along Tanforan Avenue south of the project site. The nearest project buildings would be, at a minimum, approximately 17 Hoover and Keith. 2000. Noise Control for Buildings, Manufacturing Plants, Equipment, and Products. Houston, TX.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User Guide.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
100 feet from these residences. Without accounting for building height, and assuming rooftop equipment could be approximately 100 feet from residential receptors, combined noise levels from the proposed heating and cooling equipment were estimated.

Although exact numbers, makes, models, and sizes for the proposed mechanical heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment are not known at this time, an example case of reasonably foreseeable combined noise levels was modeled, based on the types of equipment proposed for Phase 1 of the project. Note that the Phase 1 portion of the Specific Plan area is the closest portion of the project site to off-site sensitive uses, so the reasonable worst-case analysis of HVAC noise focuses on equipment located on Phase 1 buildings. Combined noise levels from two boilers, two chillers, and two pumps in a mechanical equipment room; two cooling towers and two air handling units located behind solid screens; and two exhaust fans not located in an equipment room or behind screens were estimated. Because the exact locations of equipment on the rooftop are not known, this analysis conservatively assumes that all pieces of equipment would be located relatively close to one another in order to estimate reasonably conservative combined noise levels. The estimated combined noise level, which takes into consideration a standard 10-dB reduction for equipment located in the plant room and a 5-dB reduction for equipment located behind solid screens, was approximately 83.5 dBA Leq at a standard distance of 50 feet. At a distance of 100 feet, the distance to the nearest residential receptors south of the project site, and without accounting for the height difference between the rooftop equipment and the nearest residences, noise would be approximately 6 dB lower, or 77.5 dBA. Refer to Table 4.11-18 for the estimated noise levels of the heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment to be utilized for each Phase 1 building.

Table 4.11-17. Estimated Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Equipment Noise Type of
Equipment
dBA Leq
Noise at
50 Feet
(assuming
100%
utilization)
Located in a
Room, Behind
a Screen, or
Open Air?
Attenuation
Based on
Equipment
Location (dB)
Attenuated
Noise by
Equipment
Type (dBA)
Source for
Estimated
Equipment
Noise
Boiler 67 Room 10 57 H&K
Boiler 67 Room 10 57 H&K
Chiller 71 Room 10 61 H&K
Chiller 71 Room 10 61 H&K
Pump 81 Room 10 71 FHWA
Pump 81 Room 10 71 FHWA
Cooling tower 74 Screen 5 69 H&K
Cooling tower 74 Screen 5 69 H&K
Heating/ cooling 75 Screen 5 70 H&K
Heating/ cooling 75 Screen 5 70 H&K
Exhaust fan 79 NA 0 79 FHWA
Exhaust fan 79 NA 0 79 FHWA
Combined Equipment Noise at 50 feet 83.5
Combined Equipment Noise at 100 feet 77.5
Combined Equipment Noise at 700 feet 60.6
Source: Hoover and Keith, 2000; FHWA 2006.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As previously stated, the focus of the analysis is on the buildings located closest to off-site residences (e.g., Phase 1 buildings) to ensure the estimated noise levels presented in this assessment are reasonably conservative. Noise levels from project equipment located on buildings further away from the nearest sensitive receptors would be lower due to distance and shielding.

Based on the estimated ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site, with a peak-hour Leq noise level of approximately 58.2 dBA Leq, noise from heating and cooling equipment may result in a 10 dB or greater increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, noise from heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment for development under the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, which would be the closest portion of the project site to residences in San Bruno, would be expected to exceed City of San Bruno Noise Ordinance limits for mechanical equipment. Thus, impacts from heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment would be considered significant in San Bruno.

In addition to the residential uses located south of the project site in San Bruno, noise generated at the property planes for commercial and office uses located near the project site within the city of South San Francisco are governed by municipal code noise thresholds of 65 dBA during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 60 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for these types of operational noise sources. Noise generated at the property planes for multi-family residential land uses within the City of South San Francisco (e.g., the approved 410 Noor Avenue Project) are governed by municipal code noise thresholds of 60 dBA during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 55 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. for these types of operational noise sources. The nearest off-site commercial uses to project buildings are the commercial and office buildings near the southeast corner of the project site, a distance of approximately 40 feet from the nearest Phase 1 building. Based on the reasonably foreseeable example scenario of estimated noise levels for proposed heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment provided above, rooftop mechanical equipment noise would be approximately 85.4 dBA Leq at the buildings. Therefore, noise from heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment at the Specific Plan area at Specific Plan buildout may exceed the daytime and nighttime thresholds outlined in the South San Francisco Municipal Code at nearby buildings within South San Francisco. In addition, at a distance of 700 feet (the distance to the 410 Noor Avenue project site), noise from this equipment could be up to 60.6 dBA, without accounting for shielding. Note that the 410 Noor Avenue project included a condition of approval (COA) requiring measures (e.g. windows and exterior doors with certain STC ratings, the provision of mechanical ventilation, etc.) such that interior noise would be within allowable levels. However, the City of South San Francisco threshold is a property plane threshold as opposed to an interior noise standard, so potential effects to this use are still considered. Because unshielded noise from this equipment could exceed the 55 dBA nighttime criteria and the 60 dBA daytime criteria, noise impacts from mechanical equipment to the multi-family uses in South San Francisco (e.g., 410 Noor Avenue) may also be significant. As is the case for mechanical equipment noise impacts in San Bruno, impacts from mechanical equipment noise in South San Francisco would also be considered significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1c would reduce this potentially significant impact related to heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment noise to a less-than-significant level in both San Bruno and South San Francisco by ensuring that project mechanical equipment would not result in noise levels that would be in excess of the applicable criteria. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-42 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: Mechanical Equipment Noise Reduction Plan (All Phases) To reduce potential noise impacts resulting from project heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels of project-specific mechanical equipment based on the selected equipment models and design features, and create a Noise Reduction Plan to ensure noise levels of equipment, once installed, are below the applicable criteria described below.

The Noise Reduction Plan shall include any necessary noise reduction measures required to reduce project-specific mechanical equipment noise to a less-than-significant level. The plan shall also demonstrate that with the inclusion of selected measures, noise from equipment would be below the significance thresholds. Feasible noise reduction measures to reduce noise below the significance threshold include, but are not limited to, selecting quieter equipment, utilizing silencers and acoustical equipment at vent openings, siting equipment farther from the roofline, and/or enclosing all equipment in a mechanical equipment room designed to reduce noise. This analysis shall be conducted and the results and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase.

The noise analysis and Noise Reduction Plan shall be prepared by persons qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering. The Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that noise from mechanical equipment selected for the project, including the attenuation features incorporated into the project design, will not exceed the City of South San Francisco property plane threshold of 60 dBA during daytime hours or 55 dBA during nighttime hours for nearby multi-family residential uses, 65 dBA during daytime hours or 60 dBA during nighttime hours for nearby commercial uses, or the City of San Bruno threshold of 10 dB above the ambient noise level at the property plane.

The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall incorporate all feasible methods to reduce noise identified above and any other feasible recommendations from the acoustical analysis and Noise Reduction Plan into the building design and operations as necessary to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the respective noise ordinances at receiving properties.

Emergency Generator Testing
With regard to emergency generators, emergency generators included in the project could result in the generation of audible noise during testing. Noise from the operation of emergency generators during an emergency is typically exempt from local ordinances. However, even though the testing of emergency generators is typically a short-term (i.e., less than 1 hour) and intermittent process (usually once or twice per month), noise resulting from generator testing must comply with local noise limits for operational and equipment noise. Testing is typically conducted on a monthly or biweekly basis for periods of 15 to 30 minutes, depending on the project. For Phase 1, generators would be tested one per month for an estimated 30 minutes. It is assumed that generator testing for the Specific Plan would similarly occur once per month for an estimated 30 minutes.

Noise from emergency generator testing would be subject to the requirements of the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno regarding mechanical equipment. Should emergency generator testing result in noise levels that are 10 dB or greater than ambient noise levels, impacts in San Bruno would be considered significant. Should emergency generator testing result in noise levels greater than the allowable levels described in Section 8.32.030 of the City of South San Francisco Noise City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-43 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Ordinance, impacts in South San Francisco would be considered significant. In South San Francisco, the maximum allowable level for land uses near the project site is 65 dBA for commercial uses and 70 dBA for light industrial uses. Noise generated during nighttime hours (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) is limited to 60 dBA for commercial uses and 70 dBA for light industrial uses.

Specific details regarding the emergency generators proposed for future development under the Specific Plan, other than Phase 1, are not known at this time. However, it is likely that future generators would be similar to those proposed as part of Phase 1. Phase 1 would include up to five emergency generators (one or two per building), with three installed as a part of the project and up to two installed for tenant use, depending on the tenants of the Phase 1 buildings. Specifically, Phase 1 would include two 1,250 kW Cummins generators (one for Building 1 and one for Building 7) and one 500 kW Cummins generator (for Building 2), with the potential for two additional 1,250 kW generators to be installed (one each in Buildings 1 and 7), based on the Phase 1 tenants.

The Cummins 1,250 kW generator model (DQGAE) that may be installed under Phase 1 generates an estimated unattenuated noise level of up to 103 dBA at 50 feet (combined exhaust and engine noise), without accounting for attenuation from mufflers or weather and/or sound enclosures.21 The 500 kW generator model (QSX15 series) that may be installed under Phase 1 generates an estimated unattenuated noise level of up to 89 dBA at 7 meters, which equates to approximately 82 dB at 50 feet without accounting for attenuation from mufflers or weather and/or sound enclosures.22 For Phase 1, generators are proposed to be installed inside sound enclosures. As an example, the QuietSite Level 2 sound enclosure would reduce 500 kW generator noise from 89 dBA at 7 meters to 73 dBA at the same distance.23 Therefore, actual sound levels during emergency testing may be lower than the generator noise levels cited above. In addition, some additional noise attenuation could be achieved through the inclusion of exhaust mufflers or shielding. According to the Specific Plan design guidelines, all emergency generators would be required to be shielded. However, specific details about generator shielding and attenuation features for future generators under the future phases of the Specific Plan are not known at this time. To result in meaningful attenuation from shielding, all walls or screens must be solid with no holes or gaps. Attenuation also varies based on the type of material used for the walls or screens. At this time, and since the type and sound rating of future shielding is unknown, this analysis is conservatively based on unattenuated noise levels.

The nearest sensitive uses in San Bruno to the Specific Plan area are located at least 100 feet from any proposed buildings, south of the project site. The equipment yard for the proposed 500 kW Building 2 generator is approximately 100 feet from the nearest residence. However, most of the generators for Phase 1 would not be located this close to the residences along Tanforan Avenue. The generator yard for Building 1 would be located at the northwest corner of the building, more than 330 feet north of the nearest residence along Tanforan Avenue. The generator yard for Building 7 would be located near the southeast corner of the building, more than 370 feet from the nearest residence along Tanforan Avenue.
21 Cummins, Inc. 2017. Cummins Power Generation, Sound Data, 1,250 DQGAE. August. Available:
https://powersuite.cummins.com/en. Accessed: October 2, 2020. 22 Cummins, Inc. 2015. Cummins Power Generation, Diesel Generator Set, QSX15 Series Engine, 450 kW–500 kW, Standby.
23 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-44 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
At a distance of 100 feet, noise from the testing of the 500 kW Building 2 emergency generator would be in the range of 76 dBA without accounting for attenuation. At a distance of 330 feet, noise from testing of the 1,250 kW Building 1 generator would be approximately 87 dBA. At a distance of 370 feet, noise from testing of the 1,250 kW Building 7 generator would be in the range of 86 dBA.

Because the estimated ambient noise level, based on traffic noise modeling, along Tanforan Avenue during the average peak hour would be approximately 58 dBA Leq, with off-peak hours most likely lower, noise from generator testing in the range of 76 to 87 dBA could temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity by more than 10 dB. Generators for other phases of the project would be farther from residences but still may increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity along Tanforan Avenue by more than 10 dB. Therefore, at Specific Plan buildout, noise impacts from generator testing would be potentially significant under San Bruno regulations.

In addition to the noise ordinance limits in San Bruno, noise from generator testing must comply with the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance limits for operational noise sources. The most sensitive nearby buildings to the project site in South San Francisco are zoned as commercial uses.

During daytime hours, noise at this type of use from operational sources would be limited to 65 dBA.

During nighttime hours, noise would be limited to 60 dBA. The nearest residential land use in South San Francisco is the approved 410 Noor Avenue project (located approximately 700 feet from the project site), which would include multi-family residential units. During daytime hours, noise at this type of use from operational sources would be limited to 60 dBA. During nighttime hours, noise would be limited to 55 dBA.

The nearest off-site use in South San Francisco to the Phase 1 site is a commercial office building located east of the Specific Plan area, though other off-site buildings are located relatively near proposed development areas for the rest of the Specific Plan area. The building located near the southeast corner of the Phase 1 site is located an estimated 130 feet from the proposed generator yard for Building 7. This generator yard is expected to house one or two generators up to 1,250 kW.