At a distance of 130 feet, noise from the testing of a single generator would be in the range of 95 dBA, without accounting for attenuation from mufflers, shielding, or generator housings that may be installed. In addition, should a generator be sited near the northwest corner of the project site, it could be as close as 700 feet from the multi-family residential uses planned at the 410 Noor Avenue project. At a distance of 700 feet, generator noise from a 1,250-kW generator could be in the range of approximately 80 dBA, based on the assumptions described above. Although it is proposed that all Phase 1 generators would be located in weatherproof acoustic enclosures (and future project generators would likely also include such design features), potential mufflers have not been selected, and the precise attenuation that could be attributed to these enclosures is not known at this time. Therefore, while actual sound levels during emergency testing may be lower than the generator noise levels cited here, for the purpose of this analysis, noise from emergency generator testing (i.e., in the range of up to 95 dBA at the nearest building to the Phase 1 site, or in the range of 80 dBA at the nearest residential use in South San Francisco) is assumed to be potentially significant in South San Francisco.
Therefore, even though the testing of emergency generators would be short in duration (i.e., 30 minutes per occurrence) and intermittent (i.e., approximately once per month), noise from the testing of emergency generators under the project would be considered potentially significant in both San Bruno and South San Francisco.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1d would reduce this potentially significant impact related to emergency generator testing noise to a less-than-significant level in both San Bruno and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-45 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
South San Francisco and ensure that emergency generator testing noise would not result in noise levels in excess of the applicable criteria by requiring preparation of an emergency noise generation study. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1d: Emergency Generator Noise Reduction Plan (All Phases) Prior to approval of a building permit for any proposed development under the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels from the testing of project-specific emergency generators, and create a Noise Reduction Plan to ensure noise levels of generator testing are below the applicable criteria This analysis and Noise Reduction Plan may be incorporated together with the analysis described in MM-NOI-1c. This analysis shall be conducted and the Noise Reduction Plan shall be created based on the analysis results. The results, methods, and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase. The analysis shall account for proposed noise attenuation features, such as specific acoustical enclosures and mufflers or silences, and the final Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that proposed generator(s) will not exceed the City of South San Francisco property plane threshold of 60 dBA for residential uses and 65 dBA for commercial uses during daytime hours, or 55 dBA for residential uses and 60 dBA for commercial uses during nighttime hours, and the City of San Bruno threshold of 10 dB above the ambient noise level. Acoustical treatments may include, but are not limited to:
⚫ Enclosing generator(s);
⚫ Installing relatively quiet model generator(s);
⚫ Orienting or shielding generator(s) to protect noise-sensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible;
⚫ Installing exhaust mufflers or silencers;
⚫ Increasing the distance between generator(s) and noise-sensitive receptors; and/or ⚫ Placing barriers around generator(s) to facilitate the attenuation of noise.
In addition, all project generator(s) shall be tested only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall incorporate all recommendations from the acoustical analysis into the building design and operations to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the noise ordinance.
Loading Dock Activity
The analysis of loading dock noise during project operations is based on the expected number of daily loading activities at loading docks near residential uses and the potential for loading activity noise to result in substantial noise increases in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. Although the amount of loading activity expected to occur under the future Specific Plan phases is not known at this time, general assumptions about the amount of loading expected at Phase 1 can be made, based on Phase 1 daily trip generation information and the expected vehicle mix (e.g., percentage of heavy trucks vs. personal vehicles). The Phase 1 loading docks are much closer to nearby residential land uses than the loading docks for later phases of Specific Plan development, with all loading docks for other Specific Plan buildings located north of the future Southline Avenue. The nearest sensitive City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-46 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
receptor to the Building 1 loading dock (a residence to the south along Tanforan Avenue), is located more than 250 feet from the loading dock, and the nearest sensitive receptor to the Building 7 loading dock (another residence to the south along Tanforan Avenue) is more than 370 feet south of that loading dock. Residences would be located further from other Specific Plan loading docks than these distances. Therefore, noise from Phase 1 loading docks would have a greater potential to affect nearby sensitive uses than loading docks for any other phase of Specific Plan development. Noise at these loading docks is analyzed to provide a reasonable worst-case analysis of Specific Plan loading noise.
Based on trip generation and vehicle mix data, it is assumed that up to 12 heavy trucks per day would utilize the Phase 1 loading bays for loading/unloading activities on a given day during project operations. It is then assumed that one-third of these 12 trips would access the loading bays for each building. Because the loading dock for Building 1 would also serve Building 2, there would be an estimated eight heavy-truck loading/unloading activities per day at the loading dock for Building 1 and four heavy-truck loading/unloading activities per day at the loading dock for Building 7.
Although medium-size trucks (FedEx, UPS, USPS, and other local carriers) may also access the site, the delivery of packages does not generally involve long-term or highly noisy unloading activities. In addition, at the project site, these types of trucks would use curb-side or temporary loading areas during business hours, with short-duration stops.
As stated above, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Building 1 loading dock is located more than 250 feet from the loading dock, and the nearest sensitive receptor to the Building 7 loading dock is more than 370 feet south of that loading dock. An existing building is located between the loading dock for Building 7 and the nearest residences; therefore, noise attenuation would result from this shielding. In addition, intervening project buildings between most residences and the Building 1 loading dock would shield most residences from loading noise generated at this dock. Although there may be a direct line of sight between some nearby residences and some loading dock areas, the temporary loading and unloading activities at the Phase 1 buildings (up to 12 heavy trucks per day) would typically be short term and intermittent throughout the day, occurring only during daytime hours when people are less sensitive to noise. In addition, loading and unloading activities already occur at the existing office and commercial uses on the site; therefore, project implementation would not result in a large-scale increase in this activity at the site. For these reasons, temporary and short-term increases in noise from project loading activity would not be considered substantial. Impacts related to loading dock noise from the Specific Plan, noting that Phase 1 loading docks would be closest to sensitive uses, would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Parking Garage Activity
Parking Structure C, which would be partially constructed during Phase 1 and fully constructed during future project phases, would be located in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area.
Access to Parking Structure C would be provided by South Linden Avenue. Upon full buildout of the parking structure, project increases to the average peak hour volume along this segment of South Linden Avenue are estimated to be approximately 450 vehicles based on data provided by the project traffic engineer (included in Appendix 4.11-1 of this EIR).
Traffic-related noise associated with Project Structure C is estimated assuming a maximum of 450 vehicles per hour would enter or exit the parking structure (i.e., both inbound and outbound trips).
The nearest noise-sensitive land uses are the Sonesta ES Suites San Francisco Airport San Bruno, City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-47 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
located approximately 750 feet west of the approximate center of the parking structure, and the residences to the south of the project site, located approximately 950 south of the approximate center of the parking structure. There is also a commercial structure located directly north of the parking structure, approximately 100 feet from the center of the structure. Distances to the center of the parking structure are used because it represents the average location of all vehicles circulating in and out of the structure at any given time.
According to FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 24 1,000 cars in a peak
activity hour would generate a sound equivalent level (SEL) of 92 dBA at 50 feet. This value was converted to an hourly Leq (average) noise level and used to calculate the Leq noise level of a maximum of 450 vehicles per hour using the parking garage. At a distance of 50 feet, 450 vehicles using the garage per hour (conservatively assuming all vehicles were located close to one another within the multi-story structure) would result in an hourly Leq noise level of 53 dBA Leq. At a distance of 100 feet, the distance to the nearest commercial building from the approximate center of the structure, this would be reduced to 47 dBA Leq. At a distance of 750 feet, the distance to the nearby hotel building from the approximate center of the structure, this would be reduced to 29 dBA Leq without accounting for shielding from intervening buildings (which would further reduce noise).
At a distance of 950 feet, the distance to the nearest residences from the approximate center of the structure, this would be reduced to 27 dBA Leq without accounting for shielding from intervening buildings.
These noise levels are well below all estimated existing ambient noise levels in the project area, as shown in Table 4.11-6, p. 4.11-10. For example, the existing ambient noise along Huntington Avenue south of Sneath Lane (estimated from traffic noise levels) was approximately 64 dBA Ldn and along Dollar Avenue near Tanforan Avenue was estimated from traffic volumes to be approximately
60.8 Ldn. Existing ambient noise along Tanforan Avenue was estimated to be 58.6 Ldn. Parking lot noise in this area from Parking Structure C activity would be more than 30 dB below the estimated existing ambient noise levels. Noise from parking structure activity would also be further reduced somewhat by the design features of the structure itself, and by intervening buildings.
Because parking structure noise would not be expected to perceptibly increase ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors, noise increases in the project vicinity from parking garage activity would not be considered substantial. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Outdoor Gathering Areas
Southline Commons
As shown in Figure 3-24 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR, an approximately 1.5-acre open space, referred to as Southline Commons, would be developed in the center of the Specific Plan area north of the new Southline Avenue. Development of Southline Commons is anticipated to occur during future phases of development within the Specific Plan area. This area would serve as a public central gathering space within the Specific Plan area and would provide passive and active open space that would serve as an exterior amenity for campus tenants. While the specific design of the Southline Commons is not yet known, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that this area 24 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 4.11-48 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
would include certain programming, including: two lounge areas totaling 2,750 square feet; a 7,050- square-foot dining area; and two activity/recreation areas that would total approximately 3,000 square feet. The lounge and dining areas would include seating areas, while the activity/recreation areas would include recreational activities such as a bocce ball court, ping pong table, and cornhole.
In total, this outdoor area would have an estimated capacity for approximately 320 people according to the project applicant.
Operation of the project could involve formal events with amplified music held at Southline Commons. Such events would be required to comply with Section 8.32.070 Amplified Sound, of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Specifically, Section 8.32.070 provides that “it is unlawful for any person, other than personnel of law enforcement or governmental agencies, to install, use or operate within the city a loudspeaker or sound-amplifying… without first having obtained a permit from the chief of police.” All future events would be required to obtain such a permit and must comply with the stipulations of those permits related to maximum sound levels. Because any events with amplified music or speech would comply with the requirements of the applicable permit, noise from such events would comply with local regulations. Impacts from amplified music or speech at events would be less than significant.
With regard to noise from persons conversing and recreating at outdoor dining areas or walkways, noise from a person talking normally is in the range of 57 dBA at a distance of 1 meter, which equates to approximately 33 dBA at 50 feet.25 Conservatively assuming that 320 persons were socializing in the Southline Commons at a given time (the full capacity of the space), located close to one another, and assuming about half of them were talking at a given moment, combined noise from people’s voices would be approximately 55.4 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. At greater distances, noise would be further reduced. In addition, because Southline Commons is located in the central portion of the Specific Plan area, noise from activities in this area would be substantially reduced at the nearest residential receptors due to the line of sight being blocked by Specific Plan buildings and noise attenuated accordingly. Therefore, noise from outdoor activities in this area would not result in significant noise impacts to nearby sensitive uses.
Southline Retail Plaza
As shown in Figure 3-24 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR, the project includes groundfloor public dining and gathering area located immediately adjacent to the north and west portion of the amenities building (Building 2), referred to as the Southline Retail Plaza, which will be developed during Phase 1. The Southline Retail Plaza would be designed to complement and support the adjacent ground floor retail, and is envisioned to include features such as outdoor dining areas, terraced seating and landscaping to serve as both a both buffer and transition to adjacent street edge. The Southline Retail Plaza is located approximately 100 feet from the closest off-site residential uses south of Tanforan Avenue.
The expected capacity for the Southline Retail Plaza would be approximately 130 people. Assuming half of these people were talking at a normal level and all persons were located close to one another, noise at a distance of 50 feet would be approximately 51.4 dBA. The line of sight between the nearest residences (south of Tanforan Avenue) and most of this area would be fully blocked by Building 2. However, the westernmost portion of the gathering area may have a direct line of sight to the residences located about 100 feet to the south. At a distance of 100 feet, and assuming half of the 25 Harris, Cyril M. 1979. Handbook of Noise Control, Second Edition. Page 14-2.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-49 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
people in this area were located in the portion of the space that has a direct line of sight to these residences (e.g., 64 persons, with half talking at a given moment), noise levels would be up to 42.4 dBA. With existing ambient noise along Huntington Avenue south of Sneath Lane (estimated from traffic noise levels) of approximately 64 dBA Ldn. Traffic noise would mask human-generated noise from the Southline Retail Plaza. Therefore, noise from persons conversing in this area would not be expected to result in perceptible ambient noise levels increases at nearby uses.
Amenity Building Terrace
The third story of the amenities building (Building 2) includes an outdoor terrace area located on the northern portion of the building facing towards the Specific Plan area. The outdoor terrace is intended for private uses, and would not be open to the public. The total capacity of the outdoor terrace is 236 persons. However, the line of sight between the outdoor terrace area and the nearest residences would be blocked by the building itself, substantially reducing the already low noise levels. Also, due to the elevation of the terrace (which provides additional noise attenuation), the distance between the nearest residences and the terrace would be greater than the distance between the residences and the ground floor dining and gathering area (100 feet). Therefore, noise from this area would also not result in perceptible increases to the ambient noise level at nearby residences.
Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet
Buildings on the north side of Tanforan Avenue will be set back by approximately 40 feet to allow for a publicly accessible landscaped parklet referred to as the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, shown in Figure 3-24 in Chapter 2, Project Description, of this EIR. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet is intended to provide an outdoor amenity area for Southline employees and surrounding community members (including residents and employees), and to create a transition between the Specific Plan area and the residential neighborhood to the south. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet is anticipated to be constructed as part of Phase 1 development. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet would be an area for passive recreation during daytime hours, with an estimated capacity of up to 75 persons. Noise anticipated within this area would be from persons conversing and recreating. Assuming about half of the persons in the park were talking at a given moment, and half capacity of the parklet was located near one another at a given time (e.g., one quarter of the 75 person capacity talking at once in a given area), combined noise at a distance of 50 feet could conservatively be estimated to be up to 46.1 dBA. As described above, traffic noise in this area is greater than this level, with a modeled existing traffic noise level along Huntington Avenue south of Sneath Lane of 63.6 dBA Ldn and along Tanforan Avenue south of the project site of 58.6 dBA Ldn. Therefore, noise from this area would also not result in perceptible increases to the ambient noise level at nearby residences.
Outdoor Gathering Noise Summary
Overall, the primary source of noise within the various project outdoor gathering spaces is from people talking within those spaces. As described above, noise from talking and conversation within the outdoor gathering spaces would not be expected to result in substantial temporary or permanent increases in noise levels in the project vicinity, as this noise would be localized within particular areas of the Specific Plan and exceeded by other higher dB ambient noises. In addition, and although events would not be expected to be common or regular occurrences, should the applicants of future Precise Plans propose any formal events with amplified music or speech in City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-50 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Southline Commons, a permit would be required, and the event would need comply with local noise regulations per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Therefore, operational noise impacts associated with Specific Plan outdoor use areas (inclusive of Phase 1 areas) would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Phase 1
Traffic
Traffic generated by Phase 1 would be less than the overall traffic generated by buildout of the project because Phase 1 is a component of the project. As discussed in the project analysis above, traffic generated by the project would not result in a significant increase in noise along any roadway segments vicinity of the project site. Because Phase 1 is a component of the project and would result in less traffic than the overall project, traffic noise impacts from implementation of Phase 1 would also be less than significant.
Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Equipment
As previously stated, estimated noise from heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment for Phase 1 is analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 includes the closest equipment to off-site noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1c, Phase 1 impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Emergency Generator Testing
As previously stated, estimated noise from emergency generator testing for Phase 1 is analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 includes the closest equipment to off-site noise-sensitive land uses. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1d, Phase 1 impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Loading Dock Activity
As previously stated, estimated noise from loading dock activity for Phase 1 is analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 includes the closest loading docks to off-site noise-sensitive land uses.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts would be less than significant.
Parking Garage Activity
Parking Structure C, which would be partially constructed during Phase 1 and fully constructed during future project phases, would be located in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area. The project analysis above evaluates noise from full buildout of Parking Structure C and determines that impacts would be less than significant. Since Phase 1 would develop a portion of Parking Structure C and would therefore generate less vehicle activity within the parking structure than analyzed in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts can also be presumed to be less than significant.
Outdoor Gathering Areas
Phase 1 would include approximately 128,440 square feet (approximately 3 acres) of open space, including the Southline Retail Plaza and Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet. Impacts associated with human activity in the Southline Retail Plaza and Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet are City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-51 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
analyzed in the project analysis above. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts would be less than significant.
Impact NOI-2: The project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Section 20.300.010(F) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code states that no vibration shall be produced that is transmitted through the ground and discernible without the aid of instruments by a reasonable person at the lot lines of the site. However, vibration from temporary construction, demolition, and vehicles that enter and leave the subject parcel (e.g., construction equipment, trucks) are considered exempt from this standard in South San Francisco. For the proposed project, because construction may cause vibration effects on land uses within San Bruno, just south of the Phase 1 site, vibration-related damage and annoyance effects on nearby uses from temporary construction area analyzed. The criteria that are applied in the assessment of vibration-related damage and annoyance impacts are described below.
Damage to Structures
Construction of the proposed project would require equipment that could generate ground-borne vibration; however, most of the proposed equipment types generate relatively low vibration levels.
Typical vibration levels associated with heavy-duty construction equipment at a reference distance of 25 feet are shown in Table 4.11-3, p. 4.11-7. Impact pile drivers are not proposed for project construction; rather, drilled, cast-in-place piles would be used. The types of equipment proposed for project construction with the greatest potential to generate vibration are pavement breakers/hoe rams, drill rigs, and ground-disturbing equipment, such as an excavator and a gradall. Grounddisturbing equipment typically generates vibration levels similar to those of a large bulldozer.
The off-site residential structures nearest to on-site construction areas (i.e., within the Specific Plan area) are at least 55 feet away from the Phase 1 site, south of Tanforan Avenue, in San Bruno.
Commercial and/or light industrial buildings are north and southeast of the project site, in South San Francisco. These structures could be as close as 30 feet from project construction. Limited offsite work within the public right of way would take place near the western terminus of Tanforan Avenue to create a turnaround cul-de-sac at the intersection of Tanforan Avenue and Huntington Avenue; this work would take place for 15 to 30 days. However, this work could occur as close as 10 feet from the nearest residential structure at times and likely would involve the use of a tractor, backhoe, and paver. A concrete saw may also be needed. In addition, some utilities would be undergrounded in Tanforan Avenue which would also require limited work within the street near adjacent residences. This would include sewer upsizing, which would occur directly within Tanforan Avenue and would involve the use of concrete saws and excavators, and undergrounding of PG&E utilities, which would require coordination with occupants of nearby residences.
With regard to potential damage effects at nearby commercial or office buildings, should an auger drill, pavement breaker/hoe ram, or large bulldozer be used within 30 feet of such structures, it would generate a PPV of approximately 0.068 inch per second at the nearest structure. (Note that all of these equipment types generate approximately the same vibration level.) The closest adjacent commercial, office, or industrial buildings are located to the southeast and north of the project site, approximately 30 to 50 feet from potential project construction work areas. These buildings would very likely be categorized as “modern industrial/commercial” buildings according to the Caltrans City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-52 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Vibration Damage Guidelines (refer to Table 4.11-4, p. 4.11-7), which have a damage criterion that specifies a PPV of 0.5 inch per second. The PPV of 0.068 inch per second is well below this level.
Therefore, vibration-related damage impacts on these commercial, office, and/or light industrial structures would be less than significant.
When on-site construction and demolition activities would occur near the southern boundary of the Phase 1 site, equipment could be operating within 55 feet of nearby residential structures. Although the precise types of equipment that could be used within 55 feet of these homes is not known at this time, it is conservatively assumed that the most vibration-intensive equipment (e.g., drill rigs and large pieces of ground-disturbing equipment, which produce vibration levels similar to those of a large bulldozer) could be used in this area. At a distance of 55 feet, the vibration level from the operation of an auger drill, pavement breaker, or large bulldozer would have a PPV of approximately
0.027 inch per second. The residential structures can conservatively be categorized as “older residential structures,” with an applicable vibration damage criterion for continuous/frequent intermittent sources of vibration (i.e., a PPV of 0.3 inch per second) (refer to Table 4.11-4, p. 4.11- 7). The estimated vibration level (i.e., PPV of up to 0.027 inch per second) at these residences would therefore be well below the applicable damage criterion (i.e., PPV of 0.3 inch per second). Damagerelated vibration impacts on these structures would be less than significant.
With regard to off-site, in-street work within Tanforan Avenue, including the work to create a turnaround near the western terminus of Tanforan Avenue, a tractor, backhoe, concrete saw, and paver may be used. Vibration levels from a small bulldozer can be used to estimate vibration levels from a tractor and a backhoe. In addition, some utilities would be undergrounded in Tanforan Avenue which would also require limited work within the street, near adjacent residences to the south. An excavator, backhoe, and tractor, the most vibration-intensive equipment for this work, would all generate vibration levels similar to those of a small bulldozer (see Table 4.11-3, p. 4.11-7). At a distance of 10 feet, vibration levels from a small bulldozer would be approximately 0.012 PPV inch per second. At a distance of 5 feet, vibration levels from this equipment would be approximately
0.034 PPV inches per second. These values are also well below the damage criterion for older residential structures (i.e., PPV of 0.3 inch per second). Note that, unlike the analysis for average noise levels in which noise levels of multiple pieces of equipment can be combined to generate a maximum combined noise level, instantaneous peak vibration (e.g., PPV vibration levels) levels do not combine in this way, and overall vibration levels are governed by the most vibrationintensive equipment being used at a given time.
Because vibration generated by project construction would not be expected to result in vibration levels that would be in excess of the applicable damage criterion at nearby structures, impacts related to vibration-related structural damage would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Annoyance-Related Vibration Impacts
Regarding annoyance-related vibration impacts, a significant vibration impact related to sleep disturbance could occur when nighttime construction activities generate vibration levels that are strongly perceptible (i.e., PPV of 0.01 inch per second) (as shown in Table 4.11-5, p. 4.11-7) at locations where people sleep for a prolonged period of time. Sleep disturbances from vibration typically occur only if residences are very close to nighttime ground-disturbing construction activities. The nearest residential land uses would be approximately 55 feet south of the Specific Plan area. The only construction activities proposed for nighttime hours are concrete pours. These City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-53 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
would take place at least 100 feet away from the residences along Tanforan Avenue, near the building footprints for the Phase 1 buildings.
Although the exact number of nighttime concrete pours required for overall project construction is not known at this time, there would be approximately 18 nighttime concrete pours during Phase 1 construction. Phase 1 construction would occur closer to occupied nearby residences than any other phase of project construction. Therefore, the worst-case analysis of nighttime construction vibration impacts for the Specific Plan focuses on the nighttime concrete pours for Phase 1. The equipment used during these pours could result in the generation of some vibration. However, concrete mixers and concrete pumps do not typically generate high levels of vibration.
As discussed above, Phase 1 construction would include approximately 18 nights of concrete pours that would occur in proximity to residential uses as compared to other nighttime concrete pours required for later Specific Plan construction phases that would be located further from nearby homes. Equipment utilized during Phase 1 concrete pour activity would be at least 100 feet, and usually much farther, from the nearest sensitive receptors where people sleep during nighttime hours. Concrete mixers and concrete pumps would generate less vibration than a small bulldozer, which is the piece of equipment in the Federal Transit Administration list of vibration source levels with the lowest level of vibration. A small bulldozer would result in a very low vibration level with a PPV of approximately 0.0004 inch per second at a distance of 100 feet. This level is well below the strongly perceptible threshold (i.e., PPV of 0.1 inch per second) (refer to Table 4.11-5, p. 4.11-7) and below the barely perceptible threshold (i.e., PPV of 0.01 inch per second) by a factor of about 25.
When nighttime construction occurs farther north or at greater distances from these homes for later Specific Plan construction phases, nighttime vibration levels would be even lower. Therefore, although nighttime construction activities have a limited potential to cause sleep disturbance or nighttime vibration-related annoyance at nearby residential land uses. Vibration impacts from project construction related to annoyance and sleep disturbance would be considered less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Phase 1
Damage to Structures
The project analysis of potential vibration impacts to structures accounts for the distances between Phase 1 buildings and the nearest adjacent commercial and residential structures. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts would be less than significant.
Annoyance-Related Vibration Impacts
Annoyance-related vibration impacts for Phase 1 are analyzed above under the project analysis because Phase 1 includes the closest nighttime vibration-generating construction activities to off-site noisesensitive land uses. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 impacts would be less than significant.
Impact NOI-3: The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels 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. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-54 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Project
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to aircraft noise from private airstrips.
SFO, the closest public airport, is approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the project site. The project site is located partially within the 2012 ALUCP 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, and partially within the 2012 ALUCP 70 dBA CNEL noise contour; no portion of the project site is located within the 75 dBA CNEL noise contour (as shown in Figure 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR).
The 2012 ALUCP designates most recreational, commercial, and industrial/production land uses as compatible uses within the 70 dBA CNEL noise contour. Residential land uses are designated as incompatible within the 70 dBA CNEL noise contour, according to the ALUCP for SFO; however, no residential land uses are proposed by the project.
Land uses allowed under the proposed project include commercial, office, and/or R&D land uses.
According to Table IV-1 of the ALUCP (entitled “Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria”), these types of land uses (i.e., office, business and professional, general retail uses) are considered compatible with all airport-related noise levels. For these reasons, impacts related to excessive aircraft noise from public airports or private airstrips for the project would be less than significant.
Phase 1
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the Phase 1 site. Therefore, there would be no impact related to aircraft noise from private airstrips. The Phase 1 site is partially within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour and partially within the 70 dBA CNEL noise contour for SFO, according to the airport noise contours presented in the ALUCP (as shown in Figure 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR). The types of land uses proposed under the project and within the Phase 1 area (e.g., office, commercial, and/or R&D uses) are considered to be compatible with all airport-related noise levels, including noise levels in the 70 to 75 dBA CNEL range. Therefore, noise impacts related to aircraft noise from private airstrips or public airports at the Phase 1 site would be less than significant.
4.11.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative geographic context for noise and vibration varies, depending on the source of the noise or vibration. Specifically, the geographic context for cumulative construction noise impacts typically encompasses cumulative projects within 1,000 feet of the project site. Beyond 1,000 feet, the contributions of noise from the construction of other projects would be greatly attenuated through both distance and intervening structures, and their contribution would be expected to be minimal. The cumulative context for stationary-source noise impacts, such as noise effects from heating and cooling or other mechanical equipment, as well as vibration effects from construction activities is generally smaller than this distance (a few hundred feet, at most). Finally, cumulative impacts related to vehicular traffic noise are based on the overall forecast average daily traffic along roadway segments near the project site, which includes traffic increases from all growth in the project area, as predicted in the traffic model. The cumulative projects within 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10.
Impact C-NOI-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, could result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-55 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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) Construction Noise
Construction noise is a localized impact that reduces as distance from the noise source increases.
In addition, intervening features (e.g., buildings) between construction areas and nearby noisesensitive land uses result in additional noise attenuation by providing barriers that break the line of sight between noise-generating equipment and sensitive receptors. These barriers can block sound wave propagation and somewhat reduce noise at a given receiver.
The cumulative setting for construction noise impacts is considered to be approximately 1,000 feet from the project site, since projects located within this distance could expose receptors between the two projects to noise, depending on the intervening distances. Cumulative projects within 1,000 feet of the project site are the 410 Noor Avenue Project, located approximately 700 feet west of the project site; the 180 El Camino Real Project, located more than 800 feet west of the project site; the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (which would include construction along the Caltrain ROW and will increase trains along the ROW); and the California High-Speed Rail Project (which would include installation of four quadrant safety gates at the Linden Avenue crossing, approximately 50 feet east of the project site and would also increase trains along the ROW). The Caltrain electrification project is under construction now and will likely be completed before commencement of Phase 1 construction. Exact construction schedules for the other projects have not been determined at this time. It is, however, possible that construction for one or more of these projects could occur concurrently with Phase 1 and/or Specific Plan buildout construction activities.
As described under Impact NOI-1, project construction would occur mostly during the standard daytime hours for construction, as defined by the South San Francisco and San Bruno Municipal Codes. Similarly, construction for cumulative projects would very likely occur primarily during daytime hours. During these hours, construction noise restrictions are less stringent, and nearby receptors are considered less sensitive to noise. However, some nighttime construction is proposed for the project, including concrete pours, as well as early-morning construction (e.g., for Phase 1), which may commence prior to the start of “daytime” hours defined by the City of South San Francisco.
It is possible that future cumulative projects may also propose construction activities outside standard daytime hours. Specifically, nighttime construction could occur for the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project or the California High-Speed Rail Project, which would include construction along Herman Street southeast of the project site. Should construction of these projects occur concurrently with the proposed project, residential receptors along Tanforan Avenue could be exposed to construction noise during non-exempt hours from both the proposed project and these cumulative projects. With regard to the 410 Noor Avenue project, the project was entitled in December 2020, but the construction start date is currently unknown.
Should construction of the 410 Noor Avenue project occur concurrently with the project and require nighttime construction work, receptors at the Sonesta ES Suites San Francisco Airport San Bruno could be exposed to simultaneous nighttime construction noise from both projects. Note that, at greater distances, cumulative construction noise would be less likely to combine to result in greater impacts. For example, as shown in Table 4.11-11, p. 4.11-17, combined construction noise from a concrete saw, excavator, and hoe ram at a distance of 25 feet would be approximately 93 dBA City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-56 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Leq. At a distance of 800 feet, without accounting for attenuation from shielding from intervening buildings, noise would be reduced by 30 dB to approximately 63 dBA Leq. Therefore, construction noise from cumulative projects located further away would be less likely to combine with project construction noise to result in greater overall noise levels.
Therefore, although specific details about construction schedules are not known at this time, should cumulative project construction occur concurrently with project construction, and should construction for cumulative projects commence before the start of daytime hours, construction noise from multiple projects could combine to expose the same receptors (e.g., nearby hotel or residential land uses) to noise levels could combine to result in perceptible (3 dB) increases in noise.
For these reasons, cumulative construction noise impacts would be considered potentially significant.
As discussed in the project analysis, because project construction could occur outside daytime hours, resulting in noise levels of up to approximately 81 dBA Leq at nearby residences (e.g., from operation of a concrete saw, excavator, and hoe ram) project impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the cumulative construction noise impact during non-daytime hours would be cumulatively considerable. While implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which includes measures to reduce noise from construction activity during all hours, including non-daytime hours, and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b, which requires the construction of a temporary noise barrier along the southern perimeter of the project site, would be implemented to reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative noise levels, it may not be possible to reduce noise levels during all non-daytime construction activities to less-than-significant levels.
Therefore, cumulative construction noise impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
Operational Noise
Traffic
To determine potential cumulative traffic noise impacts in the project area, traffic volumes from the existing scenario were compared to the 2040 with-project scenario. A cumulative traffic noise impact is anticipated along a given roadway segment if a 3 dB increase in noise would occur in areas where existing and resulting noise levels are above the applicable land use compatibility standard or if a 5 dB increase in noise would occur in areas where existing and resulting noise levels are below the applicable land use compatibility standard. If a cumulative impact is identified, then the proposed project’s contribution to that impact must be assessed to determine if it would contribute 3 dB to the overall increase. If it would contribute 3 dB or more to the overall increase, the project’s cumulatively considerable contribution to the cumulative impact would be considered significant.
Table 4.11-19, p. 4.11-57, shows cumulative traffic noise increases and includes an analysis of potential impacts along roadway segments near the project site. There were no segments identified where a 5 dB increase in noise would occur from existing to future with-project levels in areas where future noise levels would be below the acceptable land use compatibility standard. Similarly, there were no segments identified where a 3 dB increase in noise would occur in areas where future noise levels would be above the acceptable land use compatibility standard. Cumulative 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 4.11-57September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.11-18. Modeled Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts Roadway Segment
Most
Sensitive
Adjacent
Land Use
Type
Existing
(dB Ldn)
Cumulative
No Project
(dB Ldn)
Cumulative
Plus Project
(dB Ldn)
Applicable
Compatibility
Standard (dB
Ldn)
Exceeds
Compatibility
Standard?
Allowable
Increase
(dB)
Cumulative
Plus Project
Minus
Existing (dB)
Potential
Cumulative
Impact?
Sneath Lane Between I-280 and Cherry Avenue1 MFR 66.5 67.3 67.7 65 Yes 3 1.2 No Sneath Lane Between Cherry Avenue and El Camino Reala C/O/I 69.7 70.0 70.7 70 Yes 3 1.1 No El Camino Real Between Sneath Lane and I-380a C/O/I 71.3 71.9 72.2 70 Yes 3 0.9 No El Camino Real Between I-380 on-/off-rampsa NA 71.7 72.3 72.6 NA NA NA 0.9 No Sneath Lane Between El Camino Real and Huntington Avenuea C/O/I 64.9 65.4 67.1 70 No 5 2.2 No Huntington Avenue Between San Bruno Ave and Forest Lanea SFR 63.9 64.7 65.1 60 Yes 3 1.2 No Huntington Avenue Between Forest Lane/Herman Street and Sneath Lanea SFR 63.6 64.4 64.8 60 Yes 3 1.2 No San Mateo Avenue Between South Linden and South Airport Boulevardb C/O/I 67.6 67.9 68.7 70 No 5 1.1 No South Linden Avenue Between Grand Avenue and San Mateo Avenueb SFR 67.1 67.6 69.1 65 Yes 3 2.1 No South Linden Avenue Between Dollar Avenue and San Mateo Avenueb C/O/I 60.5 61.8 64.7 70 No 5 4.2 No Tanforan Avenue Huntington Avenue and Dollar Avenuea SFR 58.6 59.8 55.4 60 No 5 -3.2 No South Maple Avenue Tanforan Avenue and Victory Avenuea,b C/O/I 60.5 61.7 64.6 70 No 5 4.1 No Dollar Avenue/Herman Street Between Tanforan Avenue and Scott Streeta SFR 60.8 62.1 62.3 60 Yes 3 1.5 No Notes:
a. Segment is located in the city of San Bruno.
b. Segment is located in the city of South San Francisco.
N/A indicates that there would be no potential cumulative impact and, thus, no cumulatively considerable increase attributable to the proposed project.
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.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-59 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Equipment
In general, most operational sources of noise do not generate noise that is perceptible far beyond the edge of a project site. Although noise from Specific Plan and Phase 1 heating and cooling equipment would be localized and would attenuate rapidly with distance, it is possible that project heating and cooling equipment could generate noise in excess of allowable levels, depending on the type of equipment installed and the location of the equipment. It is also possible that noisegenerating uses from nearby projects could be close enough to one another that heating and cooling noise from multiple projects could combine and result in a cumulative noise impact.
For example, the hotel (Sonesta ES Suites San Francisco Airport San Bruno) located approximately equidistant from 410 Noor Avenue and the proposed project, and with a line of sight to both projects, could experience noise from heating and cooling equipment at both projects. An example receptor at the hotel could be located over 550 feet from the nearest project heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment and 500 feet from the nearest Noor Avenue heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment. Although the exact numbers, makes, models, and sizes of proposed mechanical heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment for the project and for 410 Noor Avenue are not known at this time, an example case of potential combined noise levels was modeled, based on the types of equipment proposed for Phase 1.
Combined noise levels from example heating and cooling equipment as presented for the Phase 1 analysis above were estimated at 500- and 550-foot distances. Specifically, combined noise levels from two boilers, two chillers, and two pumps located 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 at a distance of 500 feet would be approximately 63.5 dBA Leq, and at a distance of 550 feet, would be approximately 62.7 dBA Leq. Note that this analysis conservatively assumes the same amount of equipment would be installed at 410 Noor Avenue as is likely to be installed for Phase 1, which is a conservative assumption (since 410 Noor Avenue is not an R&D land use). These noise levels could combine at a single receptor to result in an overall noise level from Project HVAC and 410 Noor Avenue HVAC of approximately 66.1 dBA Leq, which is about 3 dB higher than noise levels from HVAC equipment from each project alone. A 3 dB increase is considered to be barely perceptible. Should more equipment be installed at either location, or should the equipment noise levels be louder than estimated in this analysis, the increase could be greater. Therefore, although complete details about heating and cooling equipment for the proposed Specific Plan and nearby development projects are not known at this time, it is possible that noise from heating and cooling for the proposed project could combine with heating and cooling noise from nearby projects to cause a cumulative noise impact at nearby residential land uses. This cumulative impact is considered potentially significant.
With implementation of project Mitigation Measure NOI-1c, project-related impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels, and the contribution of the project to the potential cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation.
Emergency Generator Testing
Emergency generators included in the development of future buildings under the Specific Plan would result in the generation of audible noise during testing. With regard to the potential for cumulative impacts, the nearest cumulative projects to the project site are the 410 Noor Avenue Project, approximately 700 feet west of the project site; and the 180 El Camino Real Safeway City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-60 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Shopping Center Project, more than 800 feet west of the project site. Should nearby projects also install emergency generators, and should generator testing occur simultaneously for a nearby project and the proposed project, a potential cumulative impact could occur.
Emergency generators are tested intermittently (often on the order of once per month for 30 to 60 minutes), and their use is often exempted during actual emergencies. Although specific details regarding the emergency generators proposed for Specific Plan or nearby future projects are not known at this time, it is known that the Phase 1 generators would be tested approximately once per month for 30 minutes at a time. In general, it is very unlikely that the testing of an emergency generator for the proposed project would occur concurrently with the testing of a generator at a nearby project. Even if testing were to occur simultaneously, which is unlikely, it is not likely that the generators would be close enough to one another for the noise to combine at a given individual receptor. Cumulative noise impacts related to emergency generator testing would be less than significant.
Loading Dock Activity
Loading docks included in the development of future buildings under the Specific Plan would result in the generation of audible noise during loading activities. The nearest cumulative projects to the project site are the 410 Noor Avenue Project, approximately feet west of the project site; and the 180 El Camino Real project, more than 800 feet west of the project site. Should nearby projects also include loading docks, and should loading activity occur simultaneously for a nearby project and the proposed project, a potential cumulative impact could occur.
Loading dock noise is intermittent, and noise levels are abated by intervening buildings. Even if loading activities were to occur simultaneously, which is unlikely, it is not likely that the loading docks would be close enough to one another for the noise to combine at a given individual receptor the distance and intervening buildings and roadways between the cumulative projects and the project site. Cumulative noise impacts related to loading dock activity would be less than significant.
Parking Garage Activity
Parking Structure C, which would be partially constructed during Phase 1 and fully constructed during future project phases, would be located in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan area. The nearest cumulative projects to the project site are the 410 Noor Avenue Project, approximately 700 feet west of the project site; and the 180 El Camino Real project, more than 800 feet west of the project site. Given the distance and intervening buildings and roadways between the cumulative projects and Parking Structure C, noise levels associated with Parking Structure C would not combine with cumulative projects to impact sensitive receptors. Cumulative noise impacts related to parking garage activity would be less than significant.
Train Noise Combined with Project Noise
The Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project and the California High Speed Rail (HSR) Project would increase trains along the Caltrain ROW adjacent to the eastern portion of the Specific Plan area. The California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) evaluated the combined effects of increased Caltrain and HSR trains in the draft EIR/EIS for the project and found there would be significant noise impacts to residential receptors west of the Caltrain ROW between Tanforan Avenue and Scott Street prior to mitigation (CHSRA 2020). CHSRA identified several mitigation City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-61 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
approaches to address the significant impacts including noise barriers, building insulation, and/or implementation of quiet zones by the local jurisdiction (to lower train horn noise). CHSRA identified that significant train noise impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level and less than existing noise levels for residences between Tanforan Avenue and Scott Boulevard with either a noise barrier or implementation of a quiet zone for the Linden Avenue and Scott Boulevard at-grade crossings. Thus, with implementation of the proposed mitigation in the draft EIR/EIS for the HSR project, noise levels would be less than under existing conditions, and operational noise associated with the Specific Plan (whether traffic noise or other operational noise) would not combine with train noise from these projects to result in a significant cumulative noise impact. Cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant.
Impact C-NOI-2: The Project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, would not result in the generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Vibration impacts are based on instantaneous PPV levels. Therefore, because PPV is a measure of the peak instantaneous vibration level, rather than an average, other sources of vibration operating simultaneously (e.g. for other project sites, or even on the same project site) would not be expected to combine to raise the overall peak vibration level experienced at a nearby sensitive use. Worstcase ground-borne vibration levels are generally determined by whichever equipment generates the highest vibration level at the affected location, so vibration would be dominated by the closest and most vibration-intensive equipment being used at a given time. For example, unlike the analysis for average noise levels, in which noise levels of multiple pieces of equipment can be combined to generate a maximum combined noise level, instantaneous peak vibration levels do not combine in this way. Vibration from multiple construction sites, even if they are close to one another, would not combine to raise the maximum PPV level at sensitive uses near the project site.
For this reason, the cumulative impact of construction vibration from multiple construction projects near one another (or even adjacent to one another) would generally not combine to increase PPV vibration levels. Therefore, the cumulative geographic context for vibration is highly localized.
The cumulative projects within 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10. The nearest cumulative land use projects are the Granite Rock Company Project, approximately 400 feet east of the project site, the 410 Noor Avenue Project, approximately 700 feet west of the project site. At these distances, peak vibration levels resulting from construction of the project would not be expected to combine with vibration effects from the construction of these cumulative projects, even if they were to be under construction simultaneously. The Caltrain PCEP and High-Speed Rail projects would include construction approximately 50 feet to 75 feet from the project site). The Caltrain PCEP will likely complete construction in adjacent areas prior to construction for Phase 1, but the HSR project may have concurrent construction at the Linden Avenue grade crossing where four quadrant safety gates would be installed. The HSR project includes mitigation to lower construction vibration effects to a less than significant level. In addition, because peak vibration levels do not combine to raise the maximum PPV level (as described previously), vibration from multiple construction sites, even if they are close to one another, would not be expected to combine to raise the maximum PPV level.
Therefore, cumulative ground-borne vibration impacts related to both potential damage and annoyance would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Noise and Vibration
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.11-62 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact C-NOI-3: The project (inclusive of Phase 1), together with the cumulative projects identified, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site and SFO; the closest public airport to the project site is approximately 1.1 mile southeast of the site. The project would not site any new residential land uses, nor would it result in increases in aircraft noise in the area. Note that land uses allowed under the proposed project include commercial, office, and/or R&D land uses. According to Table IV-1 of the SFO ALUCP (entitled “Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria”), these types of land uses (i.e., office, business and professional, general retail uses) are considered compatible with all airport-related noise levels. Therefore, development of the project, in conjunction with development of nearby cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to the exposure of persons residing or working in the project area to excessive aircraft noise levels.
Cumulative impacts related to aircraft noise from private airstrips and public use airports would be less than significant.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-1September 2021
ICF 00082.20
4.12 Population and Housing
4.12.1 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 population and housing. 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. One NOP comment was received regarding the proposed project’s jobs/housing balance. This issue is addressed below in Section 4.12.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
4.12.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to population, housing, and employment at the project site and in the surrounding area. Data for three geographies are presented: the City of South San Francisco, the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward core-based statistical area (CBSA), and the Bay Area. 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. The Bay Area is the nine-county region comprising Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
4.12.2.1 Regional Setting
Population
According to the recent California Department of Finance data, the City of South San Francisco (City) has a population of 67,879 (as of January 1, 2020), and San Mateo County has a population of 773,244.1 In addition, the City has an average household size of 3.14 persons per household, more than the 2.88 persons per household average for San Mateo County.2 As shown in Table 4.12-1, p. 4.12-2, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2040, South San Francisco’s household population is anticipated to increase by 1 State of California, Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020.
2 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-2September 2021
ICF 00082.20
approximately 8,765 (13 percent), from 67,435 in 2020 to 76,200 in 2030. 34 South San Francisco’s
household population is anticipated to further increase by 2,975 (3.9 percent) between 2030 and 2040. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA’s household population is anticipated to increase by approximately 415,035 (8.7 percent), from 4,763,545 in 2020 to 5,178,580 in 2030. The CBSA’s household population is anticipated to further increase by 547,045 (10.6 percent) between 2030 and 2040. The Bay Area’s household population is also expected to grow, increasing by approximately 750,705 (10 percent) between 2020 and 2030; it is anticipated to further increase by 942,130 (11.1 percent) between 2030 and 2040.
Table 4.12-1. Plan Bay Area Population, Household, and Employment Projections, 2020–2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
South San Francisco
Total Populationa 68,105 71,080 76,950 78,615 80,015
Household Population 67,435 70,370 76,200 77,820 79,175 Jobs 46,365 50,075 51,000 51,730 54,230
Employed Residents 34,075 35,045 37,390 37,365 37,055
Households 22,155 23,050 24,950 25,185 25,305
Employed Residents-to-Household
Ratio
1.54 1.52 1.50 1.48 1.46
Persons per Household 3.04 3.05 3.05 3.09 3.13
Jobs per Household 2.09 2.17 2.04 2.05 2.14
Households per Job 0.48 0.46 0.49 0.49 0.47
San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)b Total Populationa 4,862,325 5,060,665 5,288,390 5,531,325 5,848,415 Household Population 4,763,545 4,956,635 5,178,580 5,415,550 5,725,625 Jobs 2,588,320 2,671,565 2,756,575 2,851,060 2,930,840
Employed Residents 2,600,160 2,665,390 2,736,570 2,801,250 2,885,790 Households 1,815,635 1,884,720 1,960,135 2,030,970 2,122,840 Employed Residents-to-Household
Ratio
1.43 1.41 1.40 1.38 1.36
Persons per Household 2.62 2.63 2.64 2.67 2.70
Jobs per Household 1.43 1.42 1.41 1.40 1.38
Households per Job 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72
3 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May. Available:
https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections-2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra. Accessed May 13, 2021.
4 As discussed in Section 4.12.3.2, p. 4.12-4, ABAG’s Projections 2040 is a series of statistical compendia on demographic, economic, and land use changes in the coming decades. These forecasts are created to help local governments anticipate and prepare for changes and are not based on actual counts. California Department of Finance population estimates are based on current counts from a variety of sources, including drivers’ licenses, birth and death certificates, public school enrollment numbers, and other sources. For these reasons, differences may appear between the population numbers for the two data sets.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-3September 2021
ICF 00082.20
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Bay Areac
Total Populationa 7,920,230 8,284,200 8,689,440 9,142,745 9,652,950 Household Population 7,758,540 8,113,640 8,509,245 8,952,495 9,451,375 Jobs 4,136,190 4,267,760 4,405,125 4,548,565 4,698,375
Employed Residents 4,147,000 4,270,595 4,397,865 4,528,925 4,663,900 Households 2,881,965 3,009,055 3,142,015 3,281,130 3,426,700 Employed Residents-to-Households
Ratio
1.44 1.42 1.40 1.38 1.36
Persons per Household 2.69 2.70 2.71 2.73 2.76
Jobs per Household 1.44 1.42 1.40 1.39 1.37
Households per Job 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.73
a Includes the population in group quarters. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies all people not living in housing units (i.e., houses, apartments, mobile homes, rented rooms) as living in group quarters. Institutional group quarters include correctional facilities, nursing homes, and mental hospitals. Non-institutional group quarters include college dormitories, military barracks, group homes, missions, and shelters. b A core-based statistical area (CBSA) is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget as a multicounty area anchored by an urban center and adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
c Includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May.
Housing
According to recent California Department of Finance data, the City has 22,437 total housing units and a 4.6 percent vacancy rate (as of January 1, 2020).5 Approximately 59 percent (13,128) of the units are single detached units, approximately 6 percent (1,351) are in structures of two to four units, and approximately 21 percent (4,789) are in structures of five or more units. For 2020, sources have reported a median home value in South San Francisco of $1,130,046 or higher.6 As shown above in Table 4.12-1, p. 4.12-2, according to ABAG’s Projections 2040, the number of households in South San Francisco is expected in increase by approximately 2,795 (13 percent), from 22,155 in 2020 to 24,950 in 2030, and by approximately 355 (1.4 percent) between 2030 and 2040. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA’s households will increase by approximately 144,500 (8 percent), from 1,815,635 in 2020 to 1,960,135 in 2030, and by approximately 162,705 (8.3 percent) between 2030 and 2040. Households in the Bay Area are expected to increase by 260,050 (9 percent) by 2030, and by approximately 284,685 (9.1 percent) between 2030 and 2040.
Employment
As shown in Table 4.12-1, p. 4.12-2, according to ABAG’s Projections 2040, jobs in South San Francisco are projected to increase by approximately 4,635 (10 percent) between 2020 and 2030 5 State of California, Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020. Sacramento, California, May 2020.
6 Zillow. 2020. South San Francisco Home Prices & Values. Available here: https://www.zillow.com/south-sanfrancisco-ca/home-values/. Accessed: September 21, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-4September 2021
ICF 00082.20
(from 46,365 to 51,000), and by approximately 3,230 (6.3 percent) between 2030 and 2040 (from 51,000 to 54,230). The total number of jobs in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA is projected to increase by approximately 168,255 (6.5 percent) between 2020 and 2030 (from 2,588,320 to 2,756,575), and by approximately 174,265 (6.3 percent) between 2030 and 2040 (from 2,756,575 to 2,930,840).
An employed residents-to-household ratio is used to evaluate the match between employed residents and households in a community, also referred to as jobs-housing balance. When the employed residents-to-household ratio is greater than 1.0, it indicates that the community is providing more jobs than it has employed residents; an employed residents-to-household ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that a community has fewer jobs than employed residents. As shown in Table
4.12-1, p. 4.12-2, ABAG forecasts that the City will have an employed residents-to-household ratio of between 1.54 and 1.50 from 2020 to 2030, and between 1.50 and 1.46 from 2030 to 2040. The CBSA is projected to have an employed residents-to-household ratio of between 1.43 and 1.40 from 2020 to 2030, and between 1.40 and 1.36 from 2030 to 2040.
4.12.2.2 Project Site
Existing uses within the project site include office, industrial, warehouse, storage facilities, and transportation and circulation facilities totaling approximately 344,000 square feet and employing approximately 455 people.7 There are no existing housing units or residents on the project site.
4.12.2.3 Phase 1 Site
Existing uses within the Phase 1 site include office, industrial, warehouse, storage facilities, and transportation and circulation facilities totaling approximately 236,000 square feet and employing approximately 218 people.8 There are no existing housing units on the Phase 1 site.
4.12.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the population, housing, and employment plans and policies of federal, state, and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site. As 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. Because the project would not generate population, housing, or employment growth in San Bruno, this analysis does not evaluate the project’s consistency with San Bruno plans and policies related to population, housing, and employment.
4.12.3.1 Federal
There are no federal regulations regarding population and housing applicable to the project. 7 Lane Partners, 2020. Tenant Employee Survey Count.
8 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-5September 2021
ICF 00082.20
4.12.3.2 State
Sustainable Communities Strategy and SB 375/Plan Bay Area Senate Bill (SB) 375, adopted in 2008, required preparation of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Plan Bay Area 2040, the SCS for the region, was jointly approved in July 2013 by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)9 and ABAG. Plan Bay Area 2040represents a transportation and land use/housing strategy for how the San Francisco Bay Area will address its transportation mobility and accessibility needs, land development, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements through 2040.
Projections 2040, a component of Plan Bay Area 2040, last released in May 2019, provides a series of statistical compendia on demographic, economic, and land use changes in the coming decades.10 The current version covers the period between 2010 and 2040. The projections illustrate how the region will accommodate growth if local jurisdictions adopt a set of policies consistent with the vision of Plan Bay Area. Growth is distributed within the region among counties, cities, and Priority Development Area (PDAs), which are designated areas that are expected to accommodate more than two-thirds of all regional growth by 2040. The Specific Plan area is outside of but adjacent to two Plan Bay Area PDAs; the Transit Corridors and El Camino Real PDA.11 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.12
Regional Housing Need Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area: 2015–2023 In the Bay Area, the SCS and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are mutually reinforcing; they were developed together to meet the overlapping objectives of SB 375 and housing element law.13 The City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) housing element incorporates the RHNA and discusses the City’s allocation of regional housing needs by income, as projected by ABAG. In 9 MTC is the government agency responsible for regional transportation planning, financing, and coordinating transportation services in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. 10 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May. Available:
https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections-2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra. Accessed May 13, 2021.
11 Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2020. MTC Policy Map Explorer. Available:
https://mtc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=1b8fdd83aa564aa180a59e9b7c4583ca. Accessed October 27, 2020.
12 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.
13 Each jurisdiction’s housing element must include a strategy to meet its share of the region’s housing need.
Jurisdictions that do not have the capacity to meet the RHNA requirement must rezone sites with appropriate development standards to accommodate the allocation requirement.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-6September 2021
ICF 00082.20
addition, SB 375 requires the RHNA to be consistent with the SCS and establishes an eight-year cycle for the RHNA. The 2015–2023 RHNA has been incorporated into Plan Bay Area 2040. The objectives of the RHNA include increasing the supply, diversity, and affordability of housing; promoting infill development and a more efficient land use pattern; promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing; protecting environmental resources; and promoting socioeconomic equity. More important, the RHNA includes production targets that address the housing needs of a range of household income categories.
The RHNA determined that the Bay Area must plan for 187,990 additional housing units between 2015 and 2023.14 South San Francisco’s share of the regional housing need for this time period is 1,864 new units, with approximately 1,159 of these units allocated as affordable housing. The City’s RHNA requirement represents approximately 1 percent of the total regional allocation and amounts to a citywide housing production goal of approximately 233 units per year. To date during the current RHNA cycle, the City has constructed 1,027 housing units, attaining 55 percent of its RHNA allocation.15
The RHNA is currently being updated for forthcoming 2023-2031 planning cycle. The Draft RHNA Methodology and Final RHNA Subregional Shares (draft RHNA methodology) was approved by the ABAG Executive Board on January 21, 2021.
16 Appendix 4 of the draft RHNA methodology provides
draft jurisdiction allocations for illustrative purposes only. The illustrative draft allocations show a need for 441,176 additional housing units in the Bay Area. South San Francisco’s share is 3,956 units, including 1,373 affordable units (low and very low income). Following review of the draft RHNA methodology by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), ABAG will use the state agency’s feedback to develop a final methodology and issue draft allocations.
This will be followed by an appeal period before ABAG issues final allocations by the end of 2021.
Jurisdictions are required to prepare updated housing elements reflecting the new allocations by January 2023.
4.12.3.3 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 General Plan has a 20-year horizon, and is currently being updated as part of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan.
17 14 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2013. Regional Housing Need Plan—San Francisco Bay Area, 2015–2023.
Available: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2015-23_rhna_plan.pdf. Accessed: March 9, 2020. 15 California Housing and Community Development Department, Housing Element Implementation and Annual Progress Report (APR) Data Dashboard. Available:
https://app.powerbigov.us/view?r=eyJrIjoiMDA2YjBmNTItYzYwNS00ZDdiLThmMGMtYmFhMzc1YTAzMDM4Ii widCI6IjJiODI4NjQ2LWIwMzctNGZlNy04NDE1LWU5MzVjZDM0Y2Y5NiJ9&pageName=ReportSection3da4504e 0949a7b7a0b0. Accessed: September 23, 2021.
16 Association of Bay Area Governments, Regional Housing Needs Allocation Draft Methodology: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031, February 2021. Available: https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021- 02/ABAG_Draft_RHNA_Methodology_Report_2023-2031.pdf. Accessed: May 12, 2021. 17 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/. Accessed:
September 8, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-7September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The General Plan contains a Land Use Element, which provides a framework to guide land use decision making citywide. The Land Use Element forecast that the City would have 69,810 residents and 78,500 employees upon buildout of the General Plan in 2019. The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan update that is currently underway will include updated population and employment projections.
Nearly all of the Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres) is designated under the City’s current General Plan 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.
Residential uses are not permitted under the Office land use designation. The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan preferred land use alternative, which will ultimately serve as the basis for the updated Shape SSF 2040 General Plan and related Land Use Element, maintains the existing land use designation for the bulk of the Specific Plan area, although it renames the designation from Office to Business and Professional Office.18 The General Plan also includes the Housing Element 2015–2023, which is the City’s primary policy document regarding goals and policies related to housing. Using 2013 population, household, and employment projections from the ABAG, the Housing Element includes a housing needs assessment that identifies projected housing needs as well as policies to accommodate housing development that will be affordable to a range of household types and income levels. The Housing Element contains goals, policies, and programs to guide future residential development as well as preserve and enhance existing residential areas in South San Francisco. In addition, the Housing Element also identifies sites for housing development that are adequate with respect to accommodating South San Francisco’s portion of the RHNA; none of these sites are within the Specific Plan area.
The General Plan also includes a Planning Sub-Areas Element which identifies 14 sub-areas in the City and features policies specific to each sub-area to complement citywide policies included in the Land Use and other elements. The Specific Plan area is located within the Lindenville Planning SubArea which, according to the General Plan, is the only large-scale industrial area in the City west of U.S. 101. The area currently includes a range of commercial uses, including small business parks. The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan preferred land use alternative forecasts a growth of 4,500 housing units (63 percent) and 15,000 employees (4.6 percent) in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area.
The project’s consistency with applicable General Plan policies included in the Land Use, Housing, and Planning Sub-Areas elements are further evaluated in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR.
South San Francisco Municipal Code
In August 2018, the South San Francisco City Council adopted Ordinance 1560-2018 establishing affordable housing commercial linkage fees for non-residential development projects to address the effect of increased job opportunities and the need for affordable housing. The commercial linkage fees, codified in Chapter 8.69 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, are charged on a persquare-foot basis for all net new gross floor area, including all projects where the floor area is increased, with a specific per-square-foot amount set for each commercial land use category. The revenue generated by commercial linkage fees could be used to fund new housing, preserve existing units, or acquire new land for nonprofit developers.
18 City of South San Francisco, Shape SSF Preferred Alternative. Available:
https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/. Accessed: January 4, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-8September 2021
ICF 00082.20
4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to population and housing 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.
4.12.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant population and housing impact if it would:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); or
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
4.12.4.2 Approach to Analysis
This analysis considers whether substantial population and household growth would occur with implementation of the proposed project and whether this growth is within population and housing forecasts for the City and the region, and/or would be considered substantial with respect to remaining growth potential in the City and the region. Two regional geographies are evaluated: the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA and the Bay Area. A CBSA is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget as a multi-county area anchored by an urban center and adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting; thus, a CBSA represents an appropriate context for evaluating growth from a project located in a regional employment center that is well served by regional transit and highway systems such as South San Francisco. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties. The Bay Area is the nine-county region comprising Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
This analysis uses ABAG’s Projections 2040 to analyze the project’s impacts.19 The project buildout analysis is based on 2030 projections (the project buildout year) and the Phase 1 analysis is based on 2025 projections (the Phase 1 buildout year). Information regarding 2040 projections is presented where applicable for the cumulative analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, projections from the South San Francisco Housing Element Update regarding population, housing, and employment were not used, as they were based on ABAG Projections that have since been revised and updated. Accordingly, the current ABAG projections are used to analyze potential impacts related to population and housing. Although the project proposes off-site circulation and utility improvements in the City of San Bruno, these improvements would not generate employees; therefore, the analysis does not evaluate the project’s relationship to City of San Bruno growth projections. However, projected growth within San Bruno is addressed in the context of the San 19 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May. Available:
https://data.bayareametro.gov/Demography/Projections-2040-by-Jurisdiction/grqz-amra. Accessed May 13, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-9September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
Substantial population growth is considered an increase in population that is unplanned, without consideration of, or planning for, infrastructure services and housing to support new residents, employees, and visitors. In general, a project that induces residential population growth is not viewed as having a significant impact on the environment unless the physical changes that would be needed to accommodate project-related population growth would have adverse impacts on the environment. Project-related employment growth would result in direct physical environmental changes (e.g., through use of resources such as water, electricity, and fossil fuels). These changes are analyzed and disclosed in the various environmental topic sections in this EIR.
The analysis also evaluates indirect impacts related to the proposed project’s contribution to population and housing growth. An indirect environmental impact is a change to the physical environment that is not immediately related to a proposed project. Specifically, analysis of indirect project-related population growth includes the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth in other locations or induce the construction of additional housing resulting, for example, from employee-generated demand. While many of the employees generated by the proposed project would likely be existing residents in the City or region, the analysis conservatively concludes that new employees, employee population, and employee households generated by the project would be new to the area being evaluated (i.e., City, CBSA, or Bay Area).
Projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant or an extension of roadways into a previously unserved area) could also allow for development to occur in an area that was not previously considered feasible for development because of infrastructure limitations. This type of development pattern typically occurs in suburban or rural areas adjacent to undeveloped land and is not generally applicable to areas that are in a developed urban environment and already served by infrastructure such as the project site.
This analysis also includes a discussion of the project’s potential effects on jobs-housing balance, which is the ratio of employed residents-to-households that is used to evaluate the match between employed residents and households in a community. Local governments use jobs-housing balance as a planning tool for achieving particular policy outcomes; however, this ratio is not a regulatory tool and changes to the ratio do not necessarily imply or directly correlate with a physical change in the environment or relate to any recognized threshold of significance under CEQA. The City has not adopted policies or CEQA thresholds related to this issue. Thus, the discussion provided in this section is provided for informational purposes only.
Buildout Scenario Studied (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.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-10 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
A project can introduce population and housing growth both directly (i.e., through the construction of new housing) and indirectly (i.e., through employee-generated demand). Because there are no residential units proposed as part of the project, only indirect population and housing growth is considered in this analysis. Of the two scenarios, the Office Scenario would construct the largest amount of square footage and would have a higher employment density, and as such, would generate the greatest number of new employees and related indirect population and housing growth.
Therefore, the Office Scenario is evaluated in this Population and Housing analysis. Table 4.12-2, p.
4.12-10, shows the projected increase in employees, residents, and households for the Office Scenario. Project construction is anticipated to occur over approximately 10 years, with full buildout anticipated in 2030.
As shown in Table 4.12-2, p. 4.12-10, the Office Scenario is anticipated to generate approximately 10,745 net new employees through the construction of new office and amenity space, based on a generation rate of one employee per 250 square feet of development. The U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics reported that 7.8 percent of residents within the City of South San Francisco work in their place of residence. Applying this ratio, the Office Scenario would result in 838 new project employees residing in the City of South San Francisco. ABAG’s projected Employed Residents-to-Household Ratio for the City of South San Francisco in 2030 (the project buildout year) is 1.50 employed residents per household; therefore, the Office Scenario would result in an estimated 559 new households in South San Francisco. Based on the projected South San Francisco average household size 3.05 persons per household in 2030, these new households would equate to approximately 1,705 people in the City of South San Francisco.
The remaining approximately 9,907 employees are presumed to reside outside of South San Francisco. For purposes of this analysis, these residents are assumed to be in the CBSA. ABAG’s projected Employed Residents-to-Household Ratio for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties) in 2030 (the project buildout year) is 1.40 employed residents per household; therefore, the project would result in approximately 7,096 households outside the City and would equate to approximately 18,733 people outside the City of South San Francisco (i.e., in the CBSA).
Table 4.12-2. Employment, Household, and Population Generation — Office Scenario Land Use Unit Generation Rate
Projected Employees/
Residents/Households
Employees
Office and Amenities 2,800,000 sf 250 sf/employeea 11,200 employees - 455 existing employeesa
Total New Employees — — 10,745 employees
Employee Households
Employees living in South San
Francisco
10,745 employees
838 employed
residents
7.8%b
1.50 employed
residents/householdc
838 employees/
559 households
Employees living outside South
San Francisco
10,745 employees
9,907 employed
residents
92.2%b
1.40 employed
residents/householdc
9,907 employees/
7,096 households
Total New Households — — 7,655 households
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-11 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Land Use Unit Generation Rate
Projected Employees/
Residents/Households
Household Population
Employee households in South
San Francisco
559 households 3.05
persons/householdd
1,705 people
Employee households outside
South San Francisco
7,096 households 2.64
persons/householdd
18,733 people
Total New Household
Population
— — 20,438 people
Note: Sums may not total because of rounding.
a Estimate of existing employees and project employment generation rate provided by Project applicant (Lane Partners, 2020). The rate of 1 employee per 250 square feet for office uses is also applied to the 88,200 square feet of proposed amenity uses to provide a conservative analysis. Based on the San Mateo County Linkage Fee Nexus Study, restaurant and service uses typically have half of the employee density of office uses. Accordingly, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix 4.15-1 of this EIR uses a rate of 1 employee for 1,000 square feet for the amenity uses, resulting in a total employment estimate of approximately 10,480 employees (10,935 – 455). The lower estimate presented in the TIA is likely more accurate; however, for purposes of providing a conservative population and housing impact assessment, the higher estimate is used here. b U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics – South San Francisco. Home Destination Report: Where Workers Live who are Employed in the Selection Area (Primary Job Holders). c Refer to Table 4.12-1, p. 4.12-2 (1.5 employed residents per household in South San Francisco and 1.4 employed residents per household in the CBSA in 2030).
d Refer to Table 4.1-1, p. 4.12-2 (3.05 persons per household in South San Francisco and 2.64 persons per household in the CBSA in 2030).
As shown in Table 4.12-3, p. 4.12-12, Phase 1 is anticipated to generate approximately 2,349 net new employees through the construction of new office space and amenity use. The U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics reported that 7.8 percent of residents within the City of South San Francisco work in their place of residence. Applying this ratio, Phase 1 would result in 183 new project employees residing in the City of South San Francisco (7.8 percent of 2,349 employees). ABAG’s projected Employed Residents-to-Household Ratio for the City of South San Francisco in 2025 (the Phase 1 buildout year) is 1.52 employed residents per household; therefore, Phase 1 would result in an estimated 120 new households in South San Francisco. Based on the projected South San Francisco average household size, 3.05 persons per household in 2025, these new households would equate to approximately 336 people in the City of South San Francisco.
The remaining 2,165 employees are presumed to reside outside of South San Francisco. For purposes of this analysis, these residents are assumed to be in the CBSA. ABAG’s projected Employed Residents-to-Household Ratio for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties) in 2025 (the Phase 1 buildout year) is
1.41 employed residents per household; therefore, Phase 1 would result in 1,531 households outside the City and would equate to approximately 4,027 people outside the City of South San Francisco (i.e., in the CBSA).
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-12 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 4.12-3. Employment, Household, and Population Generation —Phase 1 Land Use Unit Generation Rate
Projected Employees/
Residents/Households
Employees
Office and Amenities 700,915 sf 250 sf/employeea 2,804 employees - 455 existing employeesa
Total New Employees — — 2,349 employees
Employee Households
Employees living in South San
Francisco
2,349 employees
183 employed
residents
7.8%b
1.52 employed
residents/householdc
183 employed residents
120 households
Employees living outside
South San Francisco
2,349 employees
2,165 employed
residents
92.2%b
1.41 employed
residents/householdc
2,165 employed residents
1,531 households
Total New Households — — 1,651 households
Household Population
Employee households in South
San Francisco
120 households 3.05 persons/
householdd
366 people
Employee households outside
South San Francisco
1,531 households 2.63 persons/
householdd
4,027 people
Total New Household
Population
— — 4,393 people
Note: Sums may not total because of rounding.
a Estimate of existing employees and project employment generation rate provided by Project applicant (Lane Partners, 2020). The rate of 1 employee per 250 square feet for office uses is also applied to the 88,200 square feet of proposed amenity uses to provide a conservative analysis. Based on the San Mateo County Linkage Fee Nexus Study, restaurant and service uses typically have half of the employee density of office uses. Accordingly, the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix 4.15-1 of this EIR uses a rate of 1 employee for 1,000 square feet for the amenity uses, resulting in a total employment estimate of approximately 10,480 employees (10,935 – 455). The lower estimate presented in the TIA is likely more accurate; however, for purposes of providing a conservation population and housing impact assessment, the higher estimate is used here. b U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics – South San Francisco. Home Destination Report: Where Workers Live who are Employed in the Selection Area (Primary Job Holders). c Refer to Table 4.12-1, p. 4.12-2 (1.52 employed residents per household in South San Francisco and 1.41 employed residents per household in the CBSA in 2025).
d Refer to Table 4.1-1, p. 4.12-2 (3.05 persons per household in South San Francisco and 2.63 persons per household in the CBSA in 2025).
4.12.4.3 Impacts Not Evaluated in Detail
Displacement of Housing (Project, including Phase 1). There are no housing units located on the project site; therefore, implementation of the project and the Phase 1 would not displace existing housing units or people, and no replacement housing would be needed. The project would result in no impact related to the displacement of housing; therefore, this impact is not evaluated further.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-13 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
4.12.4.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact PH-1: The project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
The project would result in a significant impact related to population and housing growth if it would lead to substantial unplanned growth, either directly or indirectly. As discussed under Buildout Scenario, above, the Office Scenario is used for analysis in the City because it would generate the greatest number of indirect new residents inside and outside the City.
This impact analyzes the project’s individual impact relative to planned population growth. The project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts related to population growth is assessed separately in Section 4.12.4.5, p. 4.12-20.
Project
Construction
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, project construction is anticipated to occur over approximately 10 years, with full buildout anticipated in 2030. The number of construction workers on the project site would vary, ranging from approximately 40 to 550 on any given day, depending on the stage of construction. It is anticipated that construction employees associated with the project who are not already living in the City would commute from their residences elsewhere in the Bay Area rather than permanently relocate to the city, as is typical for employees in various construction trades. Once the construction phases are complete, construction workers typically seek employment at other job sites in the region that require their particular skills, which may or may not be within the City. Thus, construction of the project would not generate substantial unplanned population growth in the city or region. Construction-related population and housing impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operation
Population growth is considered in the context of local and regional plans as well as population, housing, and employment projections. As discussed in Section 4.12.4.2, p. 4.12-8, this analysis compares the direct employment and indirect population and household growth generated under the Office Scenario to existing conditions as well as projected population growth citywide and regionally.
Direct Population and Housing Growth
The project would be located on an existing commercial site in an urbanized area and would not include the construction of any housing units; therefore, implementation of the project would not generate direct residential population or housing growth.
Indirect Employee-Generated Population and Housing Growth Table 4.12-4, p. 4.12-8, compares the estimated employee, household, and household population generation for the Office Scenario to current ABAG projections for the City of South San Francisco, the CBSA, and the Bay Area.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-14 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
City of South San Francisco Population and Housing Growth The project, under the Office Scenario, would construct approximately 2,800,000 square feet of new office uses and related amenity space. As shown in Table 4.12-4, p. 4.12-8, based on a rate of 250 square feet per employee, the Office Scenario is expected to generate approximately 10,745 net new employees, 838 of whom would reside in the City of South San Francisco. As such, the proposed project’s employment under the Office Scenario would generate approximately 559 households in the City when accounting for the household populations of project employees. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, households in South San Francisco are projected to increase by approximately 2,795 between 2020 and 2030. Therefore, the addition of 559 new households in the City resulting from employment under the Office Scenario would account for approximately 20 percent of the household growth expected in the City from 2020 to 2030.
Table 4.12-4. Employment, Household, and Population Generation Compared to Planned Growth — Project Office Scenario
Office
Scenarioa
ABAG Projected
Increase
(2020 – 2030)b
Percent of
Projected
Increase
South San Francisco
Employment
Employees generated in South San Francisco (direct) 10,745 4,635 231.8 (Exceeds) Households
Employee households in South San Francisco (indirect) 559 2,795 20.0 (Within) Household Population
Household population in South San Francisco (indirect) 1,705 8,765 19.5 (Within) San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)c Employment
Employees generated in CBSA (direct) 10,745 168,255 6.4 (Within) Households
Employee households in CBSA (indirect) 7,655 144,500 5.3 (Within) Household Population
Household population in CBSA (indirect) 20,438 415,035 4.9 (Within) Bay Aread
Employment
Employees generated in CBSA (direct) 10,745 268,935 4.0 (Within) Households
Employee households in CBSA (indirect) 7,655 260,050 2.9 (Within) Household Population
Household population in CBSA (indirect) 20,438 750,705 2.7 (Within) a Refer to Table 4.12-2, p. 4.12-10.
b Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May. c A core-based statistical area (CBSA) is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget as a multicounty area anchored by an urban center and adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
d Includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-15 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
As shown in Table 4.12-4, p. 4.12-14, the 559 new households would be expected to indirectly generate approximately 1,705 residents within South San Francisco. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, the population in South San Francisco is projected to increase by approximately 8,765 between 2020 and 2030. Therefore, the addition of 1,705 new people in the City resulting from new employee households under the Office Scenario would account for approximately 19.5 percent of the population growth expected in the City from 2020 to 2030.
While proposed project employees would indirectly generate additional residential population and households within the City, based on ABAG projections for household and population growth in the City, population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project would be within the range of anticipated growth for the City.
Regional Population and Housing Growth
As shown in Table 4.12-4, p. 4.12-14, the project’s 10,745 net new employees would generate approximately 7,655 households in the CBSA when accounting for the household populations of project employees. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, between 2020 and 2030, households in the CBSA are projected to increase by approximately 144,500 and households in the Bay Area are projected to increase by approximately 260,050. Therefore, the addition of 7,655 new households in the CBSA resulting from employment under the Office Scenario would account for approximately 5.3 percent of the household growth expected in the CBSA and approximately 2.9 percent of the household growth expected in the Bay Area from 2020 to 2030.
As shown in Table 4.12-4, p. 4.12-14, the 7,655 new households in the CBSA would be expected to indirectly generate approximately 20,438 residents within the CBSA. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, between 2020 and 2030, the population in the CBSA is projected to increase by approximately 415,035 and the population of the Bay Area is projected to increase by approximately 750,705. Therefore, the addition of 20,438 new people in the CBSA resulting from new employee households under the Office Scenario would account for approximately 4.9 percent of the population growth expected in the CBSA and approximately 2.7 percent of the population growth expected in the Bay Area from 2020 to 2030.
While proposed project employees would indirectly generate additional residential population and households within the CBSA, based on ABAG projections for household and population growth in the CBSA and Bay Area, population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project would be within the range of anticipated growth for the CBSA and Bay Area.
Employment Growth
As shown in Table 4.12-4, p. 4.12-14, ABAG forecasts that between 2020 and 2030, the number of employees working in South San Francisco will increase by 4,635, the number of employees working in the CBSA will increase by 168,255, and the number of employees working in the Bay Area will increase by 268,935. Upon full buildout, the project would generate up to approximately 10,745 employees under the Office Scenario, which substantially exceeds ABAG’s employment growth projection for the City (231.8 percent) but is well within the employment growth projected for the CBSA (6.4 percent) and the Bay Area (4.0 percent).
Employment impacts are largely social and economic impacts, and CEQA establishes that social and economic impacts are not considered significant impacts unless they contribute to, or are caused by, physical impacts on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21080). Thus, the project’s City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-16 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
exceedance of ABAG’s employment growth projection for the City is not, in and of itself, a significant impact on the environment. As discussed above, project employees would not directly create significant impacts related to population or housing demand. Other potential environmental impacts that could result from the new employees on the project site are evaluated throughout this EIR.
These include impacts related to vehicle travel (including attendant air quality and noise impacts) and increased demand for public services and utilities. Refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning; Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration; Section 4.13, Public Services; Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation; and Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. These sections evaluate whether activities associated with the project’s operations, which include employee activity, would cause significant impacts on the environment.
Jobs-Housing Balance
As described in Section 4.12.2, p. 4.12-10, the total number of employed residents and the total number of households in a community make up that community’s employed residents-to-household ratio, also referred to as jobs-housing balance. Local governments may use the jobs-housing balance as a planning tool for achieving particular policy outcomes; however, it is not a regulatory tool and does not necessarily imply a physical change in the environment or relate to any recognized threshold of significance under CEQA. Therefore, the project’s impacts on jobs-housing balance are discussed below for informational purposes only.
As shown in Table 4.12-2, p. 4.12-10, ABAG forecasts that the City will have an employed residents-to-household ratio of between 1.54 and 1.50 from 2020 to 2030, and between 1.50 and
1.46 from 2030 to 2040. The CBSA is projected to have an employed residents-to-household ratio of between 1.43 and 1.40 from 2020 to 2030, and between 1.40 and 1.36 from 2030 to 2040. This means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities or, alternatively, that exports housing, and a high level of in-commuting. The City acknowledges that much of its land area is not well suited for housing development due to existing land use conflicts (e.g., proximity to SFO, the historic and existing industrial uses of the East of 101 Area, and emerging office and R&D uses in the area).20
Housing availability, already projected to be out of balance in the City, would decrease with project buildout because the proposed project would result in net new employees and no increase in housing units. Therefore, the proposed project would result in an increased unfavorable jobshousing ratio in the City. However, continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. In addition, the City has several residential and mixed-use projects that are either under construction or in the development pipeline, which would add to the City’s housing supply and promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing (refer to Table 4.1-2 in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis). The City in general, and the Specific Plan area in particular, is well served by all modes of public transit, including shuttles, buses, and rail. Therefore, additional potential future employees would have access to a variety of transportation options for reaching the project site from throughout the Bay Area.
The City does not have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal that would be applicable to the project.
Nonetheless, the City adopted the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee, codified in Chapter
8.69 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, that established impact fees for non-residential development projects in order to address the demand for affordable housing that is created by new commercial development and mitigate impacts that accompany new commercial development by 20 South San Francisco General Plan, Chapter 3, Policy 3.5-I-3, p. 3-45.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-17 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
protecting the economic diversity of the City’s housing stock; reducing traffic, transit and related air quality impacts; promoting jobs/housing balance; and reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region. The project would be required to pay the Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee, which would contribute to the development of affordable housing in other locations within the City.
Indirect Infrastructure-Generated Population and Housing Growth As discussed in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, infrastructure improvements required to serve the project would involve the relocation, construction, or expansion of numerous utility facilities within both South San Francisco and San Bruno. This includes the construction of a new public arterial roadway – Southline Avenue – which would be constructed between Huntington and South Linden Avenues as part of Phase 1. However, this new roadway would function as a connection between two existing roads in an urbanized setting, and is envisioned by the General Plan, and therefore would not induce unplanned population growth. Additionally, the project constitutes infill development within an already existing urban environment, and the other required infrastructure improvements would consist of localized improvements intended to serve projectrelated demand. Therefore, these improvements would not extend infrastructure into other unserved or underserved areas and, as such, would not indirectly generate population growth.
Based on the above, operation of the project’s proposed infrastructure improvements would not generate substantial unplanned population growth in the City or region.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not directly generate new population or households. Population and housing growth indirectly generated by project employees would be within ABAG’s forecasted growth for the City, the CBSA, and the Bay Area. The project’s proposed infrastructure improvements would not generate substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, operational population and housing impacts associated with the project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Phase 1
Construction
As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, construction of Phase 1 is expected to commence in Q1 2022 and end in Q3 2024, lasting approximately 30 months. The number of construction workers on the project site would vary, ranging from approximately 40 to 550 on any given day, according to the stage of construction. For the reasons discussed above in the context of the project’s impacts, construction of Phase 1 would not generate substantial unplanned population growth in the city or region. Construction-related population and housing impacts associated with Phase 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operation
Direct Population and Housing Growth
Phase 1 would not involve construction of housing units and thus would not directly add any residents or housing to the city.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-18 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Indirect Employee-Generated Population and Housing Growth Table 4.12-5, p. 4.12-18, compares the estimated employee, household, and household population generation for Phase 1 to current ABAG projections for the City of South San Francisco, the CBSA, and the Bay Area.
Table 4.12-5. Employment, Household, and Population Generation Compared to Planned Growth — Phase 1
Phase 1a
ABAG Projected
Increase
(2020 – 2025)b
Percent of
Projected
Increase
South San Francisco
Employment
Employees generated in South San Francisco (direct) 2,349 3,710 63.3 (Within) Households
Employee households in South San Francisco (indirect) 120 895 13.4 (Within) Household Population
Household population in South San Francisco (indirect) 366 2,935 12.5 (Within) San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)c Employment
Employees generated in CBSA (direct) 2,349 83,245 2.8 (Within) Households
Employee households in CBSA (indirect) 1,651 69,085 2.4 (Within) Household Population
Household population in CBSA (indirect) 4,393 193,090 2.3 (Within) Bay Aread
Employment
Employees generated in CBSA (direct) 2,349 131,570 1.8 (Within) Households
Employee households in CBSA (indirect) 1,651 127,090 1.3 (Within) Household Population
Household population in CBSA (indirect) 4,393 355,100 1.2 (Within) a Refer to Table 4.12-3, p. 4.12-12.
b Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May. c A core-based statistical area (CBSA) is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget as a multicounty area anchored by an urban center and adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
d Includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
City of South San Francisco Population and Housing Growth Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 square feet of new office uses and related amenity space. As shown in Table 4.12-5, p. 4.12-18, based on a rate of 250 square feet per employee, Phase 1 is expected to generate approximately 2,349 net new employees, 183 of whom would reside in the City of South San Francisco. As such, Phase 1’s employment would generate City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-19 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
approximately 120 households in the City when accounting for the household populations of Phase 1 employees. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, households in South San Francisco are projected to increase by approximately 895 between 2020 and 2025. Therefore, the addition of 120 new households in the City resulting from employment under Phase 1 would account for approximately
13.4 percent of the household growth expected in the City from 2020 to 2025.
As shown in Table 4.12-5, p. 4.12-18, the 120 new households would be expected to indirectly generate approximately 366 residents within South San Francisco. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, the population in South San Francisco is projected to increase by approximately 2,935 between 2020 and 2025. Therefore, the addition of 366 new people in the City resulting from new employee households under Phase 1 would account for approximately 12.5 percent of the population growth expected in the City from 2020 to 2025.
While Phase 1 employees would indirectly generate additional residential population and households within the City, based on ABAG projections for household and population growth in the City, population and housing growth resulting from Phase 1 would be within the range of anticipated growth for the City.
Regional Population and Housing Growth
As shown in Table 4.12-5, p. 4.12-18, Phase 1’s 2,349 net new employees would generate approximately 1,651 households in the CBSA when accounting for the household populations of Phase 1 employees. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, between 2020 and 2025, households in the CBSA are projected to increase by approximately 69,085 and households in the Bay Area are projected to increase by approximately 127,090. Therefore, the addition of 1,651 new households in the CBSA resulting from employment under Phase 1 would account for approximately 2.4 percent of the household growth expected in the CBSA and approximately 1.3 percent of the household growth expected in the Bay Area from 2020 to 2025.
As shown in Table 4.12-5, p. 4.12-18, the 1,651 new households in the CBSA would be expected to indirectly generate approximately 4,393 residents within the CBSA. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, between 2020 and 2025, the population in the CBSA is projected to increase by approximately 193,090 and the population of the Bay Area is projected to increase by approximately 355,100.
Therefore, the addition of 4,393 new people in the CBSA resulting from new employee households under Phase 1 would account for approximately 2.3 percent of the population growth expected in the CBSA and approximately 1.2 percent of the population growth expected in the Bay Area from 2020 to 2025.
While Phase 1 employees would indirectly generate additional residential population and households within the CBSA, based on ABAG projections for household and population growth in the CBSA and Bay Area, population and housing growth resulting from Phase 1 would be within the range of anticipated growth for the CBSA and Bay Area.
Employment Growth
As shown in Table 4.12-5, p. 4.12-18, ABAG forecasts that between 2020 and 2025, the number of employees working in South San Francisco will increase by 3,710, the number of employees working in the CBSA will increase by 83,245, and the number of employees working in the Bay Area will increase by 131,570. Upon full buildout, Phase 1 would generate up to approximately 2,349 net new City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-20 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
employees, which would be within ABAG’s employment growth projections for the City (63.3 percent), the CBSA (2.8 percent), and the Bay Area (1.8 percent).
Jobs-Housing Balance
The Phase 1 development is a component of the overall project. Refer to the project analysis above for a discussion of jobs-housing balance.
Indirect Infrastructure-Generated Population and Housing Growth For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, the improvements proposed as part of Phase 1 would not extend infrastructure into other unserved or underserved areas and, as such, would not indirectly generate population growth. Therefore, operation of Phase 1’s proposed infrastructure improvements would not generate substantial unplanned population growth in the city or region.
Conclusion
Phase 1 would not directly generate new population or households. Population and housing growth indirectly generated by Phase 1 employees would be within ABAG’s forecasted growth for the City, the CBSA, and the Bay Area. The proposed infrastructure improvements under Phase 1 would not generate substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, operational population and housing impacts associated with Phase 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
4.12.4.5 Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing units or people, and no replacement housing would be needed. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts with regard to displacement of existing people or housing.
As previously discussed, Plan Bay Area 2040 is the current Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and ABAG in July 2017, in compliance with California’s governing greenhouse gas reduction legislation, SB 375. 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.
The cumulative geographic context for impacts related to population and housing is the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA, which comprises Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Given the size of the CBSA, it is beyond the scope of this EIR to identify every cumulative project within its boundaries. However, it is reasonable to assume that other cumulative projects would be similar to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects envisioned by Plan Bay Area 2040 and reflected in Projections 2040. Therefore, this cumulative analysis evaluates the project’s contribution to anticipated cumulative growth and determines whether that contribution is cumulatively considerable. The impact analysis is based on the project’s share of cumulative growth between 2020 and 2030 (the project buildout year); however, for informational purposes, recognizing that some cumulative projects may be built out after 2030, cumulative growth between 2030 and 2040 is also presented. Since Phase 1 is a component of the project, the cumulative analysis for the project also serves as the cumulative analysis for the Phase 1.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-21 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Impact C-PH-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 planned population and housing growth. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, employment growth in the CBSA will increase by 168,255 between 2020 and 2030, and by 342,520 between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, as shown in Table 4.12-6, p. 4.12-21, the project’s contribution of approximately 10,745 employees would constitute approximately 6.4 percent of planned growth for 2020-2030, and approximately 3.1 percent of planned growth for 2020-2040. Households within the CBSA will increase by approximately 144,500 between 2020 and 2030, and by 307,205 between 2020 and 2040.
Therefore, the project’s 7,655 new households would account for approximately 5.3 percent of the household growth projected for the CBSA between 2020 and 2030, and 2.5 percent of the household growth projected for the CBSA between 2020 and 2040. Household population within the CBSA will increase by approximately 415,035 between 2020 and 2030, and 962,080 between 2020 and 2040.
Therefore, the project’s employment-related household population growth of 20,438 people would account for approximately 4.9 percent of the household population growth projected for the CBSA between 2020 and 2030, and 2.1 percent of the household population growth projected for the CBSA between 2020 and 2040.
Table 4.12-6. Project (Office Scenario) Share of Planned Cumulative Employment, Household, and Population Growth in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA)a 2020-2030 2020-2040
Employment
CBSA Planned Growth 168,255 342,520
Project 10,745 10,745
Project Share of CBSA Planned Growth 6.4% 3.1%
Households
CBSA Planned Growth 144,500 307,205
Project 7,655 7,655
Project Share of CBSA Planned Growth 5.3% 2.5%
Household Population
CBSA Planned Growth 415,035 962,080
Project 20,438 20,438
Project Share of CBSA Planned Growth 4.9% 2.1%
a A core-based statistical area (CBSA) is defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget as a multi-county area anchored by an urban center and adjacent counties that are socioeconomically tied to the urban center by commuting. The San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward CBSA consists of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May.
Looking beyond the CBSA at the greater Bay Area is also informative to the project’s cumulative impact assessment. According to ABAG’s Projections 2040, employment growth in the Bay Area will increase by 268,935 between 2020 and 2030, and by 562,185 between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, as shown in Table 4.12-7, p. 4.12-22, the project’s contribution of approximately 10,745 employees would constitute approximately 4.0 percent of planned growth for 2020-2030, and 1.2 percent of planned growth for 2020-2040. Households within the Bay Area will increase by approximately City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Population and Housing
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.12-22 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
260,050 between 2020 and 2030, and by 544,735 between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, the project’s approximately 7,655 new households would account for approximately 2.9 percent of the household growth projected for the Bay Area between 2020 and 2030, and 1.4 percent of the household growth projected for the Bay Area between 2020 and 2040. Household population within the Bay Area will increase by approximately 750,705 between 2020 and 2030, and by 1,692,835 between 2020 and 2040. Therefore, the project’s employment-related household population growth of approximately 20,438 people would account for approximately 2.7 percent of the household population growth projected for the Bay Area between 2020 and 2030, and 1.2 percent of the household population growth projected for the Bay Area between 2020 and 2040.
Table 4.12-7. Project (Office Scenario) Share of Planned Cumulative Employment, Household, and Population Growth in the Bay Areaa
2020-2030 2020-2040
Employment
Bay Area Planned Growth 268,935 562,185
Project 10,745 10,745
Project Share of Bay Area Planned Growth 4.0% 1.9%
Households
Bay Area Planned Growth 260,050 544,735
Project 7,655 7,655
Project Share of Bay Area Planned Growth 2.9% 1.4%
Household Population
Bay Area Planned Growth 750,705 1,692,835
Project 20,438 20,438
Project Share of Bay Area Planned Growth 2.7% 1.2%
a Includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May.
Conclusion. The project’s contribution of planned cumulative employment, household, and population growth in the CBSA from 2020 to 2030 would range from 4.9 to 6.4 percent (or 2.1 to 3.1 percent when looking at 2020-2040 growth). In the Bay Area, the project’s contribution to 2020- 2030 cumulative growth would be 2.7 to 4.0 percent (or 1.2 to 1.9 percent when looking at 2020- 2040 growth). In all cases, the project represents less than 7 percent of planned cumulative growth.
As noted above, given the size of the CBSA, it is beyond the scope of this EIR to identify every cumulative project within its boundaries to determine whether a cumulative impact would occur (i.e., whether the project combined with other cumulative projects would exceed ABAG’s growth forecasts). However, it is reasonable to assume that other cumulative projects would be similar to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects incorporated within Plan Bay Area 2040 and reflected in Projections 2040. As discussed previously, the Specific Plan Area is adjacent to the San Bruno Transit Corridors PDA, which is formed around the San Bruno BART and Caltrain stations. The project would locate new employment opportunities in South San Francisco, an existing regional employment center, immediately adjacent to public transit, consistent with numerous regional and local plans and policy directives that promote high-density, infill development near transit (refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR). Given the consistency with planned growth in the CBSA, the project’s cumulative population and housing impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.13 Public Services
4.13.1 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 public services. 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. No questions or concerns related to public services were raised in response to the NOP.
4.13.2 Environmental Setting
This section describes the public service providers that serve the Specific Plan area. The locations of the fire stations, police stations, libraries, and schools that serve the Specific Plan area are shown in Figure 4.13-1, p. 4.13-2.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within the City of San Bruno, but would not include the development of any new structures or land uses within San Bruno. These improvements 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-desac 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. Because the off-site improvements within the City of San Bruno’s jurisdiction do not include any land uses that would be served by San Bruno fire stations, police stations, libraries, and schools, the proposed project would not impact San Bruno’s public service providers; therefore, this section does not include an analysis of San Bruno’s public service providers.
Figure 4.13-1
South San Francisco Public Service Providers
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Figures\Doc\PublicServiceProviders_20201112\SouthlineDev_PublicServices.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 6/8/2021 Main Library
Police Station
Fire Station No. 61
Fire Station No. 63
Grand Avenue Library
Los Cerritos
Elementary
Community
Learning Center
Baden
Continuation
School
Parkway Heights
Middle School
South San Francisco
High School
0 0.25
Miles
Public Service Providers
Police Station
Fire Stations
Libraries
Schools
Project Site
City Limits
1:15,000
[
N
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.13.2.2 Fire Protection Services
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to fire protection services, resources, and response times in South San Francisco and the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site.
City of South San Francisco Fire Department
The South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD or Fire Department) provides fire suppression and emergency medical service in the City, including the Specific Plan area.
Staffing and Facilities
The Fire Department includes 87 full-time-equivalent employees, and 6.93 hourly and contract employees for operations that include fire prevention, emergency medical services, and administrative work. Approximately 24 fire suppression personnel are assigned to three separate shifts, with a minimum of 20 fire suppression personnel on duty every day.1 The Fire Department consists of the fire chief, administration division, fire prevention division, and emergency medical services/operations division.
According to recent California Department of Finance data, the City of South San Francisco has a population of 67,879 (as of January 1, 2020).
2 The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
estimates that South San Francisco’s household population will increase by approximately 8,765 from 2020 to 2030, from 67,435 people to 76,200 people. 34 Employees in South San Francisco are
projected to increase by approximately 4,635 from 2020 to 2030, from 46,365 people to 51,000 people. The Fire Department considers a project’s service population to include the total residential population and a portion of the total employment population. Specifically, the Fire Department estimates that its current existing service population is approximately 100,000 people during business hours, which corresponds to 100 percent of the City’s residential population (67,879 people) and approximately 70 percent of the employee population (32,121 of the City’s estimated 46,365 employees). With a daytime service population of 100,000 people, the Fire Department is currently maintaining a ratio of 1,149 persons per firefighter (based on 87 full-time-equivalent employees). The Fire Department does not have an official personnel-to-service-population ratio, but has used the following ratios for reference and projection purposes in the process of updating the City of South San Francisco (City) General Plan: 0.0745 station per 1,000 population, 0.0745 engine per 1,000 population, 0.019 truck company per 1,000 population, and 0.0373 ambulance per 1,000 population.5
1 Lustenberger, Craig (Fire Marshal). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline Specific Plan—Fire Services Questionnaire. Received October 29, 2020. 2 California, Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1/1/2020.
Sacramento, California, May 2020.
3 Association of Bay Area Governments. 2019. Projections 2040. May. 4 As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, ABAG forecasts are created to help local governments anticipate and prepare for changes, and are not based on actual counts. California Department of Finance population estimates are based on current counts from a variety of sources, including drivers’ licenses, birth and death certificates, public school enrollment numbers, and other sources. For these reasons, differences may appear between the population numbers for the two data sets. 5 Magallanes, Jess (Fire Chief). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline Questions.
Received November 2, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The Fire Department operates five fire stations. The Fire Department considers current fire suppression and non-emergency medical response in its jurisdiction adequate when all resources are available. However, the Fire Department is also responsible for ambulance transport, and current utilization for dual role ambulances (i.e., paramedic and firefighter) is reaching critical call volumes such that crews are sometimes unable to complete other responsibilities such as training, equipment maintenance, report writing, adequate food/rest breaks, and availability to support the departments fire suppression and non-emergency medical responsibilities. The Fire Department is currently evaluating its utilization, and different strategies, such as staffing increases, are being considered.6 The need for additional staffing is a complex issue which the Fire Department is currently evaluating and assessing based on a number of internal department programs and strategies.
The nearest fire station to the Specific Plan area, Station No. 61, is located adjacent to the intersection of Spruce Avenue and Canal Street at 480 Canal Street, approximately 0.53 mile north of the Specific Plan area. Station No. 61 has primary responsibility for the Lindenville Planning Subarea, including the Specific Plan area. Station No. 61 has nine fire suppression personnel assigned daily and a command vehicle, fire engine, Advanced Life Support (ALS) ambulance, Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance, reserve command vehicle, reserve fire engine, and a reserve ambulance.
Station No. 63 is located west of State Route 82 at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 1.35 miles northwest of the Specific Plan area, and therefore would not be directly responsible for the project site, but would provide backup in the case that Station No. 61 is not available.7 Station No. 63 has six fire suppression personnel assigned daily, one fire engine, and one ALS ambulance. A fire station will be constructed as part of Phase III of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project at the intersection of Arroyo Drive and Camaritas Avenue, for which environmental review under CEQA was completed in 2017.
8 The new fire station will be approximately 8,826 square feet compared to the approximately 5,200-square-foot existing fire station No. 63. The new fire station will result in an approximately 3,626 square feet of additional facility space.9 The anticipated construction date of the new fire station is unknown. The project site is not within a Fire Hazard Management Unit.10 Response Times and Performance
Fire departments respond to a variety of life-threatening and non-life-threatening calls, including emergency calls for service and other fire-related calls. SSFFD’s response time goal is to arrive at emergency incidents within 7 minutes and 30 seconds of a call, 90 percent of the time11. The Fire Department is able to meet the goal of a 7 minute and 30 second goal 90 percent of the time with 6 Lustenberger, Craig (Fire Marshal). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline Specific Plan—Fire Services Questionnaire. Received October 29, 2020 7 Ibid.
8 City of South San Francisco. 2017. Community Civic Campus Project Final SEIR. State Clearinghouse Number 1996032052. Available: https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/363910/Page1.aspx. Accessed September 7, 2021.
9 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Community Civic Campus Program—Fire Station. Available:
http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/29-project-stats/106-fire-station. Accessed: November 5, 2020.
10 City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Health and Safety Element. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=472. Accessed: September 7, 2021. 11 Lustenberger, Craig (Fire Marshal). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline Specific Plan—Fire Services Questionnaire. Received October 29, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
efficient processing and turnout times.12 The Fire Department is considered a “busy” department, and ranks Station No. 61, which would serve the Specific Plan area, and Station No. 63, which would provide secondary support, as the busiest stations in the City. 13 In addition to response times, the fire department tracks other performance and workload measures, including calls for service by the hour, calls by station, and calls by unit. Table 4.13-1, p.
4.13-5, provides total calls received by station in 2017, the year for which the most recent data available.
Table 4.13-1. South San Francisco Fire Department Calls by Station in 2017 Station Calls Received
No. 61 1,721
No. 62 1,280
No. 63 2,153
No. 64 1,343
No. 65 827
Total 7,324
Source: South San Francisco Fire Department. 2017. Activity Record. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=11173. Accessed: November 5, 2020.
Budget and Funding
The City Council adopted a citywide impact fee program in October 2012 for public services through City Council Resolution No. 97-2012.
14 The resolution requires all residential and commercial developers to pay a one-time fee charged at the issuance of building permits for new construction within the city. The Public Safety Impact Fee is collected and used to improve and expand public safety capital facilities and equipment throughout the city to support new development projects as needed. The Public Safety Impact Fee, which was updated in September 2020 by City Council Resolution 123-2020, is $1.10 per square foot for office and research-and-development (R&D) space.
15 4.13.2.3 Police Protection Services
This section describes existing conditions related to resources and response times for police protection services in South San Francisco and the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site.
City of South San Francisco Police Department
The South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD or Police Department) provides police protection service to the City of South San Francisco, including the Specific Plan area. 12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 City of South San Francisco City Council. 2012. Resolution No. 97-2012. Available: https://weblink.ssf.net/ WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=136268&page=1&cr=1. Accessed: November 5, 2020. 15 City of South San Francisco. 2021. Development Fees. February. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/22612/637483927592270000. Accessed: September 7, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Staffing and Facilities
The SSFPD has a total of 117-full-time-equivalent employees and 4.87 hourly contract employees.
The department has 83 sworn officers and 35 civilian employees.16 The Police Department provides police protection services for the City and the Specific Plan area. The department consists of a records division, communications division, canine unit, evidence division, neighborhood response team, and traffic unit; it also conducts day and night patrols. The Specific Plan area would be served by the South San Francisco Police Station located at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 1.35 miles northwest of the project site. A new police headquarters located at the corner of Antoinette Lane and Chestnut Avenue will replace the existing police station as part of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, for which environmental review under CEQA was completed in 2017. The new police headquarters, which is currently under construction and estimated to be complete in Fall 2021, will be approximately 44,000 square feet compared to the approximately 32,000-square-foot existing police station. The new police headquarters will result in an approximately 12,000 square feet of additional facility space. 17 The new police headquarters will also serve the Specific Plan area.
According to South San Francisco Police Department staff, the department serves a population of approximately 65,000 full-time residents, and approximately 40,000 daytime employees (approximately 86 percent of the City’s estimated 46,365 employees in 2020 according to ABAG), or a total service population of approximately 105,000 people.18 According to Police Department staff, the department strives for a service ratio of 1.3 officers per 1,000 fulltime residents; however, the department is currently evaluating the impact of a larger daytime employee population, and the ratio may be subject to change in the future.19 South San Francisco General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1 also establishes a service ratio goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. According to Police Department staff, the department’s current service ratio is considered adequate to serve the current service population with existing staffing and equipment.20
Response Times and Performance
As shown in Table 4.13-2, p. 4.13-7, the Police Department’s annual crime statistics between 2017 and 2019 (the most recent years for which data is available), show a decrease in crimes including rape, strong arm robbery, aggravated assault, residential burglary, and vehicle theft, while also showing an increase in armed robbery and non-residential burglary. 16 Rudis, Michael (Master Sergeant). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline EIR— Police Service Questionnaire. Received October 23, 2020. 17 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Community Civic Campus Program—Police Station. Available:
http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/29-project-stats/107-police-station. Accessed: November 5, 2020.
18 Rudis, Michael (Master Sergeant). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline EIR— Police Service Questionnaire. Received October 23, 2020. 19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.13-2. South San Francisco Police Department Crime Statistics Crime 2017 2018 2019
Murder & Non-Negligible Manslaughter 1 0 2
Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0
Rape 28 22 19
Robbery-Armed 22 20 23
Robbery-Strong Arm 50 36 41
Aggravated Assault 129 103 81
Non-Aggravated Assault 458 393 408
Burglary-Residential 84 80 63
Burglary-Non-Residential 126 177 173
Grand Theft 511 429 463
Petty Theft 669 573 614
Total Vehicle Theft 208 185 179
Source: Rudis, Michael (Master Sergeant). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline EIR— Police Service Questionnaire. Received October 23, 2020.
As of September 2020, the Police Department received 26,755 total calls in 2020. As shown in Table 4.13-3, p. 4.13-8, the Police Department has been able to maintain a relatively consistent average response time over the past decade. However, the slight increase in average response time is attributed to an increase in population (both residential and daytime employees), and their associated increase in vehicular traffic, which slows the department’s response. The Police Department does not have an adopted response time goal; however, the Police Department considers their average response time to all priority calls adequate.
Budget and Funding
As stated above, the City adopted a comprehensive citywide impact fee program for public services to require new development throughout the city to pay a one-time Public Safety Impact Fee contribution to the costs of providing public safety facilities and equipment.21 The Public Safety Impact Fee, which was updated in September 2020 by City Council Resolution 123-2020, is $1.10 per square foot for office and R&D space.22
21 City of South San Francisco City Council. 2012. Resolution No. 97-2012. Available: https://weblink.ssf.net/ WebLink/DocView.aspx?dbid=0&id=136268&page=1&cr=1. Accessed: November 5, 2020. 22 City of South San Francisco. 2021. Development Fees. February. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/22612/637483927592270000. Accessed: September 7, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.13-3. South San Francisco Police Department Response Times and Service Calls Call
Priority1
2008-2009 Total
Calls for Service
Average Response
Time
2018-2019 Total
Calls for Service
Average Response
Time
1 999 3:29 1,036 3:51
2 15,906 5:19 18,335 5:35
3 17,732 7:10 16,428 7:31
1 Priority 1 calls are calls that are classified as emergency calls and situations. Priority 2 and 3 calls are for nonemergency calls or situations.
Source: Rudis, Michael (Master Sergeant). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline EIR— Police Service Questionnaire. Received October 23, 2020.
4.13.2.4 Schools
This section describes the existing conditions with regard to schools serving South San Francisco, and the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site.
South San Francisco Unified School District
The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) was established in 1913 and serves the City of South San Francisco with nine elementary schools, three middle schools, three high schools, and one adult education center. The Specific Plan area is served by Los Cerritos Elementary, Parkway Heights Middle School, South San Francisco High School, and Baden Continuation School (Adult Education Center).23 The locations of these SSFUSD schools are listed below. 24 ⚫ Los Cerritos Elementary, 210 West Orange Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080:
Approximately 0.76 mile northwest from the project site. ⚫ Parkway Heights Middle School, 650 Sunset Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080:
Approximately 1.50 miles north from the project site.
⚫ South San Francisco High School, 400 B Street, South San Francisco, CA 94080: Approximately
0.59 mile northeast from the project site.
⚫ Baden Continuation School, 825 Southwood Drive, South San Francisco, CA 94080:
Approximately 1.15 miles northwest of the project site.
Enrollment and Capacity
Table 4.13-4, p. 4.13-9, shows SSFUSD’s recent past enrollments. According to the most recent enrollment figures, SSFUSD’s total enrollment for the 2019/2020 school year was 8,438, a 0.6 percent decrease from the previous year and a 7.4 percent decrease from 2014/2015. In general, all the schools in the SSFUSD, not just the ones that serve the Specific Plan area, have experienced a decline 23 SSFUSD. 2018. Find Your School. Available: https://ssfusd-ca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d= x&group_id=1295706269370&vdid=ii12b1tk368pz. Accessed: November 5, 2020. 24 SSFUSD. 2018. All Schools—General Information. Available: https://ssfusdca.schoolloop.com/pf4/cms2/view_page?d=x&group_id=1500178971544&vdid=i1j2b1ytkg368eo. Accessed:
November 5, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
in enrollment in recent years. SSFUSD’s enrollment as of 2019/2020 was 8,438, compared with a capacity of 12,600 students; as of 2019, the district had no plans to open additional school facilities.25 Table 4.13-4. Enrollment for the South San Francisco Unified School District School
2014/
2015
2015/
2016
2016/
2017
2017/
2018
2018/
2019
2019/
2020
Los Cerritos Elementary 279 274 299 309 304 296
Parkway Heights Middle School 628 639 630 617 614 589
South San Francisco High School 1,403 1,363 1,366 1,388 1,321 1,294 Baden Continuation School 86 96 101 93 107 103
Total 2,396 2,372 2,396 2,407 2,346 2,282
Total SSFUSD Enrollment 9,111 8,941 8,879 8,707 8,485 8,438 Source: California Department of Education, DataQuest, 2020. Enrollment Multi-Year Summary by Grade— SSFUSD. Available: https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. Accessed November 5, 2020.
Student Generation Rate
The SSFUSD uses the following student generation rates according to school type:26 ⚫ 0.1636 elementary school student per household
⚫ 0.0775 middle school student per household
⚫ 0.1228 high school student per household
Budget and Funding
SSFUSD’s revenue sources include state funding through the Local Control Funding Formula and the Local Control Accountability Plan, property taxes, federal subsidies, one-time mandated cost reimbursements, Grants, and other sources. In 2010, voters in San Mateo County passed Measure J, which is a $162 million bond to replace portable classrooms with permanent classrooms, updating and repairing outdated facilities, improving safety and security on campuses, and enhancing energy efficiency. SSFUSD is still using this bond, primarily for the demolition of portable classrooms at South San Francisco High School.27 In addition, the district received a $2 million grant from Genentech in October 2019 to support the development and implementation of new math and science curricula across the entire district.28 Furthermore, the SSFUSD also collects fees levied on developers of residential and non-residential properties (aka Developer Fees). The current 25 City of South San Francisco. 2019. South San Francisco General Plan Update—Parks and Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. Available: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ SSF_ECR_Ch5_ParksPubFacilities_final.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2020. 26 City of South San Francisco. 2017. Oyster Point Specific Plan Update—Appendix I, Municipal Services Assessment. Available: https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=367016&dbid=0. Accessed:
November 6, 2020.
27 City of South San Francisco. 2019. South San Francisco General Plan Update—Parks and Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. Available: https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ SSF_ECR_Ch5_ParksPubFacilities_final.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2020. 28 SSFUSD. 2019. SSFUSD Receives $2 Million Grant from Genentech in Support of Science Education. Available:
https://www.ssfusd.org/pf4/cms2/news_themed_display?id=1569929853007. Accessed: November 6, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-10 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Developer Fees, as of September 2018, are $0.61 per square foot for commercial and industrial development.29
4.13.2.5 Library and Childcare Services
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to libraries and childcare that serve the Specific Plan area, inclusive of Phase 1. The City is served by the Peninsula Library System (PLS), a consortium of 35 public and community college libraries founded in 1971 under a Joint Powers Agreement. The PLS is funded primarily by its member libraries, including Burlingame Public Library, Daly City Public Library, Menlo Park Public Library, Redwood City Public Library, San Bruno Public Library, San Mateo County Libraries, City of San Mateo Public Library, South San Francisco Public Library, and the San Mateo County Community College District. PLS also receives support from the state California Library Services Act funds, federal Library Services and Technology Act and local contracts for special services. 30 Library Facility and Services
The Specific Plan area is served by the South San Francisco Public Library System, which is part of the PLS. The South San Francisco Public Library System includes the Main Library at 840 West Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library at 306 Walnut Avenue, and the Community Learning Center at 520 Tamarack Lane.31 The two libraries provide free access to books and other reading materials in a wide variety of languages, iPads and laptops available for checkout, weekly digital literacy classes, literacy programs, and on-site access to computers and the internet.
The General Plan does not include any standard for providing library services. Within recent years, approximately 60,000 people attended library programs, approximately 411,000 visits were made to the library facilities, and approximately 580,000 library materials were circulated.32 Due to the smaller size of the main library, space within the library has become increasingly limited, and the outdated nature of the building does not allow for technology upgrades to improve network access.33 However, since the South San Francisco Public Libraries are part of the PLS, residents also have access to services from all member libraries, which partly makes up for any shortages. In addition, a new library will replace the existing main library as part of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, for which environmental review under CEQA was completed in 2017. The new library will be approximately 80,000 square feet compared to the approximately 57,120-square-foot existing main library. The new library will result in an approximately 23,000 square feet of additional facility space, and groundbreaking on this phase of the Civic Campus project occurred in January, 2021.
29 City of South San Francisco. 2021. Development Fees. February. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/22612/637483927592270000. Accessed: September 7, 2021.
30 Peninsula Library System. 2020. About PLS. Available: https://plsinfo.org/about/. Accessed: November 5, 2020. 31 City of South San Francisco. n.d. Library Locations & Hours. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/library/locations-hours. Accessed: November 6, 2020. 32 City of South San Francisco. 2019. South San Francisco General Plan Update—Parks and Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. Available: https://shapessf.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/SSF_ECR_Ch5_ParksPubFacilities_final.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2020. 33 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The City adopted Resolution 121-2020 in September 2020, which establishes a Library Impact Fee for new development to generate funds for library facilities and services.34 The current Library Impact Fee for office and R&D space is $0.12 per square foot.35 Child Care Facilities and Services
There are approximately 28 childcare facilities within South San Francisco, of which several are located within Lindenville Planning Sub-Area and near the Specific Plan area. 36 These include both
private and public preschools. The City has also identified a potential site for a future preschool. In 2017, a Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment was prepared for San Mateo County, which provided detailed supply and demand estimates, and existing supply of childcare and preschool facilities for each of the cities and towns located within San Mateo County. The assessment found that there is a surplus of childcare facilities within South San Francisco, and an adequate number of existing childcare and preschool facilities exist within the City to support a growing population.37 The City has a Childcare Impact Fee, codified in Chapter 20.310 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which assigns a fee of $1.26 per square foot of office and R&D space to generate funds for childcare facilities.
38 4.13.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the public services plans and policies of the City as well as federal and state agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the Specific Plan area.
4.13.3.1 Federal
Uniform Fire Code
The National Fire Protection Association publishes the Uniform Fire Code, which provides standards for fire protection. The nationally recognized standards require that fire departments “have the capability to deploy an initial full alarm assignment within an eight-minute response time to 90 percent of the incidents.”
34 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Resolution 121-2020. Available:
https://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/DocView.aspx?id=448242&searchid=6c728353-e00b-4d3a-bd80- dfa734ff974a&dbid=0. Accessed: September 7, 2021.
35 City of South San Francisco. 2021. Development Fees. February. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/22612/637483927592270000. Accessed: September 7, 2021.
36 City of South San Francisco. 2019. South San Francisco General Plan Update—Parks and Public Facilities Existing Conditions Report. Available: https://shapessf.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/11/SSF_ECR_Ch5_ParksPubFacilities_final.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2020. 37 Sarah Kinahan Consulting. 2017. San Mateo County Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment. November 2017.
Available: https://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/About_FIL/Child%20Care%20Partnership%20Council_FIL/ Needs%20Assessment_FIL/CCPC_Full_Report_Needs_Assessment_11-17.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2020 38 City of South San Francisco. 2021. Development Fees. February. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showpublisheddocument/22612/637483927592270000. Accessed: September 7, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.13.3.2 State
California Fire Code39
The California Fire Code incorporates, by adoption, the International Fire Code of the International Code Council, with California amendments. This is the official Fire Code for the State and all political subdivisions. It is located in Part 9 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The California Fire Code is revised and published every three years by the California Building Standards Commission; the currently operable code is the 2016 California Fire Code. Similar to the California Building Code, the California Fire Code is generally adopted on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, subject to further modification based on local conditions.
Senate Bill 50
Senate Bill 50 (funded by bonds sold under Proposition 1A, approved in 1998) limits the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and provides instead for a standardized developer fee. SB 50 generally provides for a 50/50 State and local school facilities funding match. SB 50 also provides for three levels of statutory impact fees. The application level depends on whether State funding is available, whether the school district is eligible for State funding and whether the school district meets certain additional criteria involving bonding capacity, year round school and the percentage of moveable classrooms in use.
California Government Code, Section 65995(b), and Education Code Section 17620 SB 50 amended the California Government Code Section 65995, which contains limitations on Education Code Section 17620, the statute that authorizes school districts to assess development fees within school district boundaries. Government Code Section 65995(b)(3) requires the maximum square footage assessment for development to be increased every two years, according to inflation adjustments. On January 24, 2018, the State Allocation Board (SAB) approved increasing the allowable amount of statutory school facilities fees (Level I School Fees) to $4.08 per square foot of assessable space for residential development of 500 square feet or more, and to $0.66 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space for commercial/industrial development (State Allocation Board 2020).
Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code 66000-66008) Enacted as AB 1600, the Mitigation Fee Act requires a local agency establishing, increasing, or imposing an impact fee as a condition of development to identify the purpose of the fee and the use to which the fee is to be put. The agency must also demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged, and between the fee and the type of development plan on which it is to be levied. The Act came into force on January 1, 1989. 39 The 2019 California Fire Code is incorporated in South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.24, California Fire Code.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.13.3.3 Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The City’s current General Plan, adopted in 1999, 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 Health and Safety Element, which acknowledges and mitigates the risks posed by hazards (e.g., fire) and ensures adequate police service. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to public services:
Fire and Police Protection
⚫ Policy 8.4-G-1: Minimize the risk to life and property from fire hazards in South San Francisco. ⚫ Policy 8.4-G-2: Provide fire protection that is responsive to citizens’ needs. ⚫ Policy 8.4-I-440: 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 8.5-G-1: Provide police services that are responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community. ⚫ Policy 8.5-I-1: Ensure adequate police staff to provide a rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times.
Actions that could be taken to ensure rapid and timely response to all emergencies include:
Maintain a law enforcement standard of 1.5 police officers per 1,000 residents; Analyze and monitor factors affecting response time (population growth, police staffing, community policing programs) and average response times as guidelines based on past experience;
Maintain, train, and equip special response teams for extraordinary or extremely hazardous emergency incidents; and
Develop and/or use the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) for analysis of issues including crime location trends and response routes (see policy 2-I-14).
Schools and Childcare Facilities
• 5.2-G-1 Support efforts by the South San Francisco Unified School District to maintain and improve educational facilities and services.
• 5.2-I-1 Work with the SSFUSD on appropriate land uses for school sites no longer needed for educational facilities. Acquire closed school sites for recreation facilities and childcare purposes where appropriate.
The General Plan does not include any policies specifically addressing library services. 40 Policy 8.4-I-4 is misnumbered in the General Plan as the second Policy “8.4-I-3”.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
South San Francisco Municipal Code
According to the South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.48, the City requires minimum design measures to be incorporated into projects as a standard condition of approval in order to safeguard property and promote public welfare and safety. The chapter outlines specific minimum security standards for nonresidential buildings, such as the proposed project, which includes alarm systems, keying requirements, safes, and security design measures for doors, windows, ladders, and hatchway openings. The proposed project would be required to incorporate these minimum security standards.
As discussed in Section 4.13.2 above, the City assigns a Public Safety Impact Fee (City Council Resolution 123-2020), a Library Impact Fee (City Council Resolution 121-2020), and a Childcare Impact Fee (Chapter 20.310 of the Municipal Code) for new development to contribute to Citywide funding for these services.
4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to public services 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.
4.13.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant public services impact if it would:
⚫ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
Fire protection
Police protection
Schools
Parks
Other public facilities
4.13.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on considering how employee population growth resulting from implementation of the proposed project and Phase 1 would affect fire and police protection, school, library, and childcare services. Impacts on parks are discussed in Section 4.14, Recreation, of this EIR.
According to the CEQA significance criteria, the proposed project would have an adverse environmental impact if it were to result in substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for public services.
Potential impacts related to public services are evaluated by (a) assessing the potential for the project to increase demand for public services based on goals established by service providers and (b) comparing the ability of the service provider/public facility to serve the project and accommodate the associated increase in demand. A determination is then made as to whether the existing facilities are capable of meeting the demand of the project and, if not, if expansion of existing facilities could cause an adverse environmental effect. The analysis is based on the review of City documents and maps and communications with City service providers.
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, the employees generated by the project could result in indirect population generation in the City (i.e., project employees currently living outside the City who choose to relocate, possibly with their families, to the City). This potential indirect population and housing growth is considered in the analysis of the project’s consistency with ABAG’s population and housing growth projections for the city and region in Section 4.12, Population and Housing.
Buildout Scenario Studied (Office Scenario)
As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan would allow development of the commercial campus as either office or R&D uses, or a combination of both, up to 2,800,000 square feet. For the purposes of the program-level EIR analysis, two projected buildout scenarios were identified that 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 resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.
This section analyzes the build out scenario which represents the “worst-case” scenario for public services. Of the two scenarios, the Office Scenario would construct the largest amount of square footage, with the highest density of employees, and as such, would generate the greatest number of new employees. Therefore, the Office Scenario is evaluated in this analysis. As discussed in Section
4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, implementation of the Office Scenario would result in a direct increase of approximately 10,745 net new employees in the Specific Plan area, and an indirect increase of approximately 1,705 new residents in the City when accounting for employees who move to the City as a result of project employment and their household members (conservatively assuming that all employees would be new to the area, as explained in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR). Approximately 2,349 of the 10,745 employees and 366 of the 1,705 residents would be associated with Phase 1.
4.13.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact PS-1: The project would not require the provision of new or physically altered fire and emergency medical services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
times, or other performance objectives. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
As discussed in Section 4.13.4.2, Approach to Analysis, the project would directly increase the City’s employment population by approximately 10,745 employees. The project would indirectly increase the City’s residential population by approximately 1,705 residents. Thus, the project would result in an increase in the number of calls for fire protection and emergency services. As discussed in Section
4.13.2, Environmental Setting, the Fire Department includes 87 full-time-equivalent employees and a service population of approximately 100,000 persons, or approximately 1,149 persons per firefighter.
The Fire Department considers a project’s service population to include the total residential population and approximately 70 percent of the total employment population. Assuming that 70 percent of the project’s 10,745 employees and all of the project’s employment-generated residential population count as additional to the service population, the proposed project would increase the Fire Department’s service population by approximately 9,227 people ([10,745 x 0.7] + 1,705), reducing the Fire Department’s service ratio to 1,256 persons per firefighter (109,227 / 87). The Fire Department does not have an official personnel-to-service-population ratio.
The Fire Department estimates that the project would increase the Department’s call volume by 70 to 95 calls per year, or 0.3 to 0.2 calls per day.41, Station No. 61, which is approximately 0.53 mile north of the Specific Plan area, would provide primary fire and emergency response to the project, and Station No. 63, approximately 1.35 miles northwest of the Specific Plan area, would provide close access in the event that Station No. 61 is unable to respond, or secondary response if needed for a fire or emergency medical event.
As part of the City’s standard conditions of approval, all buildings constructed under the project would be built in conformance with the South San Francisco Municipal Fire Code, which incorporates the 2019 California Fire Code, which would require new construction to facilitate emergency access and to include fire protection systems (such as alarm systems and sprinklers).
This would reduce the risk of fire at all new buildings.
The Fire Department is currently meeting the response time goal of 7 minutes and 30 seconds 90 percent of the time with efficient processing and turnout times.42 While the addition of 9,227 persons to the Fire Department’s service population would increase the number of calls for fire protection and emergency service, this is unlikely to adversely impact response times, which are already meeting the Department’s standard, to the extent that construction of a new facility is required. In addition, as mentioned above, a fire station will be constructed as part of Phase III of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, for which environmental review under CEQA was completed in 2017. The new fire station will be approximately 8,826 square feet compared to the approximately 5,200-square-foot existing Station No. 63. The new fire station will result in an approximately 3,626 square feet of additional facility space, and will allow for the Fire Department to expand their capacity as growth continues to occur throughout the City. 43 41 Lustenberger, Craig (Fire Marshal). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline Specific Plan—Fire Services Questionnaire. Received October 29, 2020. Note that this estimate was based on an initial estimate of approximately 11,200 employees, and therefore may be somewhat conservative. 42 Ibid.
43 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Community Civic Campus Program—Fire Station. Available:
http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/29-project-stats/106-fire-station. Accessed: November 5, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The project’s impacts on emergency access are evaluated in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR. As discussed therein, the project would provide an additional route for emergency vehicles to access the Specific Plan area through construction of the new Southline Avenue and the new intersection at Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue, both of which would be constructed during Phase 1. Upon project completion, adequate emergency access would be provided to the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site.
The SSFFD commented on the proposed project through the City’s standard review process.
According to the SSFFD, the demand for fire protection service associated with the proposed project, including Phase 1, would not necessitate the construction of a new fire facility. 44 Based on the analysis above, although the project would increase the number of employees, building density, and level of daytime activity in the Specific Plan area, and the number of employeegenerated residents in the City, the anticipated increase in demand for fire protection services would not be expected to degrade service levels to the extent that the construction of a new facility would be required. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions and any project-specific conditions of approval, including the payment of development impact fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of fire protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 new square feet of office space and would generate approximately 2,349 of the project’s 10,745 net new employees and approximately 366 of the project’s 1,705 employee-generated residents in the City. Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of fire protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact PS-2: The project would not require the provision of new or physically altered police protection services in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
The project’s approximately 10,745 net new employees and 1,705 employee-generated residents would increase the number of calls for the Police Department’s services. As discussed above, the Police Department strives for a service ratio goal of 1.3 officers per 1,000 fulltime residents. South San Francisco General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1 also establishes a service ratio goal of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. With 83 full-time-equivalent officers and a residential population of 67,879 people, the Police Department’s current service ratio is approximately 1.2 officers per 1,000 residents. The 44 Lustenberger, Craig (Fire Marshal). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline Specific Plan—Fire Services Questionnaire. Received October 29, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
addition of 1,705 fulltime residents associated with project employees would maintain a current service ratio of 1.2 officers per 1,000 residents.
As discussed above, according to the SSFPD, the department serves a daytime (peak) service population of 105,000 people, which corresponds to 100 percent of the City’s residential population and approximately 86 percent of the City’s estimated employee population according to ABAG estimates. Assuming that 86 percent of the project’s approximately 10,745 employees and all of the project’s approximately 1,705 employee-generated residents count as additions to the service population, the project would add approximately 10,946 persons to the Police Department’s service population ([10,745 x 0.86] + 1,705). The additional daytime employee population and indirect population growth generated by the project would be expected to result in an increase in the number of calls for law enforcement services.
The proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 15.48 of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes specifications for security design measures, as a standard condition of project approval, which would help to address and minimize security concerns in the Specific Plan area.
As discussed in Section 4.13.2, Environmental Setting, the Police Department considers its current service ratio to be adequate to serve the current service population with existing staffing and equipment. While the project would increase the number of calls for police protection by approximately 61.88 calls annually, or 0.17 calls per day, this is unlikely to adversely impact response times, which the department currently considers adequate, to the extent that construction of a new facility is required.45 While the project would increase traffic volumes in the vicinity, the construction of the new Southline Avenue would facilitate emergency response from first responders. In addition, as mentioned above, a new police headquarters will be constructed as part of Phase III of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, for which environmental review under CEQA was completed in 2017. The new police headquarters, which is currently under construction and estimated to be complete in Fall 2021, will be approximately 44,000 square feet compared to the approximately 32,000-square-foot existing police station. The new police headquarters will result in an approximately 12,000 square feet of additional facility space, which will allow the department to expand its capacity as growth continues to occur throughout the City.46 The SSFPD commented on the proposed project through the City’s standard review process.
According to the SSFPD, while the project would not result in the need to build a new facility, it is likely that the Department would need to increase staffing to serve the increased permanent and daytime population resulting from the project.47 While staffing needs are an important policy and public safety consideration, CEQA’s focus is on physical effects on the environment that could occur from the construction of new facilities. In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay 45 The average annual call volume was calculated using an annual service call generation rate of 0.0221 calls per 1,000 square feet of office/R&D space as follows: 0.0221 calls (2,800,000 square feet/1,000 square feet) = 61.88 annual service calls.
Source: City of South San Francisco. 2017. 2017 Oyster Point Specific Plan Update Appendix I, Municipal Services Assessment, Table A-2: Police Department Response Call Volume Demand Estimates. Available:
https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/0/doc/367046/Page1.aspx. Accessed: February 11, 2021. 46 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Community Civic Campus Program—Police Station. Available:
http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/29-project-stats/107-police-station. Accessed: November 5, 2020.
47 Rudis, Michael (Master Sergeant). Personal Communication. Email to Adena Friedman. RE: Southline EIR— Police Service Questionnaire. Received October 23, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the City’s Public Safety Impact Fee, which would help to fund future staffing increases and/or facility expansion for the Police Department.
Based on the analysis above, although the project would increase the number of employees, building density, and level of daytime activity at the Specific Plan area, and the number of employeegenerated residents in the City, the anticipated increase in demand for police protection services would not be expected to degrade service levels to the extent that the construction of a new facility would be required. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions and any project-specific conditions of approval, including the payment of development impact fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of police protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 new square feet of office space and would generate approximately 2,349 of the project’s 10,745 net new employees and approximately 366 of the project’s 1,705 employee-generated residents in the City. Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of police protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact PS-3: The project would not require the provision of new or physically altered schools in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: No Less than Significant) Project
The proposed project does not include any residential units and would not directly generate new students. However, as explained in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, project employees could indirectly generate approximately 559 new households and 1,705 new residents within the City. The SSFUSD has developed metrics to estimate student generation based on school type. Table 4.13-5, p. 4.13-19, shows the estimated number of new students generated by the proposed project under the Office Scenario.
Table 4.13-5. Estimated Students Generated in the South San Francisco Unified School District – Office Scenario
School Type Generation Rate
Number of ProjectGenerated
Households Students
Elementary School 0.1636 559 91
Middle School 0.0775 559 43
High School 0.1228 559 69
Source: City of South San Francisco. 2017. Oyster Point Specific Plan Update—Appendix I, Municipal Services Assessment. Available:
https://weblink.ssf.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=367016&dbid=0. Accessed: November 6, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As shown in Table 4.13-5, p. 4.13-19, project employee households could generate a total of approximately 203 students in SSFUSD schools. According to the most recent enrollment figures, the SSFUSD’s total enrollment for the 2019/2020 school year was 8,438, a 0.6 percent decrease from the previous year and a 7.4 percent decrease from 2014/2015. In general, all schools in the SSFUSD have experienced a decline in enrollment in recent years, as depicted in Table 4.13-4, p. 4.13-9.
As the SSFUSD has seen a decline in enrollment, the project-related increase of 203 students, including 91 elementary school students, 43 middle school students, and 69 high school students, would be expected to be accommodated within the capacity of SSFUSD schools. Additionally, development under the proposed project would be subject to developer fees of $0.61 per square feet of commercial and industrial development, which are deemed to fully mitigate the impact of new development on school districts.48 Therefore, the proposed project’s impacts related to the SSFUSD would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 new square feet of office space and would generate approximately 2,349 of the project’s 10,745 net new employees and approximately 366 of the project’s 1,705 employee-generated residents in the City. Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of school protection facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact PS-4: The project would not require the provision of new or physically altered libraries or other public facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Library service demand is primarily driven by a library’s residential service population. The proposed project does not include any residential units, and would not directly generate new library users. However, as explained in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, project employees could indirectly generate approximately 1,705 new residents within the City. While the additional employees and residents associated with the proposed project could generate an increased demand for library services (to the extent the employees visit libraries during their lunch breaks, or before or after work), any such increase would be expected to be minimal. In addition, a new library is planned to replace the existing main library as part of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, for which environmental review under CEQA was completed in 2017. The new library will be approximately 80,000 square feet compared to the approximately 57,120-square-foot existing main library. The new library will result in an approximately 23,000 square feet of additional facility space, which will allow the South San Francisco Library System to expand their capacity as growth continues to occur throughout the city.
49 The City is also a part of the Peninsula Library System, and residents and employees generated by the proposed project would also have access to all member 48 Government Code Section 65995(b)(3).
49 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Community Civic Campus Program—New Library. Available:
http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/29-project-stats/108-library-and-parks-recreation-center.
Accessed: November 6, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
libraries, which would help to accommodate the increase in service. Given these considerations, any increased demand for library services associated with the proposed project would not be expected to require the construction of a new library facility.
The proposed project would also increase the demand for preschool childcare services as a result of the increased number of employees and residents (i.e., approximately 10,745 net new employees and 1,705 employee-generated residents). However, as discussed in Section 4.13.2, Environmental Setting, there is a surplus of existing preschool and other childcare facilities currently in the City, which would be expected to accommodate the increase in demand for preschool childcare services that would be generated by the proposed project.
50 In addition, the proposed project would be required to pay the City’s Childcare Impact Fee of $1.26 per square foot per office and R&D space.
Based on the analysis above, although the project would increase the number of employees in the Specific Plan area and the number of employee-generated residents in the City, the anticipated increase in demand for library and childcare services would not be expected to degrade service levels to the extent that the construction of new facilities would be required. Furthermore, the proposed project would be required to comply with the City’s standard conditions and any projectspecific conditions of approval, including the payment of development impact fees. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of library or childcare facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 new square feet of office space and would generate approximately 2,349 of the project’s 10,745 net new employees and approximately 366 of the project’s 1,705 employee-generated residents in the City. Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of library or childcare facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
4.13.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to fire protection, police protection, library, and childcare services is the City of South San Francisco because these services are provided on a Citywide basis, and service ratios by which demand is estimated (where applicable) are based on Citywide figures. Cumulative projects anticipated in the City of South San Francisco are shown in Table 4.1-2 in Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this. These include 2,926 residential units, 87,815 square feet of commercial/retail space, 5.6 million square feet of office/R&D space, and 443 hotel rooms. The geographic context for cumulative analysis for impacts on schools is the SSFUSD school district.
50 Sarah Kinahan Consulting. 2017. San Mateo County Childcare and Preschool Needs Assessment. November 2017.
Available: https://www.smcoe.org/assets/files/About_FIL/Child%20Care%20Partnership%20Council_FIL/ Needs%20Assessment_FIL/CCPC_Full_Report_Needs_Assessment_11-17.pdf. Accessed: November 6, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Public Services
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.13-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact C-PS-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on public services. (Less than Significant) The project, inclusive of Phase 1, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would increase the number of residents and employees in the City, leading to an increase in demand for fire protection, police protection, school, library, and childcare services.
With respect to fire protection and police protection services, SSFFD and SSFPD are essential service providers that continually assess demand based on anticipated growth and service needs. By analyzing applicable metrics, SSFFD and SSFPD continuously adjust staffing, capacity, response times, and other measures of performance. In addition, the cumulative projects, similar to the proposed project, would be subject to Citywide development impact fees and school developer fees based on the square footage of each project. Therefore, the cumulative projects would not be anticipated to result in any service gaps related to fire protection, police protection, schools, libraries, or childcare services. For these reasons, the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to public services. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.14 Recreation
4.14.1 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 recreation. 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. No questions or concerns related to recreation were raised in the response to the NOP.
4.14.2 Environmental Setting
This section describes the parks and recreation facilities that serve the Specific Plan area. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within the City of San Bruno, but would not include the development of any new structures or land uses within San Bruno. These improvements 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-desac 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. The off-site improvements within San Bruno’s jurisdiction would not include any parks and recreational facilities or any land uses that would generate a demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, the proposed uses in the Specific Plan area could generate a demand for parks and recreational facilities in both cities. Therefore, this section evaluates the project’s impacts on both South San Francisco and San Bruno parks and recreational facilities, with the focus of the San Bruno analysis being the demand generated by project employees and employee population on San Bruno parks and recreational facilities.
4.14.2.1 Existing Parks and Recreational Facilities
The Specific Plan area is in the City of South San Francisco (City), northwest of the U.S. 101/Interstate 380 interchange. The Specific Plan area is on the border of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno; the nearest parks and open spaces are generally located within both cities.
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to parks and recreation in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site.
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages more than 270 acres of parks, open spaces, and outdoor recreational facilities in the city, including 145 acres of parks and playgrounds; more than 80 acres of open space at Sign Hill Park, Oyster Point Marina, and within a community garden; and 14 acres of athletic fields, which are shared with the South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Unified School District (SSFUSD).
1 The City maintains a Joint Use Agreement with SSFUSD, which provides public use of school facilities located on SSFUSD land for an additional 95.8 acres of recreational space. The closest City Parks and Recreation Department areas serving the project site are the Centennial Way Multi-Use Trail, Francisco Terrace Playlot, and San Francisco Bay Trail.
The City of San Bruno, located directly adjacent to the project site, also offers many nearby parks and recreational facilities in proximity to the project site. The City of San Bruno contains four types of parks in addition to school district facilities that are available for recreational uses outside of school hours: pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and regional parks. Pocket parks are less than one acre and designed to serve residents of the surrounding blocks. They provide playgrounds and benches. Neighborhood parks are less than 15 acres and designed to serve the residential community within approximately 0.5 mile of the park. They provide playgrounds, picnic tables, and turf areas. Community parks are 30 to 100 acres and serve several neighborhoods, generally within 3 miles of the park. They provide sports facilities and recreational facilities.
Regional parks are large parks and open spaces that serve as recreational resources to the surrounding region within approximately 15 miles of the facility.2 They provide passive facilities such as picnicking, hiking, and spaces for large group events. The closest San Bruno parks serving the project site are Bayshore Circle Park, Herman Tot Lot, and Forest Lane Park.
Table 4.14-1, p. 4.14-2, shows parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces in South San Francisco and San Bruno within a 1-mile radius of the project site, including schools that are a part of the SSFUSD Joint Use Agreement. Figure 4.14-1, p. 4.14-4, depicts the locations of the parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces in Table 4.14-1.
3 Table 4.14-1. Parks, Open Spaces, and Recreational Facilities Within One Mile of the Project Site Name
Size
(acres) Amenities
Approximate
Distance from
Project Site
(mile)
City
Jurisdiction
Centennial Way
Multi-Use Trail
16 Walking and Bicycle Trail Adjacent on the
western side
South San
Francisco
Bayshore Circle
Park
0.5 Basketball Courts, Benches, 5 to 12
Years Equipment
0.1 south San Bruno
Herman Tot Lot 0.25 Benches, 5 Years & Under
Equipment
0.3 south San Bruno
Francisco
Terrace Playlot
0.3 Adult Fitness Equipment,
Basketball Courts, Children's Play
Area
0.3 northwest South San
Francisco
Forest Lane Park 1.25 Basketball Court, Benches, 5 to 12 Years Equipment
0.4 south San Bruno
1 City of South San Francisco Parks Division. 2020. Parks. Available: https://www.ssf.net/departments/parksrecreation/parks-division. Accessed: October 6, 2020. 2 City of San Bruno. 2009. City of San Bruno General Plan. Public Facilities and Services Element. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24021. Accessed: October 7, 2020. 3 In addition to the parks, recreational facilities, and open spaces listed in Table 4.14.-1, a 1.3-acre park and the completion of Centennial Way Trail are currently under construction as part of Phase Two of the City’s Community Civic Campus project, which is expected to be completed in Spring 2023. City of South San Francisco. 2020. Phase Two of the Community Civic Campus Move Forward. Available:
http://www.communityciviccampus.net/index.php/2-uncategorised/201-phase-two-of-the-community-civiccampus-moves-forward. Accessed: February 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Name
Size
(acres) Amenities
Approximate
Distance from
Project Site
(mile)
City
Jurisdiction
San Francisco
Bay Trail
10.3 Bicycle Pedestrian Trail, Picnic
Tables, Barbeques, Benches
0.5 east South San
Francisco
South San
Francisco High
School
8.5 School facilities are open to the
public under the Joint Use
Agreement
0.5 northwest South San
Francisco
Sister Cities Park 1.7 Walking Trail, Benches 0.6 north South San Francisco
Los Cerritos
Elementary
1.5 School facilities are open to the
public under the Joint Use
Agreement
0.7 northwest South San
Francisco
Commodore
Park
4 Baseball Field, Benches, Barbeque,
Dog Park, Picnic Tables, Reservable
Picnic Tables, Restrooms, Water, 5
to 12 Years Equipment
0.7 southwest San Bruno
7th & Walnut
Park
0.5 Basketball Courts, Benches, Water,
5 to 12 Years Equipment
0.7 southwest San Bruno
Orange
Memorial Park
28 Children's Play Area, Community
Building, Restrooms, Picnic Tables,
Group Picnic Areas, Picnic Shelter,
Tennis Courts, Ball Fields,
Basketball Courts, Walking Trail,
Soccer Field, Skate Park, Bocce
Courts, Sculpture Garden
0.8 northwest South San
Francisco
Ponderosa
Elementary
School
6.0 School facilities are open to the
public under the Joint Use
Agreement
0.8 northwest South San
Francisco
Posey Park 0.25 Pocket Park with Benches 0.8 south San Bruno Brentwood Park 3.1 Open Turf, Children’s Play Area,
Restrooms, Picnic Tables, Tennis
Court, Ball Field, Basketball Court,
Walking Trail
0.9 west South San
Francisco
Sources: City of South San Francisco. 2020. Parks and Public Art Map. Available: https://parksmap.ssf.net/.
Accessed: October 7, 2020; City of San Bruno. 2020. Park Amenities. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/documents/REC/Park%20Amenities%2010.01.20.pdf. Accessed: October 7, 2020; City of South San Francisco. 2015. Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=498. Accessed: October 7, 2020.
Figure 4.14-1
Parks and Recreation Areas Within 1 Mile of the Project Site \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Data\ResourceData\WS\Recreation\Recreation_20201113.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 11/18/2020 San Francisco
Bay Trail
San Bruno
South San Francisco
Brisbane
Posy Park
Herman Tot Lot
Centennial Way Multi-Use Trail
Brentwood Park
Commodore Park
Forest Lane Park
7th & Walnut Park
Sister Cities Park
Bayshore Circle Park
Orange Memorial Park
Francisco Terrace Playlot
Ponderosa Elementary School
Los Cerritos Elementary School
South San Francisco High School
0 0.25
Miles
Parks and Recreation Areas
Recreational Trails
One Mile Radius
Project Site
City Limits
1:24,000
[
N
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.14.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the recreation plans and policies of state and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site.
4.14.3.1 State
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), also known as Assembly Bill (AB) 1600, establishes development impact fees for residential and commercial development projects and permits local agencies to establish and collect a fee from development projects to cover the cost of public facilities required to serve the development project. The fee may include the cost of renovating existing facilities to maintain existing service or to improve service consistent with the City General Plan.4
4.14.3.2 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 contains a Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element, which outlines policies relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities. The City General Plan includes the following policies and goals applicable to recreation:
⚫ Policy 5.1-G-3: Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible.
⚫ Policy 5.1-I-2: Maintain parkland standards of 3.0 acres of community and neighborhood parks per 1,000 new residents, and of 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees, to be located in employment areas.
The proposed project’s consistency with applicable City General Plan policies is evaluated in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR.
South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The City’s Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation centers within the City’s boundaries. The master plan includes the following goals and implementing recommendations that are relevant to recreation:
⚫ Goal 1: South San Francisco should provide a minimum of 3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents, and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 employees. ⚫ Recommendation R-1.1 Provide 3 acres per 1,000 new residents of developed park land and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 new employees.
4 Municipal Resource Group, LLC. 2016. City of South San Francisco Park Land Acquisition and Park Construction Fees Quimby Act and Mitigation Fee Act Report. Available: https://solutions-mrg.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/SSF-Park-Fee-Report_MRG_3-17-16.pdf. Accessed: October 8, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Goal 4: Incorporate innovative amenities to serve multiple user groups as new parks and facilities are developed or existing parks are renovated. ⚫ Recommendation R-4.3 Open space requirements for new development should include consideration of program elements to meet the needs of multiple user groups. ⚫ Recommendation R-4.4 Provide locations for active sports in employment areas. ⚫ Goal 11: Incorporate sustainable features into parks and facilities to increase water conservation, energy efficiency, and habitat values; encourage non-motorized transportation; and educate about the environment.
South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter 8.67 Under South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 8, Health and Welfare, Chapter 8.67, Parks and Recreation Impact Fee, the City established a parkland acquisition fee and a park construction fee applicable to qualifying development projects in furtherance of providing sufficient funding to achieve the City’s goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate parks and recreational services and facilities to residents of the City. Per Section 8.67.010, the purpose of the parkland acquisition fee is to mitigate the impact of development projects by collecting sufficient funds to acquire property in the City and provide three acres of parkland per one thousand residents and one-half acres of parkland per one thousand new employees. The purpose of the park construction fee is to mitigate the impact of development projects on park facilities by collecting sufficient funds to construct adequate park facilities and improvements in the City; refurbish and expand existing facilities; and provide three acres of parkland per one thousand residents and onehalf acres of parkland per one thousand new employees. As a qualifying nonresidential development project for purposes of Chapter 8.67, the proposed project would be subject to those requirements.
San Bruno General Plan
The San Bruno General Plan Open Space and Recreation Element outlines various goals, policies, and implementing programs relevant to parks and recreation. The Open Space and Recreation Element contains guiding policies and implementing policies regarding parks and recreation, park maintenance and improvements, open space, and multi-use trails. These policies are related to providing park and open space in San Bruno for San Bruno users, and are therefore not relevant to this analysis, which focuses on the demand generated by project employees and employee population on San Bruno parks and recreational facilities. -
4.14.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to recreation 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.
4.14.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant recreation impact if it would:
⚫ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities or the need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives; City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or ⚫ Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
4.14.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Evaluation of the proposed project is based on considering how employee population growth resulting from implementation of the proposed project, including Phase 1, would affect parks and recreational facilities in South San Francisco and San Bruno. The analysis uses employee population growth estimates presented in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR to determine the extent to which the project could generate additional demand on parks and recreational facilities in the area. For the purpose of evaluating the project’s impact on the City’s ability to achieve its parkland goal of 3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 employees, this analysis assumes that all employee population growth resulting from the project occurs in South San Francisco. Since the goal explicitly identifies developed parkland,5 undeveloped open space (i.e., Sign Hill Park or Bayfront Linear Park Open Space) is not included in the service ratio calculation. Consequently, there is approximately 173 acres of developed parkland provided in the City.6
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, additional project-related growth is likely to occur outside of South San Francisco, particularly in the San Francisco-OaklandHayward core-based statistical area (CBSA), which comprises Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo counties.
7 Therefore, this analysis also includes a qualitative evaluation of the project’s potential impacts on San Bruno parks and recreational facilities, given the Specific Plan area’s location along the border of South San Francisco and San Bruno.
The analysis also considers whether environmental impacts would result from development of the proposed open space improvements that would be incorporated as part of the proposed project, all of which would be located in the City of South San Francisco.
The proposed project would also include the construction of off-site improvement areas comprised of transportation, circulation, and infrastructure improvements at several locations in the City of San Bruno. However, as none of these improvements would include recreational amenities or generate a permanent demand for recreational facilities, the analysis of impacts related to the offsite improvements focuses on temporary construction impacts.
Buildout Scenario Studied (Office Scenario)
As discussed in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan would allow development of the commercial campus as either office or R&D uses, or a combination of both, up to 2,800,000 square feet. For the purposes of the program-level EIR analysis, two projected buildout scenarios were identified that would represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences 5 Although “developed” parkland is only explicitly stated for the residential portion of the goal, the City interprets this meaning to also apply to the employee portion of the goal. 6 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report, Parks + Public Facilities, November 2019.
7 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
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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 resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.
This section analyzes the build out scenario which represents the “worst-case” scenario for recreation. Of the two scenarios, the Office Scenario would construct the largest amount of square footage and has a higher employment density than the Life Sciences Scenario and would generate the greatest number of new employees. Therefore, the Office Scenario is evaluated in this Recreation analysis. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, implementation of the Office Scenario would result in a direct increase of approximately 10,745 net new employees in the Specific Plan area, and an indirect increase of approximately 1,705 new residents in South San Francisco when accounting for employees who relocate with their household members to live closer to the project. Approximately 2,349 of the 10,745 employees and 366 of the 1,705 residents would be associated with Phase 1.
4.14.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact REC-1: The project would not require the provision of new or physically altered park facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would create construction jobs on the project site, including the Specific Plan area and off-site improvement areas. The number of construction workers on-site would vary according to the stage of construction. Site workers may utilize nearby parks and open spaces during breaks. The nearest recreational facilities to the project site that construction workers are most likely to use include: the Centennial Way Multi-Use Trail, immediately west in the City of South San Francisco; the Bayshore Circle Park, 0.1 mile south in the City of San Bruno; and the Francisco Terrace Playlot, located 0.3 mile northwest in the City of South San Francisco. However, such use would most likely be modest given the number of workers associated with the proposed project and the typical durations of lunch and rest breaks. Therefore, although construction of the proposed project could incrementally increase the demand for parks and recreational facilities in both South San Francisco and San Bruno during the duration of project construction, project construction would not result in the need for new parks or recreational facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operation
As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, the Specific Plan under the Office Scenario could generate up to approximately 10,745 net new employees and 1,705 new employeegenerated residents by 2030. The proposed project would not include any residential uses.
Therefore, the project’s contribution to an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities would be attributable to its employment population and the indirect growth in residential population resulting from project employment.
As described above, the City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages over 270 acres of parks and open space parks and outdoor recreational facilities within the City, including 145 acres of 21 parks and playgrounds; over 80 acres of open space at Sign Hill Park, Oyster Point Marina, and a community garden; and 14 acres of athletic fields. In addition, as City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
mentioned above, the City’s Joint Use Agreement with SSFUSD allows for the use of 13 school sites for access to an additional 95.8 acres of developed parkland space. The South San Francisco General Plan includes a parkland goal of 3 acres of developed parkland per 1,000 residents and 0.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 employees, which does not include undeveloped open space (i.e., Sign Hill Park or Bayfront Linear Park Open Space). The total amount of developed parkland in the City is approximately 173 acres.8
As described in further detail in Table 4.12-1 in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, in 2020, the estimated population of South San Francisco is 67,879, with estimated growth to 76,200 by 2030; the projected number of jobs in the City in 2020 is 46,365 and in 2030 is estimated to grow to 51,000. Applying the General Plan’s residential parkland goal, approximately 2049 acres of parkland is required for the current Citywide residential population. Based on the General Plan’s employee parkland goal of 0.5 acres per 1,000 employees, approximately 2310 acres of parkland is required. Taken together, a total parkland demand of 227 acres11 is needed to satisfy parkland demand based on estimated 2030 resident and employee population. With a total of approximately 173 acres of developed parkland currently provided in South San Francisco, the City currently falls short of the goal by approximately 54 acres.
The project’s approximately 10,745 new employees would require 5.4 acres of parkland,12 and the 1,705 new residents would require 5.1 acres of parkland,13 for a total of 10.5 acres to meet the City’s parkland goals. Thus, the project would exacerbate the City’s current deficiency in developed parkland under its General Plan goals.
However, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan area would feature community amenities such as landscaping and open space, a network of pedestrian walkways and landscaped edges, “gateway” entries, lobby plazas, and two distinct open space/public realm areas: Southline Commons and the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet.
Southline Commons would be approximately 1.5 acres and would feature outdoor amenities, pedestrian paths, outdoor meeting and gathering spaces, casual dining areas, and space for recreation activities. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet would be 0.5 acres and would incorporate a walking pathway surrounded by landscaping, and would include active and passive recreational features, including a picnic area, a children’s play area, a stormwater demonstration garden, and a fruit and vegetable garden. These open spaces areas, though privately owned, would be accessible to the public during business hours. These features would serve to offset the project’s demand for public parks and recreational facilities, and would be consistent with General Plan Policy 5.1-G-3 and Parks and Recreation Master Plan Recommendations R-4.3 and R-4.4. In addition, as noted in Section 4.14.2, Environmental Setting, a 1.3-acre park and the completion of Centennial Way Trail are in development as part of Phase 2 of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, which will help address existing and future recreational needs. Furthermore, as set forth under Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and as described above in Section 4.14.3, Regulatory Framework, the project would be required to pay parks and recreation impact fees as applicable to help the City achieve its goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate facilities, in order to help mitigate any impacts that may result from development projects. The fees paid by the project would be used by the City to construct adequate park facilities and improvements in the City or to refurbish and expand existing facilities. Payment of the development 8 South San Francisco General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report, Parks + Public Facilities, November 2019.
9 (67,879 / 1,000) x 3 = 203.6
10 (46,365 / 1,000) x 0.5 = 23.2
11 203.6 + 23.2 = 226.8
12 (10,745 / 1,000) * 0.5 = 5.4
13 (1,705 / 1,000) * 3 = 5.1
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-10 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
impact fee would address the project’s share of impacts to the City’s park and recreational facilities.
Therefore, based on the above analysis, impacts on South San Francisco parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.
While the project could also increase usage of parks and recreational spaces in the City of San Bruno, given the parks and open space available in South San Francisco, and the project’s provision of onsite recreational amenities, which would offset demand for public parks and recreational facilities, any additional demand placed on San Bruno parks would be expected to be less than significant.
Based on the above analysis, it is anticipated that the proposed project would result in some increased demand and usage of parks and recreation facilities within the City and San Bruno, but the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of park facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 new square feet of office space and supporting amenity uses and would generate approximately 2,349 of the project’s 10,745 net new employees and approximately 366 of the project’s 1,705 employee-generated residents. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet would be developed during Phase 1, whereas Southline Commons would be developed in a future phase.
Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or alteration of parks and recreational facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact REC-2: The project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
Construction
Construction of the proposed project would create construction jobs on the project site. The number of construction workers on-site would vary according to the stage of construction. Site workers may utilize nearby parks and open spaces during breaks. The nearest recreational facilities to the project site that construction workers are most likely to use include: the Centennial Way Multi-Use Trail, immediately west in the City of South San Francisco; the Bayshore Circle Park, 0.1 mile south in the City of San Bruno; and the Francisco Terrace Playlot, located 0.3 mile northwest in the City of South San Francisco. However, use of these facilities and other nearby parks would most likely be modest given the number of workers associated with the proposed project and the typical durations of lunch and rest breaks. Therefore, although construction of the proposed project could incrementally increase demand for park services for the duration of construction, project construction would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park facilities. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operation
The project’s generation of up to approximately 10,745 net new employees and 1,705 employeegenerated residents could increase the use of the existing neighborhood and regional parks and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
other recreational facilities described in Table 4.14-1, p. 4.14-2, and shown in Figure 4.14-1, p.
4.14-4. Employees on the project site, and residents and employees in the surrounding area, who use existing parks and recreational facilities may choose to visit the new facilities that would be provided within the proposed project. This could reduce the rate of deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities near the project site. Furthermore, in accordance with the Chapter 8.67 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, future development under the proposed project would be required to pay parks and recreation impact fees to help the City achieve its goal of maintaining park service levels and providing adequate facilities, in order to help mitigate any impacts that may result from development projects.
Although the number of park users is expected to increase as a result of the proposed project, such an increase, in and of itself, would not cause substantial physical deterioration of existing facilities or a need for new facilities to be constructed. Given the variety of nearby open space and recreational facilities and the proposed project’s incorporation of on-site open space features intended to support recreation uses, as well as the payment of the parks and recreation impact fee, the increased usage of any one park by new employees at the project site would not be substantial.
Therefore, the impacts related to the use of existing parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Phase 1
Construction
For the reasons stated above in the Project analysis, construction of Phase 1 would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park facilities. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Operation
As described in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, Phase 1 would construct approximately 700,915 new square feet of office space and supporting amenity uses, and would generate approximately 2,349 of the project’s 10,745 net new employees and 366 of the project’s 1,705 employee-generated residents. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet would be developed during Phase 1, whereas Southline Commons would be developed in a future phase. Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not result in substantial physical deterioration of park facilities. The impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Impact REC-3: The project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
The Specific Plan area is located in an urbanized area surrounded by commercial, industrial and warehouse facilities, and residential uses. The proposed project would create new landscape and open space features which would consist of a continuous network of new and enhanced sidewalks and pathways, protected bike lanes, open space landscaped areas with native plants, and outdoor meeting and gathering spaces, casual dining areas, space for recreational activities, and social gathering spaces. The proposed project would feature a 1.5 acre central green space—referred to as Southline Commons—which would offer outdoor amenities accessible to both tenants and the public. It is envisioned to include pedestrian paths, outdoor meeting and gathering spaces, casual dining areas, and space for recreation activities. Another recreational feature would be the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet. This parklet would be 0.5 acre and would incorporate a walking City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
pathway surrounded by landscaping and would include active and passive recreational features, including a picnic area, a children’s play area, a stormwater demonstration garden, and a fruit and vegetable garden. Additional details pertaining to the proposed project’s open space areas are described in 3.6.2.10 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. These open space elements are evaluated as part of the project’s construction throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.11, Noise). Overall, the proposed project would improve an existing, urbanized area with limited access for walking and bicycling with features that would enhance and expand recreational opportunities.
Any potential adverse effects from the incorporation of these open space features as part of the proposed project would result from the construction of the open space, such as noise or air quality impacts (e.g., site preparation; emissions of dust and other pollutants). These potential impacts are addressed throughout Chapter 4 of this EIR as part of the analysis of construction impacts for the proposed project as a whole, with mitigation measures provided as necessary. Overall, no significant physical effect on the environment associated with construction of these open space area is anticipated beyond any impacts already disclosed elsewhere in this EIR, and no long-term effects from physical operation of these facilities are anticipated. Therefore, construction of these recreational facilities in connection with the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on the environment. No mitigation measures are required.
Phase 1
Phase 1 would include open space, landscaping, and recreational areas as described in Section
3.6.3.3 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. Like the proposed project, Phase 1 would be developed in an already urbanized area with limited access to recreational opportunities. The open space elements included in Phase 1, such as the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, are evaluated as part of the project’s construction throughout this EIR. Potential adverse effects from construction of these spaces, such as noise or air quality impacts (e.g., site preparation; emissions of dust and other pollutants) are addressed throughout Chapter 4 of this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality, Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 4.11, Noise). Therefore, the expansion of recreational facilities resulting from Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact on the environment. No mitigation measures are required.
4.14.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic context for cumulative impacts related to parks and recreational facilities is the City, and service ratios by which demand is estimated are based on Citywide figures. Cumulative projects anticipated in the City of South San Francisco are shown in Table 4.1-2 in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, of this EIR. These include 2,926 residential units, 87,815 square feet of commercial/retail space, 5.6 million square feet of office/R&D space, and 443 hotel rooms. To the extent project employees or associated household residents use parks in San Bruno, the cumulative context could include the City of San Bruno. As discussed in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, the Bayhill Specific Plan has been identified as a cumulative project in San Bruno.
Impact C-REC-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 recreation. (Less than Cumulatively Considerable) The project, inclusive of Phase 1, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would increase the number of residents and employees in the area, leading to an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities. The increase could result in a cumulative impact on public parks and recreational facilities in South San Francisco and San Bruno.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Recreation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.14-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As discussed under Impacts REC-1, REC-2, and REC-3, the proposed project would not physically degrade any existing recreational resources, would not result in significant effects related to the construction of new open spaces, and would not increase demand for and use of either neighborhood parks or recreational facilities such that it would result in substantial physical deterioration. In addition, the cumulative projects, similar to the proposed project, would be required to pay the parks and recreation impact fee in accordance with Chapter 8.67 of the City’s municipal code. Furthermore, community amenities provided by the proposed project, such as Southline Commons, Tanforan Community Parklet, and new landscaped areas, would help alleviate the use of public recreational resources. As with the proposed project, other development projects proposed or under consideration nearby would be required to include on-site recreational open space and amenities for the residents and employees who would occupy their developments. In addition, as noted in Table 4.14-1, p. 2, a 1.3-acre park and the completion of Centennial Way Trail are in development as part of Phase 2 of the City’s Community Civic Campus Project, which will help address existing and future recreational needs. While the project could also increase usage of parks and recreational spaces in the City of San Bruno, given the parks and open space available in South San Francisco, and the project’s provision of on-site recreational amenities, which would offset demand for public parks and recreational facilities, any additional demand placed on San Bruno parks would be expected to be minimal. For these reasons, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on recreation would be less than cumulatively considerable.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.15 Transportation and Circulation
4.15.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the potential impacts related to 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 transportation and circulation. 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 the Southline Draft Transportation Impact Analysis (Transportation Impact Analysis) prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers in June 2021 (Appendix 4.15-1).
Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. NOP comments pertaining to transportation and circulation include the analysis of project effects on bicyclist and pedestrian conditions, transit service, freeway ramp queuing, and site circulation. These issues are addressed below in Section 4.15.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
4.15.2 Environmental Setting
This section describes the setting for transportation and circulation in the vicinity of the project site, including the roadway network, transit network, transit service, conditions for bicyclists, and conditions for pedestrians. Descriptions provided in this section reflect conditions prior to the atypical changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in reduced vehicle travel and changes to transit services. Phase 1 and Project Buildout are anticipated to occur at a time when transportation conditions are closer to pre-COVID levels.
4.15.2.1 Regional Setting
Roadway System
Key local roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below and shown in Figure
4.15-1, p. 4.15-3.
⚫ Interstate (I) 380 is an approximately 1.7-mile-long, eight-lane freeway, linking I-280 (to the west) and U.S. 101 (to the east). I-380, which is approximately 0.5 mile south of the project site, is the closest freeway access route to the project site (via El Camino Real). Near the project site, I-380 carries about 170,000 vehicles per day.
⚫ I-280 is an eight-lane, north–south freeway connection between San Francisco to San José that follows the western urbanized edge of the San Francisco Peninsula. At the freeway’s northern and southern endpoints, the route serves Daly City, Colma, and southwestern San Francisco neighborhoods. I-280 is approximately 1.25 miles west of the project site. Near the project site, City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
I-280 carries about 200,000 vehicles per day. I-280 may be accessed via ramps at Sneath Lane and San Bruno Avenue.
⚫ U.S. 101 is an eight-lane freeway and the principal north–south connection between San Francisco, San José, and intermediate San Francisco Peninsula cities. U.S. 101 is approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site. Near the project site, U.S. 101 carries about 265,000 vehicles per day. U.S. 101 may be accessed via ramps at San Bruno Avenue, Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard, and Grand Avenue.
⚫ El Camino Real (State Route [SR] 82) is a north–south arterial roadway and state highway that spans the San Francisco Peninsula between San Francisco and San José. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the project site; it connects with I-380 approximately 0.5 mile from the project site, providing regional vehicle access from all directions. El Camino Real carries about 45,000 vehicles per day.
Transit System
The project site is served by the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station; the station is located across Huntington Avenue and within 0.5 mile of all buildings on the project site. San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) buses serve the San Bruno BART station via the co-located SamTrans Transit Center. The project site is also approximately 0.75 mile from the San Bruno Caltrain station, and approximately 1.5 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain station. Existing transit services are shown in Figure 4.15-2, p. 4.15-4, and are described in detail below.
The following transit services operate within South San Francisco and San Bruno in proximity to the project site:
⚫ BART provides regional rail service between the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County, connecting San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and the Millbrae intermodal station to the south to the city of San Francisco to the north and the cities of Oakland, Richmond, Pittsburg/Bay Point, Dublin/Pleasanton, and Fremont in the East Bay. The San Bruno station is adjacent to the project site. During peak weekday commute periods, the station is served by the Richmond-Millbrae and the Antioch-SFO lines, both of which operate with 15-minute headways, with a combined headway of 7.5 minutes throughout the day. During off-peak periods, the station is served by the Antioch-SFO line, which operates every 20 minutes.
Crestmoor
Canyon
3 101
West Orange Avenue
Chestnut Av
South Airport Boulevard
Westborough Bl
El Camino Real
San Bruno Avenue West
yW robraH
South Linden Avenue El Camino Real
Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue
Huntington Av
North Mcdonnell Road
Country Club Drive
DubuqueAv
Utah Avenue
Gateway Bl
Sneath Lane
Linden Av
San Bruno Avenue East
South Spruce Avenue
ProduceAv
EastGrandAv
eunevA oetaM naS
Cherry Av
Dorado Wy
Crestwood Drive
Spruce Avenue
Avalon Drive
Mitchell Avenue
·
82 %&280
%&380
14 15
17 24
31 20
26 25
27 18 19 22
23 11 16
28 13
10 7 8
2 3
1 4
29 30
12 6
9 21
Project Site
New Street - Southline Avenue
City Boundary
Caltrain Station
BART Station
South Maple Avenue
Hunngton Avenue
Sea
Sco St
Miller Av
Baden Av
Biscuit Av
Airport Bl
San Mateo Av
San
Bruno
South
San Francisco San Fran
DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN
LINDENVILLE
BAYHILL
Tanforan
Shopping
Center
Orange
Memorial
Park
0.5 mi
Figure 4.15-1
Project Location Map
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (8/30/21) AB
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
! !! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
! !
Crestmoor
Canyon
3 101
Linden Avenue
Chestnut Av
South Airport Boulevard
Westborough Bl
El Camino Real
San Bruno Avenue West
Harbor Wy
South Linden Avenue
El Camino Real
Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue
Huntington Av
AirportBl
Country Club Drive
DubuqueAv
Utah Avenue
Gateway Bl
Sneath Lane
San Bruno Ave E
ProduceAv
EastGrandAv
San Mateo Avenue
Cherry Av Dorado Wy
Crestwood Drive
SpruceAvenue
Avalon Drive
Mitchell Avenue
·
82 %&280
%&380
SamTrans Peak Period Frequency Other Transit Service
Every 15 minutes or less
Every 20 - 30 minutes
Greater than 30 minutes Southline Avenue
BART
Caltrain
Free South City Shuttle
Bayhill Shuttle
Project Site
North Mcdonnell Road
San Mateo Av
! !
San
Bruno
South
San Francisco San Fran
DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN
LINDENVILLE
BAYHILL
Tanforan
Shopping
Center
Orange
Memorial
Park
San Bruno
140
BH
140
292
140
292
141
141
398
398
398
ECR
ECR
SSF
141
South San
Francisco
San Bruno
San Bruno
BART
CALTRAIN
CALTRAIN
0.5 mi
Figure 4.15-2
Existing Transit Services
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Caltrain provides passenger rail service on the Peninsula between San Francisco and San José as well as trains with limited service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy during the weekday commute periods. Caltrain operates five trains per hour in each direction during peak periods. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project is currently under construction to increase Caltrain service levels to six trains per hour in each direction during peak periods and provide faster, more frequent service. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project is anticipated to be completed by 2022. The project site is near two Caltrain stations. South San Francisco Caltrain Station: This station is approximately 1.5 miles north of the project site at 590 Dubuque Avenue, on the east side of U.S. 101, just north of East Grand Avenue. In 2021, Caltrain will relocate the station to an area near the intersection of Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard. Once relocated, the South San Francisco Caltrain station will be served by 23 northbound and 23 southbound local or limited train lines during a typical weekday. Service is expected to increase upon completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project in 2022.
San Bruno Caltrain Station: This station is approximately 0.75 miles south of the project site, at the intersection of San Bruno Avenue and Huntington Avenue, within downtown San Bruno. The station is served by 26 northbound and 26 southbound local or limited train lines during a typical weekday. Service is expected to increase upon completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project in 2022.
⚫ SamTrans, which provides bus service in San Mateo County, serves the SamTrans Transit Center at the San Bruno BART station, adjacent to the project site. The SamTrans Transit Center is less than 0.5 mile from all proposed buildings at the project site and served by routes ECR, 140, 141, and 398. A shuttle to the Bayhill Office Park in San Bruno from the SamTrans Transit Center also operates during peak periods. SamTrans services and average peak-hour frequencies are summarized in Table 4.15-1, p. 4.15-5.
Table 4.15-1. BART and SamTrans Service at the San Bruno BART Station Route Service Endpoints Service Span
Average Peak
Hour Frequency
BART Red Line Richmond Station-Millbrae Station via
Oakland and San Francisco
5:15 a.m. to 12:00
a.m. (northbound);
6:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m.
(southbound)
15 minutes
BART Yellow
Line
Pittsburg Bay Point and Antioch
Stations-SFO Station via Oakland and
San Francisco
5:15 a.m. to 12:00
a.m. (northbound);
6:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m.
(southbound)
15 minutes
SamTrans ECR Daly City BART/Palo Alto Transit
Center via El Camino Real
5:15 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. 15 minutes
SamTrans 140 Pacifica/SFO 6:30 a.m. to 12:00
a.m.
30 minutes
SamTrans 141 Shelter Creek (San Bruno) /Airport
and Linden (South San Francisco)
6:45 a.m. to 7:45 p.m. 30 minutes
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Route Service Endpoints Service Span
Average Peak
Hour Frequency
SamTrans 398 Redwood City Transit Center
/Downtown San Francisco
5:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m.
60 minutes
Bayhill Shuttle San Bruno BART Station to Bayhill
Office Park
7:00 a.m. to 10:00
a.m.; 4:00 p.m. to
6:40 p.m.
15 minutes
Notes: Table summarizes conditions prior to COVID-19. The Bayhill Shuttle is operated independently through SamTrans’ shuttle program and is open to the public.
Source: Fehr & Peers; SamTrans 2021.
4.15.2.2 Project Site
The project site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Sneath Avenue and Huntington Avenue in South San Francisco, at the City’s boundary with the City of San Bruno.
Certain roadway facilities that serve the project site are located within South San Francisco, whereas others are located within San Bruno. Under existing conditions, the project site is not accessible from Huntington Avenue because there is no vehicular connection to Tanforan Avenue. Instead, regional access to the site under existing conditions is provided via U.S. 101 and I-380, with vehicles connecting to Maple Avenue, Dollar Avenue, or South Linden Avenue via surface streets. Figure
4.15-1, p. 4.15-3, shows the project location and the surrounding roadway system.
Roadway System
Key local roadways in the vicinity of the project site are described below. ⚫ Huntington Avenue is a north–south arterial and local roadway in San Bruno that parallels the Caltrain corridor between Sneath Lane to the north and San Felepe Avenue to the south. The City of San Bruno General Plan classifies the roadway as an arterial between Sneath Lane and San Mateo Avenue and a local street south of San Mateo Avenue. Huntington Avenue East is a one-way residential street that runs alongside Huntington Avenue. ⚫ South Linden Avenue is a north–south collector roadway in South San Francisco. It connects downtown South San Francisco to the north (at Airport Boulevard) to the Lindenville area and San Bruno to the south (at San Mateo Avenue). South Linden Avenue includes an at-grade Caltrain rail crossing.
⚫ Sneath Lane is an east–west local and arterial roadway in San Bruno that connects the Sweeny Ridge open space to the west to Huntington Avenue to the east. It intersects and provides access to three major north–south regional roadways: Skyline Boulevard (SR-35), I-280, and El Camino Real (SR-82); it is also one of the primary roadways for accessing project site. The City of San Bruno General Plan classifies the roadway as an arterial east of SR-35 and a local street west of SR-35.
⚫ San Bruno Avenue is a four-lane, east–west arterial roadway in San Bruno. San Bruno Avenue provides freeway access to both I-280 and U.S. 101.
⚫ South Maple Avenue is a two-lane, north–south collector street in South San Francisco that provides access primarily to destinations within the Lindenville industrial district between South Canal Street to the north and Tanforan Avenue to the south. The roadway provides direct access to the project site’s northern and western edges.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Dollar Avenue and Herman Street are two-lane, north–south collector streets in South San Francisco and San Bruno, respectively. They run alongside the Caltrain corridor and the eastern edge of the project site, connecting to South Linden Avenue and Huntington Avenue.
Dollar Avenue and Herman Street function as the primary connection between Lindenville and San Bruno west of the Caltrain corridor.
⚫ Scott Street is a two lane, east–west local street in San Bruno, connecting to Herman Street and San Mateo Avenue. Scott Street includes an at-grade Caltrain rail crossing. ⚫ Tanforan Avenue is a two-lane local street at the border of South San Francisco and San Bruno that connects to Maple Avenue and Dollar Avenue/Herman Street. Tanforan Avenue serves a mix of local residential trips as well as truck trips to industrial sites in Lindenville.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Network
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, trails, and pedestrian signals. Bicycle facilities consist of separated bikeways, bicycle lanes, routes, trails, and paths, as well as bicycle parking, bicycle lockers, and showers for cyclists. Caltrans recognizes four classifications of bicycle facilities:
⚫ Class I – Shared-Use Pathway: Provides a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians.
⚫ Class II – Bicycle Lane: Provides a striped lane for one-way travel on a street or highway. May include a “buffer” zone consisting of a striped portion of roadway between the bicycle lane and the nearest vehicle travel lane.
⚫ Class III – Bicycle Route: Provides for shared use with motor vehicle traffic; however, are often signed or include a striped bicycle lane.
⚫ Class IV – Separated Bikeway: Provides a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are protected from vehicular traffic. Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
The following pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present at or adjacent to the project site. Existing and proposed bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 4.15-3, p. 4.15-8. ⚫ Sneath Lane in San Bruno has sidewalks on both sides of the street and intermittent Class II bicycle lanes. Bicycle lanes are present west of El Camino Real and along a two-block segment between Sea Biscuit Avenue to Huntington Avenue, but a gap occurs between El Camino Real and Sea Biscuit Avenue.
⚫ The Centennial Way Trail is a Class I shared pedestrian and bicycle pathway in South San Francisco along the BART tunnel alignment. It connects the South San Francisco BART Station with schools, parks, and neighborhoods within the City. It presently terminates adjacent to the Specific Plan area about 400 feet north of the San Bruno BART Station. ⚫ Huntington Avenue is a designated Class III bicycle route in San Bruno and South San Francisco and has sidewalks on both sides of the street.
⚫ Tanforan Avenue is a designated Class III bicycle route and has sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Crestm oor
Canyon
3 101
West Orange Avenue
Chestnut Av
South Airport Boulevard
Westborough Bl
El Camino Real
San Bruno Avenue West
Harbor Wy
South Linden Avenue El Camino Real
Orange Avenue
Grand Avenue
Huntington Av
North Mcdonnell Road
Country Club Drive
DubuqueAv
Utah Avenue
Gateway Bl
Sneath Lane
Linden Av
San Bruno Avenue East
South Spruce Avenue
ProduceAv
EastGrandAv
San Mateo Avenue
Cherry Av Dorado Wy
Crestwood Drive
Spruce Avenue
Avalon Drive
Mitchell Avenue
·
82 %&280
17 %&380
24 31
20 26
25 27
18 19
11 16
28 13
10 7 8
2 3
1 4
30 6
Project Site
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class I Shared Path Class I Shared Path
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route Class III Bicycle Route
Class IV Separated Bikeway
New Street - Southline Avenue
City Boundary
Existing Bikeways Planned Bikeways
San
Bruno
South
San Francisco San Fran
DOWNTOWN
DOWNTOWN
LINDENVILLE
BAYHILL
Tanforan
Shopping
Center
Orange
Memorial
Park
South Maple Avenue
Hunngton Avenue
Sea
Sco St
Miller Av
Baden Av
Biscuit Av
Airport Bl
San Mateo Av
Figure 4.15-3
Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (4-29-2021) JC
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ South Linden Avenue is a designated Class III bicycle route with sidewalks on both sides of the street.
⚫ Dollar Avenue/Herman Street is a designated Class III bicycle route and has sidewalks on the west side of the street only.
⚫ Maple Avenue is not designated as a bicycle facility and has a sidewalk along the east side of the street only alongside the Specific Plan area.
Under existing conditions, the project site is located in a mostly auto-oriented industrial and commercial area with several barriers to walking and bicycling, as shown in Figure 4.15-4, p. 4.15-
10. Specifically, the following challenges to bicycle and pedestrian circulation exist:
⚫ Access barriers to the San Bruno BART Station: When exiting the San Bruno BART Station walking or bicycling toward the project site, pedestrians and bicyclists encounter Huntington Avenue, a wide multilane arterial street with narrow sidewalks and no dedicated bicycle facilities. There is no marked crosswalk directly connecting the BART Station entrance and the eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue, so pedestrians instead must cross two legs of the intersection to walk across the street. Both crosswalks have actuated pedestrian crossings, which add delay to pedestrians by defaulting to a “Don’t Walk” signal during a green light unless a button is pushed in advance.
⚫ Centennial Way Trail Gap: The Centennial Way Trail terminates 400 feet north of the San Bruno BART station and connects to the narrow sidewalk on the east side of Huntington Avenue.
Pedestrians and bicyclists share this narrow sidewalk space, which meanders alongside Huntington Avenue and Huntington Avenue East with relatively abrupt changes in grade. ⚫ Narrow sidewalks with obstructions, limited pedestrian-scaled lighting, unmarked crosswalks, and lack of accessible curb ramps: Although sidewalks are present on most streets in the vicinity of the project site, pedestrians contend with indirect routes along narrow facilities that at times are inaccessible to mobility-impaired pedestrians. Areas of particular concern related to the project include: the grade changes for the narrow eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue, the lack of curb ramps and marked crosswalks across Tanforan Avenue and Maple Avenue, the lack of a direct pedestrian and bicycle crossing between the Centennial Way Trail and SamTrans Transit Center at the San Bruno BART Station, and the omission of a southern crosswalk across Huntington Avenue at the San Bruno BART Station entrance. ⚫ Lack of bicycle connectivity: Some bicycle trail and bicycle lane facilities are present near the project site, as shown in Figure 4.15-3, p. 4.15-8. However, there is limited connectivity between dedicated bicycle facilities and to major destinations. For example, bicycle lanes along Sneath Lane do not connect to the Centennial Way Trail; the Centennial Way Trail does not connect to the San Bruno BART Station or elsewhere in San Bruno; and there is no dedicated connection between the project site and downtown South San Francisco. Consequently, bicyclists who seek to access the project site must share street space with cars and trucks operating on streets with posted speed limits of 25 to 30 miles per hour.
Emergency Vehicle Access
Emergency vehicle access is provided to the project site via South Linden Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and Maple Avenue. The closest fire station is South San Francisco Fire Station 61 at 480 North Canal Street. The closest hospital is the Kaiser Medical Center at 1200 El Camino Real in South San Francisco.
Slip-lane and
indirect crosswalk
configuration
Crosswalk and
ramp from
Centennial Trail to
project site needs
improvement
Centennial Trail
transitions to
narrow crosswalk
Narrow sidewalk
Unmarked crosswalk to
BART Station Entrance
Missing crosswalks
Missing ramps
Lack of accessible
crosswalk to
Centennial Way Trail
Project Site
Figure 4.15-4
Existing Pedestrian Circulation Barriers
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (8/30/21) AB
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Specific Plan Area
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.15.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the transportation and circulation plans and policies of the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno, as well as regional, state, and federal agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site and surrounding areas.
Certain circulation facilities that serve the project site are located within South San Francisco, whereas others are located within San Bruno. Each city has jurisdiction over its respective roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Several regional agencies, including C/CAG, the Congestion Management Agency in San Mateo County, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), coordinate and establish policy and funding priorities for intra-regional transportation improvement programs. Freeways serving South San Francisco (US 101, I-380 and I280), associated local freeway ramps and local surface highway segments are under the jurisdiction of the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Transit service providers such as BART, Caltrain, and SamTrans, have jurisdiction over their respective services. These agencies and their responsibilities are more specifically described below.
4.15.3.1 Federal
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (revised 2010) is a landmark civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based upon disability. Titles I, II, III, and V of the act have been codified in Title 42 of the United States Code, beginning at Section 12101. Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation” (businesses and non-profit agencies that serve the public) and “commercial facilities” (other businesses). The regulation includes Appendix 4.13-A to Part 36 (Standards for Accessible Design), which establishes minimum standards to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities when designing and constructing a new facility or altering an existing facility, including roadways, parking lots, and sidewalks.
Examples of key guidelines include detectable warnings for pedestrians when entering traffic zones where there is no curb, a clear zone of 48 inches for the pedestrian travel way, and a vibration-free zone for pedestrians.
4.15.3.2 State
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans has authority over the state highway system, including freeways, interchanges, and arterial routes. Caltrans operates and maintains state highways in the project site vicinity. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies (Caltrans 2001) provides information that Caltrans uses to review impacts on state highway facilities, including freeway segments. This guidance was updated by the Local Development – Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance published in November 2016 for consistency with Senate Bill (SB) 743, described below.
Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375
With the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, the state committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is coordinating a response to comply with AB 32. In 2008, CARB City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
defined its 1990 baseline level of emissions. On December 11, 2008, CARB adopted its Proposed Scoping Plan for AB 32. This scoping plan included approval of SB 375 as the means for achieving regional transportation-related GHG targets. In 2011, CARB completed its major rulemaking for reducing GHG emissions. Rules on emissions, as well as market-based mechanisms such as the capand-trade program, took effect on January 1, 2012.
SB 375 provides guidance regarding curbing emissions from cars and light-duty trucks to help the state comply with AB 32. There are four major components to SB 375. First, SB 375 requires regional GHG emissions targets. CARB’s Regional Targets Advisory Committee guides the adoption of targets to be met by 2020 and 2035 for each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the state. These targets, which MPOs may propose themselves, must be updated every 8 years in conjunction with the revision schedule of the housing and transportation elements of local general plans. Second, MPOs are required to create a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that provides a plan for meeting regional targets. The SCS and the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) must be consistent, including action items and financing decisions. If the SCS does not meet the regional target, the MPO must produce an alternative planning strategy that details an alternative plan for meeting the target. Third, SB 375 requires regional housing elements and transportation plans to be synchronized on 8-year schedules. In addition, Regional Housing Needs Assessment allocation numbers must conform to the SCS. If local jurisdictions are required to rezone land as a result of changes in the housing element, rezoning must take place within 3 years of adoption of the housing element. Finally, MPOs must use transportation and air emissions modeling techniques that are consistent with the guidelines prepared by the California Transportation Commission. Regional transportation planning agencies, cities, and counties are encouraged, but not required, to use travel demand models that are consistent with California Transportation Commission guidelines. The adopted RTP, per SB 375 (Plan Bay Area 2040), is discussed below.
Complete Streets (AB 1358)
AB 1358, also known as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008, requires cities and counties to include “complete street” policies in their general plans. These policies address issues regarding the safe accommodation of all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, public transit vehicles and riders, children, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. These policies can apply to new streets as well as the redesign of transportation corridors.
Senate Bill 743
As described in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, and Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, Senate Bill (SB) 743,1 was signed into law in 2013 and is codified in Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code with the intent to better align 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 created several key statewide changes to CEQA, as described in the EIR sections referenced above. This discussion focusses on changes related to the assessment of transportation and parking impacts under CEQA.
1 Full text of SB 743 available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 201320140SB743. Accessed February 25, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As required by SB 743, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 to provide an alternative to automobile delay, as described by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, for evaluating traffic impacts of proposed projects. The new metric, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), measures the total number of miles traveled by vehicles daily on the roadway network and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled (e.g., through GHG emissions). In other words, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts on drivers to measuring the impact of driving on the environment, particularly as it relates to GHG emissions.
Land use projects with one or more of the following characteristics would generally have lesser VMT impacts relative to projects without these characteristics:
⚫ A mix of project uses;
⚫ Support for a citywide jobs/housing balance;
⚫ Proximity to high-quality transit service; and
⚫ Locations in highly walkable or bikeable areas.
Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 states that lead agencies generally should presume that projects within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop or an existing stop along a high-quality transit corridor will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For transportation infrastructure projects, such as a street extension, projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT are presumed to have a less-thansignificant impact on VMT.
This shift in transportation impact criteria is expected to align transportation impact analysis and mitigation outcomes with state goals to reduce GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. Although OPR provides recommendations for adopting new VMT analysis guidelines, lead agencies retain discretion in designing their methodology. Lead agencies must select their preferred method for estimating and forecasting VMT, their preferred significance thresholds for baseline and cumulative conditions, and the mitigation strategies they consider feasible. Lead agencies must prove that their selected analysis methodology aligns with SB 743’s goals to promote infill development, reduce GHGs, and reduce VMT. To aid in SB 743 implementation, the following state guidance has been produced:
• OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA2 • California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals3
2 Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.
December. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed: September 21, 2021.
3 California Air Resources Board. 2017. 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals. January. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-planidentified-vmt-reductions-and-relationship-state-climate. Accessed: September 21, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
• California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020 Consistent with SB 7434
On June 10, 2020, the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution 77-2020 establishing VMT thresholds and methodology effective July 1, 2020. The VMT thresholds applied in this analysis are further described in Section 4.15.4.1, Significance Criteria, p. 4.15-22.
Lastly, SB 743 establishes that aesthetics and parking shall not be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, provided the project meets the following criteria established under Public Resources Code Section 21099:
⚫ The project is on an infill site.5
⚫ The project is in a Transit Priority area (TPA).6
⚫ The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment-center project.7 The proposed project meets the above criteria as a qualifying employment-center project for purposes of Public Resources Code Section 21099. The Specific Plan area is a qualifying infill site that is currently developed with existing various office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities.
Further, due to the project site’s proximity to the San Bruno BART station and qualifying SamTrans bus routes, the entire project site is located within a TPA. Because the project meets the three criteria above, this EIR does not consider aesthetics or parking in determining the significance of impacts under CEQA.
4.15.3.3 Regional
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the Bay Area’s regional transportation planning agency and federally designated MPO. The MTC is responsible for preparing the RTP, a comprehensive blueprint for the development of mass transit as well as highway, airport, seaport, railroad, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The RTP, which is a 20-year plan, is updated every 3 years to reflect new planning priorities and changing projections of future growth and travel demand. The long-range plan must be based on a realistic forecast of future revenues, and the transportation projects, taken as a whole, must help improve regional air quality. The MTC also screens requests from local agencies for state and federal grants for transportation projects to determine compatibility with the RTP.
4 California Department of Transportation. 2016. Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020 Consistent with SB 743. November.
Available: https://advocacydev.calchamber.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/2016/10/LDIGRInterimGuidanceApproved.pdf. . Accessed: September 21, 2021. 5 An “infill site” is a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public rightof-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. (Public Resources Code section 20199(a)(4)) 6 A TPA is an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. (Public Resources Code section (a)(7))
7 An “employment center project” is 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 TPA. (Public Resources Code section (a)(1)) City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Plan Bay Area 2040
Plan Bay Area 2040 is overseen by the MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). It serves as the region’s SCS and the 2040 RTP (preceded by Transportation 2035), integrating transportation and land use strategies to manage GHG emissions and plan for future population growth. The RTP and SCS include policies that call for shifting more travel demand to transit and accommodating growth along transit corridors in Priority Development Areas. Plan Bay Area 2040 was adopted by ABAG and the MTC in July 2017. Major projects included in Plan Bay Area 2040 include high-speed rail along the Caltrain corridor, Caltrain electrification, express lanes on U.S. 101 in San Mateo County, and improvements to local and express bus services.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is the regional agency with the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution throughout the Bay Area. The Clean Air Plan is the district’s plan for reducing the emissions of air pollutants that combine to produce ozone. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has published guidelines for the purpose of evaluating the air quality impact of projects and plans. One criterion calls for plans, including general plans, to demonstrate reasonable efforts to implement the transportation control measures included in the Clean Air Plan, which identifies local governments as the implementing agencies.
On-road motor vehicles are the largest source of air pollution in the Bay Area. To address the impact of vehicles, the California Clean Air Act requires air districts to adopt, implement, and enforce transportation control measures.
City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County As the designated Congestion Management Agency, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) has primary responsible for administering the state-mandated Congestion Management Program. C/CAG of San Mateo County–designated components of the Congestion Management Program roadway system in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno include SR 82 (El Camino Real), U.S. 101, I-380, and I-280.
C/CAG of San Mateo County has adopted guidelines as a part of its Congestion Management Plan (CMP), which are intended to reduce the regional traffic impacts of substantive new developments.
The guidelines apply to all projects in San Mateo County that will generate 100 or more net new peak hour trips on the CMP network and are subject to CEQA review. C/CAG of San Mateo County calls for projects that meet the criteria to determine if a combination of acceptable measures is possible that has the capacity to “fully reduce,” through the use of a trip credit system, the demand for net new trips that the project is anticipated to generate on the CMP roadway network (including the first 100 trips). C/CAG of San Mateo County has published a list of mitigation options in a memorandum. South San Francisco’s TDM ordinance is consistent with C/CAG of San Mateo County’s ordinance, so by adhering to the City’s ordinance, the proposed project would also be compliant with C/CAG of San Mateo County’s guidelines for new development.
The C/CAG of San Mateo County is also responsible for preparing the Countywide Transportation Plan, which establishes a long-range transportation vision for the county and informs the RTP/SCS prepared by the MTC and ABAG. The current version of the plan, adopted in February 2017, looks at a horizon year of 2040. The C/CAG of San Mateo County also partners with local jurisdictions and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
other transportation agencies to develop transportation plans and studies for areas as well as projects with countywide and regional significance.
The San Mateo County Transit District
SamTrans is the administrative body for the principal public transit and transportation programs in San Mateo County (i.e., SamTrans bus service, including Redi-Wheels and RediCoast paratransit service; Caltrain commuter rail; and San Mateo County Transportation Authority operations).
Caltrain and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority have contracted with SamTrans, which serves as their managing agency under the direction of their appointed boards.
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) owns and operates Caltrain. The JPB consists of representatives from San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Caltrain’s Strategic Plan establishes a common vision for the agency, and frames key policy, service and investment decisions. The most recent Strategic Plan was adopted by the Board on September 4, 2014.
Bay Area Rapid Transit
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has authority over rail service and facilities spanning its services in the East Bay, San Francisco, and San Mateo County. BART’s Transit Oriented Development (TOD)8 Policy informs BART’s internal and external approach to development near BART stations.
4.15.3.4 Local
City of South San Francisco Plans and Policies
City General Plan Policies
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. Under City General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan area is in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The City General Plan includes a number of policies to encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, such as providing better connectivity to the San Bruno BART station, including via an extension of Sneath Lane through the Specific Plan area. The City General Plan contemplates a new east–west street that would bisect the Specific Plan area and create a connection between Sneath Lane and South Linden Avenue, serving as the gateway between downtown and the San Bruno BART station, as shown in Figure 4.15-5, p. 4.15-17.
8 BART Transit-Oriented Development Policy, Amended April 23 2020 https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART%20TransitOriented%20Development%20Policy_Amended2020-04-23.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2021.
Specific Plan Area
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (8/30/21) AB
Figure 4.15-5
South San Francisco General Plan – Proposed Streets
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The following City General Plan transportation policies are related to the project.9 A new 2040 General Plan (Shape SSF) is currently being prepared by the City; however, the City has not yet adopted new policies.
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-I-14: Provide new street extensions in Lindenville, as outlined in Chapter 4: Transportation, including extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station. 4.2-G-2: Improve connections between different parts of the city.
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-13: Integrate Complete Streets infrastructure and design features into street designs and construction to create safe and inviting environments for people who walk, bicycle, and use public transportation.
4.2-I-2: Undertake street improvements identified in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 . Improvements identified include 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-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.
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.
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 traffic9 The City General Plan includes policies related to level of service for certain locations; however, City General Plan Policy 4.2-G-17 exempts development within 0.25 mile of a Caltrain or BART station, as well as a Citydesignated ferry terminal, from level-of-service standards. This applies to the project because the project site is located within 0.25 mile of the San Bruno BART station. Moreover, under SB 743, levels of service or similar measures of traffic congestion are no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA, as further described in Section 4.15.3.2, above.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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-I-14: Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between rail stations (i.e., the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain station) and the surroundings. Components of the program should include:
Installing handicap 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 when crossing streets in downtown, when crossing El Camino Real or Mission Road, and when crossing streets in other high-use areas;
Continuing 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 (1) allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed-use development, and (2) requiring projects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans
The City’s Bicycle Master Plan (2011) and Pedestrian Master Plan (2012) identify improvements for providing safer walking and biking environments and making active transportation an integral part of the City’s transportation system. The Bicycle Master Plan identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance bicycle access. The plan analyzes bicycle demand and gaps in bicycle facilities, and recommends improvements and programs for implementation. Near the project site, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies Class III bicycle routes on South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue.
The Pedestrian Master Plan identifies and prioritizes street improvements to enhance pedestrian access. The plan analyzes pedestrian demand and gaps in pedestrian facilities, and recommends improvements and programs for implementation. The Pedestrian Master Plan does not identify any improvements near the project site.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Both plans are currently being updated in the Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in connection with the City’s General Plan (Shape SSF), which has not yet been adopted. The current Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan remain active until completion and adoption of the new Active South City: Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.
South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Ordinance The City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, codified at Title 20 of the City’s Municipal Code under Chapter 20.400, Transportation Demand Management, seeks to reduce the amount of traffic generated by nonresidential development and minimize drive-alone commuter trips. The ordinance establishes a performance target, which is tied to the minimum alternative mode share for all nonresidential projects resulting in more than 100 average daily trips, and identifies higher thresholds for projects developed at increased intensities. For the project, the minimum alternative mode share is 45 percent, consistent with the TDM Ordinance requirements for projects proposing a floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 2.5. The General Plan establishes an incentives-based land use program with density bonuses for projects meeting identified TDM objectives that do not discriminate between small and large employers.
Per the TDM Ordinance, all projects are required to submit annual mode-share surveys. Projects seeking a FAR bonus are required to submit triennial reports to assess project compliance with the required alternative mode-share target. When targets are not achieved, the report must include program modification recommendations; City officials may impose administrative penalties should subsequent triennial reports indicate that mode-share targets have remained unachieved.
City of 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 the City of 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 East; and realigning the existing storm drain main within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. This section identifies and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant City of San Bruno plans and policies related to the portion of the project’s proposed infrastructure improvements within City of San Bruno jurisdiction. As discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EIR, this EIR is intended to provide CEQA clearance for subsequent discretionary approvals required by other agencies, including the City of San Bruno, for proposed off-site improvements outside City of South San Francisco jurisdiction. An analysis of City of San Bruno policies is included here for that purpose.
The EIR also analyzes the potential transportation-related impacts resulting from implementation of the entire project that would occur within San Bruno as well as South San Francisco.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
City of San Bruno General Plan Policies
The following City of San Bruno General Plan policies are relevant to the project’s proposed off-site improvements within San Bruno.
10 T-A: Provide for efficient, safe, and pleasant movement for all transportation modes—vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians.
T-E: Focus San Bruno’s efforts on improvements to the non-motorized transportation system (i.e., bicycles, pedestrians, strollers, etc.) adjacent to transit corridors and stations and their connections to those systems.
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-I: Develop and maintain a comprehensive bicycle network within San Bruno, providing connections to BART and Caltrain, surrounding cities, employment and shopping areas, and natural areas.
T-J: Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of sidewalks and pedestrian paths within the city.
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 Americans with Disabilities Act standards.
T-43: Create a “pedestrian-friendly” environment surrounding the BART and Caltrain stations by installing additional street trees, lighting, and signage and widening sidewalks along streets adjacent to these stations.
T-47: Improve multi-modal access—specifically for pedestrians, bicyclists, 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 Street) within the city limits. Coordinate with the linear park planned in South San Francisco and Millbrae.
Transit Corridors Plan Policies
The City of San Bruno Transit Corridors Plan articulates the community's vision for revitalized commercial corridors in proximity to the San Bruno Avenue Caltrain station. The following policies are relevant to the project’s proposed off-site improvements within San Bruno:
TRANS-B: Ensure increased transit connectivity within as well as to/from the Transit Corridors Area and provide transit amenities at stops and stations that increase the visibility of stops and stations and improve comfort and convenience for transit riders.
TRANS-C: Encourage improved bicycle connectivity and enhanced bicycle parking opportunities within the Transit Corridors Area, linking the surrounding land uses and future Caltrain station.
TRANS-C.1: Provide Class II bicycle lanes on Huntington Avenue north of San Bruno Avenue. 10 The City of San Bruno General Plan includes policies related to level of service, including Policy T-B, stating that acceptable levels of service for vehicular movement along the city’s street network should be maintained and that an “[a]cceptable level of service could vary, based on characteristics of the area under consideration.” 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
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
TRANS-D: Facilitate pedestrian access and safety through pedestrian enhancements, including the provision of enhanced crosswalks at all intersections and wider sidewalks and pedestrian amenities along the transit corridors.
TRANS-D.1: Provide enhanced crosswalks at all crossings in the Transit Corridors Area. As appropriate, enhanced crosswalks should include pedestrian bulb-outs, median refuge islands, or special paving treatments.
TRANS-E: Develop and implement a parking management strategy for the plan area that makes efficient use of the city’s parking supply through shared parking strategies and that provides the lowest number of parking spaces while still maintaining the viability of the plan through efficient use of the parking supply within the plan area.
TRANS-F: Develop and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that reduces the amount of peak-period motor vehicle traffic and encourages the use of modes other than the single-occupant vehicle.
Walk ‘n Bike Plan
The City of San Bruno Walk ‘n Bike Plan identifies improvements to support safe, comfortable, and convenient walking and biking within the city. The plan identifies specific improvements, including streetscape enhancements and a Class IV separated bikeway along Huntington Avenue, gap closures for Class II bicycle lanes along Sneath Lane, and a Class III bicycle route along Herman Street.
4.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to transportation and circulation 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.
4.15.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant transportation and circulation impact if it would:
⚫ Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
⚫ Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, Subdivision (b), related to VMT;
⚫ Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or ⚫ Result in inadequate emergency access.
Neither the City of South San Francisco nor the City of San Bruno has adopted a standard set of thresholds of significance for transportation impact analyses. The thresholds of significance used in this analysis, which are listed below, expand upon Appendix G criteria as well as local considerations from adopted policies of the City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Consistency with Local and Regional Policies and Plans
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099, City of South San Francisco Resolution 77-2020 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the project, which is located within 0.5 mile of an existing major transit stop, is presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT unless any of the following criteria applies:
⚫ The project has a FAR of less than 0.75;
⚫ The project includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking); ⚫ The project is inconsistent with the applicable SCS (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the MPO); and/or
⚫ The project replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or highincome residential units.
If, based on the criteria above, the project is not presumed to have a less-than-significant impact, the following criterion applies:
⚫ A significant impact would occur if development of the project were to generate per-employee VMT greater than the City’s adopted threshold (i.e., more than 15 percent below the regional average).
For the project’s transportation infrastructure improvements, the following criterion applies:
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to result in a net increase in total VMT.
Design Hazards
Geometric Design Hazards
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to substantially increase hazards for street users due to a design feature or land uses that would be incompatible with the surrounding street network.
Vehicle Queuing at Freeway Off-Ramps
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to cause vehicle queues for a given movement downstream of Caltrans freeway facilities to exceed existing storage space capacity for that movement or contribute to existing vehicle queues that would exceed the storage space capacity for a given movement.11
11 Freeway off-ramps were analyzed based on input from Caltrans’ NOP comment letter to assess whether offramp queueing may pose a safety hazard.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Queuing Across an At-Grade Rail Crossing
⚫ A significant impact would occur if 95th-percentile vehicle queues were to extend beyond the available storage space and substantially exacerbate a risk of collision.
Traffic Signal Warrant
⚫ A significant impact would occur if project-related vehicle traffic at an unsignalized intersection or driveway were to increase baseline volumes to peak-hour or pedestrian-volume signal warrant criteria levels and project-related traffic volumes substantially increase a risk of collision.
Emergency Vehicle Access
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to result in inadequate emergency vehicle access.
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to cause a detrimental impact on the performance of transit services.
⚫ A significant impact would occur if the project were to cause a detrimental impact on the performance or safety of bicycle or pedestrian facilities.
4.15.4.2 Analysis Scenarios
Five scenarios, listed below, were analyzed for purposes of identifying impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding transportation system:
⚫ Scenario 1: Existing Conditions (No Project)
⚫ Scenario 2: 2024 Baseline Condition (No Project)
⚫ Scenario 3: 2024 Baseline Plus Phase 1 Conditions (“Phase 1 Scenario”) ⚫ Scenario 4: 2040 Future Baseline Conditions (No Project) ⚫ Scenario 5: 2040 Future Baseline Plus-Project Conditions (“Buildout Scenario”) Scenario 1: Existing Conditions
Existing conditions represent the baseline condition upon which project impacts are measured. The existing condition reflects transportation conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data were not collected for this analysis. Instead, to establish a representative existing condition, this analysis relied on local traffic data collected in 2017 and 2018 as well as transit service levels prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, including Caltrain service levels (i.e., five trains per hour in each direction).
This approach enabled analysis of a recent observed condition. Furthermore, no major developments have been completed in the immediate project area that would affect traffic patterns substantially; however, there is inherently some uncertainty in the representation of existing conditions because of the age of the data and the atypical circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Scenario 2: 2024 Baseline
The 2024 baseline condition represents a near-term condition after the COVID-19 pandemic is presumed to have ended and travel patterns have returned to pre-COVID conditions. The 2024 baseline condition includes pro-rated local and regional growth, consistent with 2040 forecasts, reflecting 2017/2018 conditions plus the addition of roughly one quarter of total forecast growth between 2017/2018 conditions and 2040 forecasts. Although there remains substantial uncertainty around the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on travel behavior and the duration of these effects, this approach assumes that travel behavior will return to pre-COVID conditions and the effects of the pandemic on transportation will be short term in nature. The 2024 baseline also includes completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, which is currently under construction and anticipated to be completed in 2022 That project will increase Caltrain service levels to six trains per hour in each direction.
Scenario 3: Phase 1 Scenario
The Phase 1 Scenario, or 2024 baseline plus Phase 1 conditions, represents the 2024 condition with the addition of Phase 1, which is anticipated to be completed and operational in 2024. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.3 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR, all of the proposed off-site improvements in San Bruno’s jurisdiction would be constructed as part of Phase 1. These include several major transportation network improvements, including construction of Southline Avenue; a new intersection to connect Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, Maple Avenue, and Southline Avenue; a signalized driveway to the SamTrans Transit Center; and the extension of various bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. This includes extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station and enhancing pedestrian access to the station with the use of new bulb-outs and highvisibility crosswalks. As such, under 2024 baseline plus Phase 1 conditions, traffic volumes reflect 2024 baseline traffic volumes, some redistribution of traffic to the new Southline Avenue, and the traffic associated with land uses in Phase 1.
Scenario 4: 2040 Future Baseline Conditions
2040 future baseline conditions include transportation demand resulting from reasonably foreseeable land use changes and conditions associated with planned transportation projects, but do not include the proposed project (Phase 1 or Specific Plan buildout). Future baseline conditions are based on forecast land use and transportation conditions included in Plan Bay Area 2040, as represented in the C/CAG of San Mateo County Travel Demand Model (C/CAG Model). Forecasts for future baseline conditions include several adjustments to reflect the reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect the surrounding area, including completion of all approved employment projects in South San Francisco as of May 202012 and completion of the Bayhill Specific Plan in San Bruno (a plan that may be considered reasonably foreseeable, even though it has not yet been approved at the time of preparation of this EIR). Along the Caltrain railroad corridor, future baseline conditions include the operation of 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak periods; this service level reflects completion of the California High-Speed Rail Project to operate four high-speed trains per 12 The total number of land use approvals for employment projects in South San Francisco exceeds Plan Bay Area forecasts; therefore, the difference in employment growth has been added to Plan Bay Area forecasts. Projects included in this cumulative analysis include major developments such as the Cove, Gateway of the Pacific, Oyster Point Development, and other projects in the “East of 101 Area.” City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
hour in each direction (as described in Plan Bay Area 2040) as well as the Caltrain Business Plan’s adopted service vision (i.e., operating eight trains per hour in each direction during peak periods).
Future baseline conditions do not assume completion of the South Linden Avenue and Scott Street grade separations because these projects are not yet fully funded or included in the RTP. As of September 2020, both South San Francisco and San Bruno have provided direction to proceed with studying a hybrid approach for the South Linden Avenue grade crossing. This involves partially raising the railway and lowering the roadway, along with closing Scott Street to vehicles and maintaining a crossing for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Scenario 5: 2040 Buildout Scenario Studied (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.
Buildout conditions, which represent future baseline conditions with the addition of the complete project (including Phase 1 improvements, described under Scenario 3 above), are studied to determine the extent to which the proposed project would contribute to long-term cumulative transportation impacts. For the transportation analysis, the Office Scenario is expected to generate the highest levels of travel activity given its employee density level (typically, one office employee per 250 square feet), which is nearly twice that of the Life Sciences Scenario (typically, one employee per 450 square feet).
13 Furthermore, the Office Scenario would include more developed square footage (approximately 2,800,000 square feet compared to approximately 2,025,050 square feet, respectively). Therefore, the Office Scenario would have a more substantial effect related to transportation and circulation impacts compared with the Life Sciences Scenario. As such, this section analyzes the Office Scenario when considering project impacts under the buildout scenario.
4.15.4.3 Approach to Analysis
Travel Demand Methodology
The C/CAG Model was used as a basis for analyzing travel behavior, including trip distribution and VMT. This trip-based regional travel demand model considers regional land use patterns, approximates highway congestion, and analyzes connecting transit service within the nine-county Bay Area region. As part of the ongoing City General Plan update, the C/CAG Model was reviewed and updated through a series of diagnostic tests to assess its performance and reasonableness. A series of refinements were made to the model inputs for land use, the roadway network, and transit 13 City of San José. 2016. San José Market Overview and Employment Lands Analysis. Available:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/22529/636688929663530000. Accessed:
9/21/2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
service in South San Francisco.14 These updates improved the model’s effectiveness with respect to reasonably estimating current travel patterns and changes in travel patterns in response to project land use and transportation network changes.
To further enhance the reasonableness of trip assignment from the C/CAG Model, the City’s sub-area model was applied through the use of project trip generation and trip distribution from the C/CAG Model. The sub-area model, developed for the City General Plan update, reflects origin/destination patterns consistent with the C/CAG Model and incorporates refinements to the level of detail in the local street network. The sub-area model, developed in the Vissim software platform, provides a more detailed representation of the traffic circulation and operational performance of the roadway network in the vicinity of the project site and within South San Francisco and San Bruno. The roadway network in the sub-area model was refined to include most streets and major driveways in South San Francisco. The traffic assignment process in the sub-area model incorporates details such as signal timing, intersection lane geometry, and turning movement delay, allowing for a more realistic representation of existing traffic patterns and those associated with the project land use and proposed street extension.
The amount of traffic added to the roadway system by the proposed project was estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. The first step, trip generation, estimates the amount of traffic that would be generated once the proposed project is built and fully occupied. The second step, trip distribution, estimates the direction of travel to and from the project site. The third step, trip assignment, assigns proposed project trips to specific street segments and intersection turning movements.
Operations Analysis Methodology
The project’s effects on transit operations, bicyclist/pedestrian conflicts, and the South Linden Avenue at-grade railroad crossing were analyzed using the Vissim traffic operations analysis software. Vissim analyzes traffic by simulating and capturing interactions between individual cars, trucks, buses, trains, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Vissim provides detailed information regarding various outcomes, such as vehicle queuing on at-grade rail crossings, delays for transit riders, and potential conflicts between bicyclists and pedestrians along the Centennial Way Trail.
Viswalk was used to analyze potential conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists along the Centennial Way trail extension during AM and PM peak hours. The analysis simulates pedestrian and bicycle behavior, interactions, and usage of space. Pedestrian and bicycle trips were distributed to reflect the proposed project’s travel demand, particularly the trips between the project and BART and SamTrans.
Trip Generation
Project person-trip and vehicle-trip forecasts were developed to capture the multimodal nature of project travel as a transit-oriented development. Person-trip generation represents trips by one person using any mode of transportation, whereas vehicle trip generation represents trips by one vehicle. Vehicle-trip estimates include trips associated with single-occupancy vehicles, taxis, ride14 Updates to the model were based on relevant national guidance, including the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines for Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations (California Transportation Commission 2017) and Travel Model Validation and Reasonability Checking Manual, Second Edition, Travel Model Improvement Program (Federal Highway Administration 2010).
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
hailing companies (e.g., Uber and Lyft), carpools, and shuttles. Trip generation analysis was prepared for Office Scenario buildout conditions, as well as for the Phase 1 project, inclusive of the amenities building (Building 2).
Office-Trip Generation
Office-trip generation was calculated using local data from comparable sites. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, tenth edition, recommends using local data for atypical developments like the proposed project, which is very large in scale, adjacent to highfrequency transit service, and subject to stringent TDM requirements. Based on that recommendation, estimates of person-trip and vehicle-trip rates were based on observed counts and mode-share surveys for comparable high-intensity technology office uses in downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain station, as analyzed in the Redwood City Moves Transportation Plan. Based on a review of comparable trip generation and mode-share data for transit-oriented office sites in San Francisco, Oakland, and San Mateo, the Redwood City location possessed land use, transit, and TDM characteristics that most closely resembled those of the project. The person-trip and vehicle-trip rates were adjusted to reflect the project’s mode-share requirements, consistent with the City’s TDM Ordinance, which calls for a maximum peak-period drive-alone rate of 55 percent (i.e., a minimum alternative mode share of 45 percent), including single-occupancy vehicles and single-passenger trips from ride-hailing companies or taxis, compared to an observed peak-period drive-alone rate of 50 percent in the downtown Redwood City surveys.15
Person-trip generation for non-auto modes was based on transit, carpool, and active transportation data from South San Francisco TDM surveys and the proximity of the project site to transit services and active transportation facilities. An estimated 23 percent of peak-hour trips would use BART, 10 percent would use Caltrain, 8 percent would be carpool trips, 2 percent would use SamTrans buses, and 2 percent would use bicycles. BART and SamTrans trips would require walking from the project site to the San Bruno BART station or SamTrans Transit Center, while Caltrain trips would require first-/last-mile shuttles or biking.
Amenity Uses
Trip generation for the project’s publicly accessible restaurant/retail uses, as well as private amenity uses, were estimated using the “high-turnover” restaurant classification from the Trip Generation Manual. Public amenities are generally expected to draw pedestrian trips from elsewhere within the Specific Plan area or adjacent uses, along with vehicle trips from locations primarily in South San Francisco and San Bruno. Amenity uses that would be accessible only to tenants of the project (e.g., an employee cafeteria, fitness center, basketball court, auditorium) would not generate external vehicle trips but would generate employee-related person trips for individuals employed at these services. Trip generation for these internal amenities was estimated at about one-quarter of the office rates, based on anticipated employee densities and the mix of 15 City of South San Francisco’s TDM Ordinance establishes a required alternative mode share of 45 percent, based on the project’s FAR.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
staffed and unstaffed uses.
16 Trip generation for public and private amenity uses was included in the analysis for both the project buildout and Phase 1 project.
Trip Internalization
Mixed-use developments result in some trips between different land uses being “internalized” onsite – occurring generally by walking or biking within the development rather than driving or traveling elsewhere. These trips would typically originate from a project site to some location elsewhere by car or transit, but would now occur wholly on-site by walking or biking due to the types of uses proposed. The project proposes to include a mix of office/R&D uses along with retail and amenity uses including tenant-serving amenities such as a fitness facility, which would facilitate some trip internalization within the project site. For example, an office employee would avoid a new vehicle trip by walking to a fitness center, cafeteria, and café or retail space within the project site. For purposes of this analysis, trip internalization rates of 3 percent (AM peak hour) and 2 percent (PM peak hour) were applied to all vehicle trips during the respective peak hours. These rates were based on the Mixed-Use Trip Generation Model (MXD) + Model, a weighted average of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s MXD and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program’s 684 methodology.
Credit for Existing Trip Generation
The project’s net change in the number of vehicle trips was calculated to reflect the estimated number of vehicle trips occurring at the Specific Plan area under existing conditions. Because of the atypical travel patterns associated with the COVID-19 shelter-in-place order, driveway counts at existing uses were not conducted. Instead, trip generation for existing uses within the Specific Plan area was estimated based on land use characteristics and Trip Generation Manual recommendations.
Existing land uses include approximately 344,000 square feet of light industrial and office uses, about 85 percent of which is occupied. All of the existing land uses would be demolished as part of Phase 1; therefore, both Phase 1 and project buildout trip generation include the full trip credit associated with existing land uses. In total, existing uses generate an estimated 1,504 daily vehicle trips, including 171 AM peak-hour vehicle trips and 150 PM peak-hour vehicle trips.
Trip Generation Results
Phase 1 would generate approximately 7,930 daily person trips and 3,954 daily vehicle trips. These totals include 1,043 AM peak-hour person trips, 485 net new AM peak-hour vehicle trips, 950 PM peak-hour person trips, and 455 net new PM peak-hour vehicle trips. Table 4.15-2 and Table
4.15-3, pp. 4.15-30 and 4.15-31, show person-trip and vehicle-trip generation estimates for Phase 1, respectively.
The project at buildout would generate approximately 28,461 daily person trips and 16,876 vehicle trips. These totals include 3,918 AM peak-hour person trips, 2,150 net new AM peak-hour vehicle trips, 3,528 PM peak-hour person trips, and 1,952 PM peak-hour vehicle trips. Table 4.15-4 and 16 Based on the San Mateo County Linkage Fee Nexus Study, restaurant and service uses typically have half the employee density of office uses. About half of the project amenity spaces were identified as actively staffed restaurant and service uses; therefore, employee density and trip generation were assumed to be one-quarter of office uses. Office trip generation typically reflects trips by mostly employees; therefore, the ratio of amenity density to office density was applied to trip generation to determine amenity trip generation rates.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.15-5, pp. 4.15-32 and 4.15-33, show person-trip and vehicle-trip generation estimates for the project, respectively.
Table 4.15-2. Person-Trip Generation, Phase 1
Mode
Mode
Share
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Daily
Drive alone 55% 499 447 3,837
Carpool 8% 73 65 550
BART 23% 209 187 1,281
Caltraina 10% 91 81 557
SamTrans 2% 18 16 111
Walking/bicyclingb 2% 18 16 111
Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM
Ordinance 100% 908 812 6,448
Other public amenity visitors — 135 138 1,482
Total Person Trips — 1,043 950 7,930
Notes:
a. Based on travel demand data from high-intensity “tech” office mode-share and person-trip generation surveys from downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain station as well as requirements from the City TDM Ordinance.
b. Mode-share estimates based on City TDM surveys and analysis, based on local context.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.15-3. Vehicle-Trip Generation, Phase 1
Land Use Size (KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Officea 613 0.81 464 35 499 0.73 58 387 445 6.16 3,774
Private amenitiesb 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public amenitiesc 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization adjustment
(3% AM peak hour /2% PM peak hour)
-15 -3 -18 -3 -8 -11 -280
Phase 1 Trips 551 105 656 154 451 605 5,458
Existing officed, f 11 ITE equation -10 -2 -12 ITE equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing light industriale, f 278 ITE equation -140 -19 -159 ITE equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Phase 1 Trips 401 84 485 134 321 455 3,954
Notes:
a. Based on travel demand data from high-intensity “tech” office mode-share and vehicle-trip generation surveys from downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain station as well as requirements from City TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table. b. Includes only external trips associated with employee commuting and deliveries, which are assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip-generation rate, based upon expected uses and employee densities.
c. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. Tenth edition. ITE 932, High-Turnover Restaurant. Values rounded in table. d. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. Tenth edition. ITE 710, General Office Building. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with Phase 1. e. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. Tenth edition. ITE 110, General Light Industrial. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. All existing uses are assumed to be removed with Phase 1. f. The inventory of existing land uses within the Specific Plan area was adjusted after completion of the trip generation estimate. The trip generation analysis utilizes a trip credit for approximately 289,000 square feet of existing uses. However, actual existing uses include 339,349 square feet of industrial/warehouse uses and 4,451 square feet of office uses (refer to Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR). Because the trip generation estimate takes a smaller credit for existing uses (i.e., approximately 289,000 square feet versus 343,800 square feet), it represents a conservative analysis.
KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.15-4. Person-Trip Generation, Project Buildout
Mode
Mode
Share
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour Daily
Drive alone 55% 2,105 1,879 15,984
Carpool 8% 306 273 2,317
BART 23% 880 786 5,394
Caltraina 10% 383 342 2,345
SamTrans 2% 77 68 469
Walking/bicyclingb 2% 77 68 469
Total Person Trips Monitored by TDM Ordinance 100% 3,828 3,416 26,978 Person trips, public amenity visitors — 90 112 1,483
Total Person Trips — 3,918 3,528 28,461
Notes:
a. Based on travel demand data from high-intensity “tech” office mode-share and person-trip generation surveys from downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain station as well as requirements from the City TDM Ordinance.
b. Mode-share estimates based on City TDM surveys and assignment to transit providers, based on local context and expected travel patterns.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-33 September 2021
ICF 00389.17
Table 4.15-5. Vehicle Trip Generation, Project Buildout Land Use
Size
(KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) In Out Total Rate (per KSF) Total Officea 2,712 0.81 2,053 155 2,208 0.73 256 1,713 1,969 6.16 16,696 Private amenitiesb 72 0.23 15 1 16 0.20 2 13 15 1.72 124 Public amenitiesc 16 9.94 87 72 159 9.77 97 59 156 115 1,840 Internalization adjustment
(3% AM peak hour/2% PM peak hour)
-56 -6 -62 -6 -32 -38 -280
Project Trips 2,099 222 2,321 349 1,753 2,102 18,380
Existing officed, f 11 ITE equation -10 -2 -12 ITE equation -2 -12 -14 9.74 -125 Existing light industriale, f 278 ITE equation -140 -19 -159 ITE equation -18 -118 -136 4.96 -1,379 Net New Project Trips 1,949 201 2,150 329 1623 1,952 16,876 Notes:
a. Based on travel demand data from high-intensity “tech” office mode-share and vehicle-trip generation surveys from downtown Redwood City near the Redwood City Caltrain station as well as requirements from City TDM Ordinance. Values rounded in table. b. Includes only external trips associated with employee commuting and deliveries, which are assumed to be 72 percent less than the office trip-generation rate, based upon expected uses and employee densities.
c. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. Tenth edition. ITE 932, High-Turnover Restaurant. Values rounded in table. d. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. Tenth edition. ITE 710, General Office Building. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. e. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Manual. Tenth edition. ITE 110, General Light Industrial. Fitted curve equation used for individual land uses. Includes occupied spaces as of March 2020. Values rounded in table. f. The inventory of existing land uses within the Specific Plan area was adjusted after completion of the trip generation estimate. Actual existing uses include 339,349 sf of industrial/warehouse uses and 4,451 sf of office uses (refer to Table 3-3 and Table 3-4 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR). Because the trip generation estimate takes a smaller credit for existing uses (approximately 289,000 square feet versus 343,800 sf), it represents a conservative analysis.
KSF = thousand square feet
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Trip Distribution and Assignment
A majority of project-related auto travel would occur within San Mateo County. Approximately 65 percent of vehicle trips would travel between the project site and other locations in San Mateo County. About 21 percent of trips would travel between the project site and San Francisco County.
The remainder of trips would be split between Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and elsewhere in the East Bay and North Bay.
The project’s location and access to multiple freeway ramps would result in drivers using several different routes to access US-101, I-380, and I-280. Approximately 56 percent of project-generated trips would access the site via San Bruno, and 44 percent via South San Francisco based on the location of existing freeway ramps.
By adding the Southline Avenue connection between Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue, the project would shift vehicle trips from other parallel routes that would have been otherwise relied upon for project site access, resulting in a net decrease in traffic volumes on parallel routes like Spruce Avenue and Scott Street. Generally, 2024 trip distribution mirrors 2040 trip distribution with lower traffic volumes associated with Phase 1.
4.15.4.4 Impact Evaluation
Impact TR-1: The project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicyclist, and pedestrian facilities. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
As discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis in Appendix 4.15-1 of this EIR, the project, including the proposed off-site improvements, is consistent with applicable adopted transit, bicycling, and walking plans and policies within the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, including the South San Francisco General Plan, South San Francisco’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, South San Francisco’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, the San Bruno General Plan, San Bruno’s Transit Corridors Plan, and San Bruno’s Walk ‘n Bike Plan. The project, including off-site improvements, would improve connectivity between the San Bruno BART Station and the Lindenville neighborhood; provide more direct pedestrian routes; add Class II bicycle lanes on Southline Avenue, in addition to Class I and Class III bicycle facilities within the project area; extend the Centennial Way Trail; and provide a range of amenities and features within the project site, including bicycle parking, showers, and changing facilities, among other features. The new Southline Avenue/Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection would include a signalized trail and pedestrian crossings with high-visibility crosswalks. Near the San Bruno BART Station, the project includes circulation enhancements to Huntington Avenue, including widening sidewalks, upgrading curb ramps, providing high-visibility crosswalks, adding bulbouts, and extending the Centennial Way Trail. The project supports public transit ridership by providing enhanced connectivity to BART and SamTrans, a dedicated signalized bus entrance to the SamTrans transit center, and offering a shuttle service to Caltrain. The project would include a TDM Plan to meet the 45 percent mode-share target required by the City.
The project also exhibits consistency with regional plans, including Plan Bay Area, C/CAG’s Congestion Management Program, and BART’s Transit-Oriented Development Policy. Although the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project site was not specifically identified as a Priority Development Area in Plan Bay Area (adjacent sites in San Bruno were identified), its transit-oriented location near the San Bruno BART station is consistent with the plan’s goal to integrate land use and transportation planning as well as BART’s goal to encourage reverse-commute trips to employment centers near stations. The project TDM Plan, as well as off-site station access and active transportation improvements, fulfills requirements by C/CAG and is consistent with the goals of BART to encourage transit ridership and reduce the number of vehicle trips.
Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR also further addresses the proposed project’s consistency with relevant transportation plans and policies and Impact LU-2 concludes a less-thansignificant impact.
Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact related to inconsistency with plans and policies. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of project buildout since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project. Phase 1 would include most onsite and offsite infrastructure including the extension of Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and pedestrian connectivity upgrades around the San Bruno BART Station. Phase 1 would also include a TDM Plan that is compliant with City of South San Francisco and C/CAG requirements. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact related to inconsistency with plans and policies. No mitigation is required.
Impact TR-2: The project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), or include transportation changes that would result in a net increase in total VMT. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
As discussed in Section 4.15.3, Regulatory Framework, and Section 4.15.4.1, Significance Criteria, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which implements SB 743, establishes a presumption of less than significant for VMT impacts related to qualifying land use projects. As further described below, the proposed project meets the criteria set by CEQA to qualify for the presumption of a less-thansignificant impact on VMT.
As shown in Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Specific Plan area is within a transit priority area (TPA), 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)). The Specific Plan area is within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop, including the San Bruno BART station and a frequent bus route (i.e., the SamTrans ECR route, which operates every 15 minutes). Both the San Bruno BART station and ECR route stops are considered major transit stops.
Project-specific and location-specific information support a presumption of a less than significant VMT impacts:
⚫ The project’s proximity to BART provides a high-frequency regional transit connection to San Francisco, the East Bay, and northern San Mateo County, and its proximity to the SamTrans ECR route provides a frequent local transit connection within San Mateo County. Employee access to City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Caltrain through a shuttle service may further enable a regional transit connection to San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the South Bay.
⚫ The project includes infrastructure improvements to support direct connections to transit and active transportation, including widening sidewalks, extending the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station, adding pedestrian bulb-outs and high-visibility crosswalks, and providing a shuttle service that connects to Caltrain. These improvements would be constructed as part of Phase 1.
⚫ The project would allow up to 2,800,000 square feet of development (a maximum FAR of approximately 2.4), which is substantially denser than surrounding land uses as well as the existing land uses within the proposed Specific Plan area. Phase 1 proposes 700,915 square feet of development at an FAR of approximately 1.35 as calculated across the entire project site. The project and Phase 1 densities are consistent with transit-supportive development for station areas, as defined in BART transit-oriented development guidelines, which call for medium- to high-density development that is greater than the community average within a 5- to 10-minute walk of stations.
⚫ The project’s parking supply is below the City requirements applicable to the existing zoning district and comparable office/R&D uses. The project, inclusive of Phase 1, would include vehicle parking ranging up to approximately 2.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, which is less than the City’s standard requirement of 2.9 spaces per 1,000 square feet for similar business/professional office and R&D developments. Parking reductions would be permitted under separate review and approval by the City. The project parking rate is consistent with the parking supply guidelines for development around station areas identified in the BART transitoriented development guidelines, which call for maximum office parking rates of 1.6 to 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, depending on the land use context. ⚫ As described in Section 3.6.2.9 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this draft EIR, the project includes a TDM Plan that requires at least 45 percent of trips to occur through transit, active transportation, and carpooling. All development under the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, would be subject to the 45 percent TDM mode shift requirements. ⚫ As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, operation of the project would not generate substantial unplanned population growth in the city or region according to the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) population, employment, and housing forecasts in Projections 2040. The project, including Phase 1, is also consistent with the goal of Plan Bay Area 2040 to provide transit-oriented employment growth within TPAs.
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.6.2.7, the project would construct a new street (Southline Avenue) of approximately 0.25 mile in length, to connect Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and South Linden Avenue in order to provide additional capacity for east–west travel in the project site vicinity. Under existing conditions, there is no direct access route between South Linden Avenue and Sneath Lane; current conditions require detouring about 1.3 miles either to the south on Huntington Avenue to Herman Street/Dollar Avenue or north on Huntington Avenue to South Spruce Avenue and Victory Avenue. The new street connection would affect local traffic patterns by shifting east–west trips from South Spruce Avenue, San Bruno Avenue, and Scott Street toward the new shorter and more direct route. This modified circulation would result in a slight reduction in roadway network VMT, as shown in Table 4.15-6, p. 4.15-37.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.15-6. VMT Effects of Southline Avenue Extension Area
Existing Daily
Roadway
Network VMT
Daily Roadway
Network VMT with
Southline Avenue
Extension
Difference, Daily
Roadway
Network VMT
VMT in South San Francisco and San Bruno 5,077,500 5,072,600 -4,900 Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Given the project’s features, in combination with its transit-oriented location, the project’s land use would meet OPR’s criteria for presumption of a less-than-significant VMT impact, and its transportation changes would not increase total VMT. Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project. Phase 1 would include most onsite and offsite infrastructure including the extension of Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and pedestrian connectivity upgrades around the San Bruno BART Station. Phase 1 would also include a TDM Plan that is compliant with City of South San Francisco and C/CAG requirements. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. No mitigation is required.
Impact TR-3a: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
As shown in Figure 4.15-6, p. 4.15-38, the proposed project would include pedestrian circulation and safety improvements both on-site for campus users and off-site in the adjacent community, particularly through enhanced access to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail.
The proposed 15- to 17-foot-wide trail extension would be sized to accommodate forecast bicyclist and pedestrian volumes. The path is intended to serve both bicyclists and pedestrians in a shareduse condition, similar to the Centennial Way Trail to the north, while retaining the bioswale area adjacent to the SamTrans Transit Center. The high volume of pedestrians after a train arrival would control the speed of travel on the trail adjacent to the station; spacing between pedestrians would increase as people move farther from the station, allowing bicyclists to pass comfortably.
The project would add 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 and the east sidewalk along Huntington Avenue. The east sidewalk would be rebuilt to achieve Americans with Disabilities Act compliance. Walking trips to and from the Specific Plan area are likely to use both the east sidewalk and west trail along Huntington Avenue.
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (8/30/21) AB
Figure 4.15-6
Project Improvement Locations
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Location of southern mobility hub to be adjusted to south side of Building 7; refer to Project Description Figure 3-16.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The project would create a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue (i.e., at the western main entrance to the project site).
Huntington Avenue would be aligned with Maple Avenue, while Sneath Lane would be aligned with Southline Avenue. The western leg of the intersection would include a crossing for the Centennial Way Trail. High-visibility crosswalks would be provided on the remaining northern, southern, and eastern legs of the intersection. This trail crossing was analyzed as a protected phase, without conflicting right-turn-on-red movements by southbound and eastbound vehicles.
The new intersection would change access to several adjacent driveways. Access to the BART maintenance facility driveway on the north side of Huntington Avenue would remain in the westbound direction but would be restricted in the eastbound direction. Northbound bus access from Huntington Avenue to the SamTrans Transit Center would be relocated to a signalized busonly left turn (serving about five buses per hour throughout the day). Eastbound access to the SamTrans Transit Center would remain. Adding this intersection would also affect Tanforan Avenue, which would be separated from Maple Avenue via a cul-de-sac to maintain access for residential traffic; a connection to Huntington Avenue East would be maintained. No vehicular project access would occur on Tanforan Avenue. Consequently, traffic volumes would decline on Tanforan Avenue, particularly vehicle and truck traffic associated with industrial sites in Lindenville.
The Southline Avenue/central project driveway intersection (at Buildings 1, 3, 6, and 7), shown in Figure 3-16 in Chapter 3, Project Description, would experience very high pedestrian volumes during peak hours as a result of its location between project buildings, parking facilities, shuttle stops, and amenities. At project buildout, crosswalk volumes are expected to exceed 500 pedestrians at each crosswalk leg. Consequently, a pedestrian scramble phase in which pedestrians cross all legs of the intersection at the same time was analyzed as the optimal condition to separate pedestrian and vehicle movements. With a pedestrian scramble phase, conflicts between modes are expected to be minimal.
Southline Avenue would connect to the realigned South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue intersection on the east side of the proposed Specific Plan area. The northern leg of South Linden Avenue would align with Dollar Avenue, while Southline Avenue would cross a realigned Caltrain at-grade rail crossing and connect to San Mateo Avenue. Eventually, it is anticipated that this crossing would be grade separated through a multi-agency planning and implementation process; both the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno have recommended that planning efforts proceed under the “Alternative 1” design, which would partially lower South Linden Avenue and partially raise the railway. The project’s design is compatible with the preferred Alternative 1 design. The proposed grade separation project would be subject to a separate CEQA review and approval process unrelated to the project; the grade separation project would require public financing for implementation, which has not yet been obtained. Impacts relating to increased use of rail crossings are addressed in Impact TR-3C.
The proposed circulation and transportation improvements associated with the project would accommodate the change in land use associated with an office/R&D campus in a manner consistent with applicable Caltrans and Highway Design Manual design standards and would not introduce design hazards. Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact related to design hazards. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project. Phase 1 would include most onsite and offsite infrastructure including the extension of Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and pedestrian connectivity upgrades around the San Bruno BART Station. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact related to design hazards.
No mitigation is required.
Impact TR-3b: The project would not substantially increase hazards due to freeway ramp queuing. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Ten freeway off-ramps were analyzed, based on project trip assignment patterns, to assess conditions where the addition of project trips may result in hazards for road users. The study locations are listed below.
1. I-280 southbound off-ramp at Rollingwood Drive and Sneath Lane
2. I-280 southbound off-ramp at San Bruno Avenue
3. I-280 northbound off-ramp at San Bruno Avenue
4. U.S. 101 southbound off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue
5. U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp at San Bruno Avenue
6. I-380 westbound off-ramp at El Camino Real
7. I-380 eastbound off-ramp at El Camino Real
8. U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp at Airport Boulevard
9. U.S. 101 southbound off-ramp at Produce Avenue
10. U.S. 101 northbound off-ramp at South Airport Boulevard Traffic counts were collected at the 10 freeway on-ramps during morning (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and evening (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.) peak periods in 2017 and 2019, prior to the onset of the COVID19 pandemic. Demand volumes were forecast at the ramps for both 2040 future baseline and withproject buildout conditions. Table 4.15-7, p. 4.15-41, presents weekday AM and PM peak-hour vehicle queues at seven U.S. 101 off-ramp study locations under 2040 future baseline and withproject buildout conditions.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.15-7. Weekday AM and PM Peak-Hour 95th-Percentile Queues – Project Approach Lanes
Storage Distance
(feet)
2040 Future Baseline 2040 Project Buildout
Queue Length Queue Length
AM PM AM PM
I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive and Sneath Lane Left/through 1,200 105 215 118 230
Right 150 74 91 104 103
I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 120 232 179 243 195
Left/through 840
221 102 227 120
Through/right 3,615
Right 80 68 68 74 79
I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 230 93 225 419 240
Through/left/right 1,335 394 818 1,171 778
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 280 115 87 65 88
Left/through 960 116 87 65 89
Right 280 26 138 26 138
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left/through 2,600 277 603 2,299 1,040
Right 560 324 335 961 498
I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 980 253 212 250 217
Right 980 331 668 359 637
I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 520 157 294 234 378
Through/left/right 1,760 170 271 271 312
Right 330 160 252 242 273
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard
Left 430 278 253 360 270
Through 720 282 307 368 318
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue
Left 620 208 182 272 226
Right 100 63 43 63 45
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/Through 740 526 283 514 274
Right 740 46 39 47 39
Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software.
“*” indicates additional analysis with Simtraffic software.
Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. While some queues exceed available storage, project-related traffic does not contribute to the queues for these lanes.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-42 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Given the Specific Plan area’s proximity to 10 freeway ramps for U.S. 101, I-280, and I-380 from several roadways and driveways, project-related traffic would be distributed across a number of potential routes, including arterials and other roadways. Consequently, project-related volumes would not result in queues that would exceed the total ramp storage distance to the freeway mainline at any of the study locations under any scenario. As such, the project is not expected to create or contribute to hazards resulting from speed differentials at off-ramp diverge points on Caltrans facilities. Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on freeway off-ramp queuing, and no mitigation is required.
Phase 1
Table 4.15-8, p. 4.15-42, presents weekday AM and PM peak-hour vehicle queues at seven U.S. 101 off-ramp study locations under 2040 no-project and with-project conditions. As shown, Phase 1 would not result in queues that would exceed the total ramp storage distance to the freeway mainline at any of the study locations under any scenario. As such, Phase 1 is not expected to create or contribute to hazards resulting from speed differentials at off-ramp diverge points on Caltrans facilities. Therefore, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact on freeway off-ramp queuing, and no mitigation is required.
Table 4.15-8. Weekday AM and PM Peak-Hour 95th Percentile Queues – Phase 1 Approach Lanes
Storage
Distance
(feet)
Existing 2024 Baseline
2024 Plus Phase
1 Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length
AM PM AM PM AM PM
I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at Rollingwood Drive and Sneath Lane Left/through 1,200 65 190 68 197 77 203
Right 150 65 72 67 62 68 66
I-280 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 120 197 153 205 158 209 161
Left/through 840
183 90 190 92 197 96
Through/right 3,615
Right 80 54 51 58 51 62 57
I-280 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 230 85 202 89 211 91 207
Through/left/right 1,280 334 660 365 701 325 701
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 280 112 81 112 84 56 86
Left/through 960 112 82 112 84 56 86
Right 280 24 130 24 136 24 140
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at San Bruno Avenue*
Left 560 256 345 260 391 295 419
Right (through) 2,400 69 68 93 86 102 103
I-380 Westbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 980 246 303 248 303 248 303
Right 980 252 834 280 838 296 799
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-43 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Approach Lanes
Storage
Distance
(feet)
Existing 2024 Baseline
2024 Plus Phase
1 Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length
AM PM AM PM AM PM
I-380 Eastbound Off-Ramp at El Camino Real*
Left 520 131 340 135 352 157 355
Through/left/right 1,760 96 263 105 287 151 306
Right 330 88 245 96 267 118 277
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Airport Boulevard
Left 430 208 143 213 166 230 174
Through 720 209 224 220 240 230 254
U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp at Produce Avenue
Left 620 220 162 182 168 221 202
Right 100 69 40 58 40 59 42
U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp at South Airport Boulevard Left/through 740 473 176 492 188 492 182
Right 740 45 33 46 34 46 34
Notes: Ramps analyzed using Synchro software.
“*” indicates additional analysis with Simtraffic software.
Queues do not take into account downstream spillover from adjacent intersections. Storage distance and queues in feet per lane. While some queues exceed available storage, project-related traffic does not contribute to the queues for these lanes.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Impact TR-3c: The project would not substantially increase hazards at at-grade rail crossings. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
The Specific Plan area is adjacent to an active rail corridor used by both Caltrain and freight operations. Under existing conditions, Caltrain operates five trains per hour in each direction during peak periods and one or two trains per hour in each direction during off-peak periods; one or two trains per day operate during late evening hours. In 2022, the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project will increase Caltrain service to six trains per hour in each direction during peak periods. By 2040, Caltrain would operate eight trains per hour in each direction, and California High-Speed Rail would operate four trains per hour in each direction, for a total of 12 trains per hour in each direction.
Vehicle traffic associated with the project would increase traffic volumes at the existing at-grade rail crossings on South Linden Avenue and Scott Street. Although a grade separation is planned independent of the project, the at-grade crossing condition was analyzed to reflect a worst-case scenario, given the grade separation is currently unfunded and not yet approved. The project’s design of Southline Avenue maintains flexibility for a future grade separation; in the interim, it includes a reconfigured at-grade rail crossing to connect Southline Avenue to South Linden Avenue, immediately east of Dollar Avenue. The number of vehicles using this at-grade crossing would increase from both project-generated trips and the construction of Southline Avenue, which would provide a new east–west connection to Sneath Lane.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-44 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.15-9, p. 4.15-44, shows storage space and simulated queuing activity under 2040 plusproject buildout conditions. With the project, the potential exists for queues to exceed the available amount of storage for westbound movements at Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue. However, by synchronizing the traffic signal with the at-grade crossing, as provided in the proposed Specific Plan, the project would minimize any potential risk of conflict because vehicles would be “flushed out” from the rail crossing prior to the arrival of an approaching train. The inclusion of the project’s proposed medians on either side of the at-grade rail crossing would also enhance safety by inhibiting vehicle maneuvering around crossing gates. Consequentially, even though the queue storage is exceeded, the risk of conflicts related to the project would not change substantially relative to the existing condition due to signal synchronization and added design features, so the impact would be less than significant.
The second rail crossing potentially affected by the project is at Scott Street, about 1,200 feet south of the Specific Plan area. No changes to the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing would occur with the project. By adding Southline Avenue and creating a more direct connection between Huntington Avenue and San Mateo Avenue, the project would decrease traffic volumes on Scott Street compared with no-project conditions. Because the total number of vehicles crossing the corridor at this location would decrease, the project would not exacerbate potential safety hazards.
Table 4.15-9. Queuing at Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing – 2040 Project Buildout Intersection Movement
Storage
Space
Average
Queue
Length
(feet)
95thPercentile
Queue
Length
(feet)
Queue
exceeds
storage?
AM Peak Hour
Southline Avenue/Dollar Avenue WBT 80 170 300 Yes
Southline Avenue/Dollar Avenue WBL 60 160 290 Yes
Linden Avenue/San Mateo Avenue SBT 450 100 140 No
Linden Avenue/San Mateo Avenue SBL 450 190 250 No
PM Peak Hour
Southline Avenue/Dollar Avenue WBT 80 530 600 Yes
Southline Avenue/Dollar Avenue WBL 60 530 600 Yes
Linden Avenue/San Mateo Avenue SBT 450 190 250 No
Linden Avenue/San Mateo Avenue SBL 450 320 390 No
Notes: Bold type indicates conditions where queue length exceeds storage capacity.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact relating to hazards at at-grade rail crossings, and no mitigation is required.
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project. The proposed infrastructure changes described above, including the proposed Southline Avenue extension, would be constructed during Phase 1. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact related to at-grade rail crossings. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-45 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact TR-3d: The project would contribute to existing hazardous conditions due to projectrelated traffic, leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. Phase 1 would not contribute to existing hazardous conditions due to project-related traffic, leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
A signal warrant analysis to determine the need for traffic signals at unsignalized intersections within the project site was conducted to assess potential hazards associated with project-related vehicle and pedestrian volumes. The assessment was conducted in accordance with the criteria in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Signal warrants were tested for project driveways according to the peak-hour and pedestrian volume methodologies described in the CA-MUTCD, Sections 4C.04 and 4C.05. No driveways meet peak-hour signal warrants under project conditions. One driveway intersection at Maple Avenue (south of Building 4) could meet pedestrian volume warrants; however, the project’s proposed “rectangular rapid flashing beacon” is expected to provide adequate prioritization for pedestrians crossing at this location and fulfill the anticipated need. Therefore, signal warrants are not met within the project site.
Beyond the project site, a signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane to assess potential hazards associate with project-related vehicle volumes. This intersection, which is located within the City of San Bruno and is presently allway stop controlled, was selected because of the volume of project-related vehicle traffic that would be added along multiple approaches (e.g., Huntington Avenue and Herman Street). Signal warrants were tested according to the peak-hour methodology described in the CA-MUTCD, Section 4C.04.
There are no other unsignalized intersections on nearby streets where the project is expected to add substantial traffic volumes at unsignalized approaches.
The Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meets the peak-hour signal warrant under 2040 future baseline and with-project buildout conditions during the PM peak hour.
The project at buildout would add approximately 301 of 1,855 PM peak-hour trips (approximately 16 percent), to this already impacted intersection. The addition of project-related trips may exacerbate the risk of collision at this multi-lane, stop-controlled intersection, which experienced eight reported injury collisions between 2014 and 2019 (five vehicle/vehicle collisions, two vehicle/pedestrian collisions, and one vehicle/bicycle collision).17 Therefore, the project would result in a potentially significant impact.
Installation of a traffic signal at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue intersection, located in the City of San Bruno, would reduce the anticipated 2040 future baseline and with-project buildout impacts to a less-than-significant level. Accordingly, the project’s contribution to the impact could be fully mitigated by paying a fair-share contribution toward installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. However, this traffic signal is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, and therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this mitigation will be implemented. Moreover, assuming that this traffic signal were to be included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, because the intersection and any 17 California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2014–2019, retrieved from the Transportation Injury Mapping System.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-46 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
such fee program would be under the control and jurisdiction of San Bruno, the City of South San Francisco would not be able to guarantee that this mitigation measure would be implemented.
There are no other feasible mitigation measures available. The potentially hazardous condition results from a lack of signal control at the intersection; consequently, there are no physical changes (such as modifying lane configurations) or operational changes (such as modifying stop controls) that would address the impact.
Therefore, while mitigation exists that could reduce the Project Buildout contribution to the impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, and because implementation of this mitigation is outside of the jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Phase 1
The Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meets the peak-hour signal warrant under 2024 Baseline conditions. Phase 1 would add approximately 11 PM peak-hour vehicle trips at the intersection. The 11 vehicle trips associated with Phase 1 would not materially change conditions or exacerbate the risk of collisions relative to 2024 Baseline conditions.
Therefore, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact related to traffic signal warrants, and no mitigation is required.
Impact TR-4: The project would not have a detrimental impact on emergency access. (Project:
Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project
The project’s potential to affect emergency vehicle access would be associated with design features that would not fully accommodate emergency vehicles or project-generated vehicle traffic that would cause emergency vehicles to be slowed or unable to access the site or surrounding areas. The project would increase vehicular delay on several roadways and at several nearby intersections; however, this delay would not be bidirectional, and emergency vehicles would retain the ability to use other traffic lanes to circumvent traffic congestion. In particular, vehicles leaving the San Bruno police station at 1177 Huntington Avenue would retain the ability to travel both with and against the flow of traffic should an emergency response be necessary directly from the station (emergency responses from police vehicles usually occur from the field). In addition, the project would provide an additional route for emergency vehicles to access the project vicinity through construction of the new east-west Southline Avenue and the new intersection at Sneath Lane, Huntington Avenue, and Southline Avenue. Emergency vehicles traveling from the north and east in South San Francisco would not be substantially affected by the project as they would retain the ability to access the project site via Maple Avenue and South Linden Avenue. Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on emergency vehicle access, and no mitigation is required.
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project. The proposed infrastructure changes described above, including the proposed Southline Avenue extension and new intersection, would be constructed during Phase 1. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact related to emergency vehicle access. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-47 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact TR-5a: The project would not result in substantial delay or overcrowding on transit vehicles. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Bus Services (SamTrans)
The project would generate vehicle trips in the vicinity of existing transit services, which could contribute toward delays for transit operations. To assess the project’s potential effects on transit travel times and delay, Vissim traffic analysis software was used to determine travel times for SamTrans’ ECR bus route, which diverts to Sneath Lane from El Camino Real to serve the San Bruno BART station. This route was analyzed because it provides the most frequent service and would be most heavily exposed to project-related delays; the findings would also apply to those portions of the 140 and 141 bus routes that overlap the ECR route.
Table 4.15-10, p. 4.15-47, shows travel times along transit routes under 2040 future baseline and 2040 plus-project buildout conditions. Travel times are for the portion of each route that travels from El Camino Real along Sneath Lane to the BART station, then returns El Camino Real; this represents approximately 1 mile of travel.
Table 4.15-10. Average ECR Round Trip Travel Times between El Camino Real and the San Bruno BART Station
Study Period
Round-Trip Transit Travel Time (minutes)
Existing
2040 Future
Baseline
2040 Plus
Project
Buildout
Project Effect
(2040)
AM Peak Hour (ECR northbound) 6 6 7 +1
AM Peak Hour (ECR southbound) 7 7 8 +1
PM Peak Hour (ECR northbound) 6 6 9 +3
PM Peak Hour (ECR southbound) 8 8 11 +3
Notes: Travel times include the time needed to travel through the El Camino Real/Sneath Lane intersection from the route diversion through the San Bruno BART station. Values rounded to nearest minute. Based on Vissim simulation.
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
The project would result in a change in transit travel times for the ECR route along Sneath Lane, totaling about 1 minute each way in the AM peak hour and 3 minutes each way in the PM peak hour.
During the PM peak hour, congestion associated with added vehicle trips at the split-phase signal at the El Camino Real/Sneath Lane intersection represents the primary source of delay. Because the route operates every 15 minutes during the AM and PM peak periods and has a one-way travel time of about 110 minutes, this change in travel time is unlikely to affect the route’s performance overall or require additional buses to maintain comparable headways.
With respect to potential crowding, a relatively small share of project travel is expected to occur on SamTrans; with approximately 70 to 80 peak-hour trips, this would translate to roughly five to ten passengers per bus. SamTrans presently has adequate capacity for this demand and is likely to be able to accommodate project trips in the future.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-48 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Rail Services (BART and Caltrain)
The project is anticipated to add new transit trips on BART and Caltrain during the AM and PM peak commute periods. BART and Caltrain currently experience peak-period crowding along certain segments of key routes. The majority of transit trips would occur on BART (up to 800 to 900 projectrelated peak-hour trips under project conditions); trips would also occur on Caltrain (300 to 400 peak-hour trips).
Project-related BART trips would largely travel in the “reverse-peak direction,” for which BART has ample capacity. Under existing conditions, about 60 to 65 percent of BART passengers riding between San Bruno and South San Francisco are traveling northbound in the “peak direction” during the AM peak hour and southbound during the PM peak hour. The San Bruno station mirrors these patterns, with most passengers entering the station during the AM peak hour and exiting during the PM peak hour. The project would increase jobs accessible from San Bruno Station, resulting in an increase in passenger volumes exiting the station during the AM peak hour and entering the station during the PM peak hour. Under project buildout conditions, the total number of reverse peak direction passengers entering/exiting the station or waiting on the platform would be similar to the number of peak commute direction under existing conditions. As illustrated in Table 4.15-11, p.
4.15-48, under project buildout conditions, the total number of PM station entries would be 926, approximately 200 more entries than the existing 718 in the AM peak hour. In both the AM and PM peak periods, BART trains and platforms at the San Bruno station have adequate capacity to handle these increases in passenger volumes.
Table 4.15-11. Project Buildout Effect on Total Activity at San Bruno BART Station Study
Perio
d Direction
Project Buildout
BART Trip
Generation
2019 Passenger
Count
2019 + Project
Buildout
San Bruno BART Station Passenger Volumes
AM Entries (Peak) 65 718 783
AM Exits (Reverse Peak) 816 187 1,003
PM Exits (Peak) 105 679 784
PM Entries (Reverse Peak) 678 248 926
San Bruno – South San Francisco Segment
AM Northbound (Peak) 65 2,102 2,167
AM Southbound (Reverse Peak) 816 1,267 2,083
PM Southbound (Peak) 105 2,013 2,118
PM Northbound (Reverse Peak) 678 1,073 1,751
Transbay Tube (Embarcadero – West Oakland Segment)
AM Westbound (Peak) 122 17,395 17,517
PM Eastbound (Peak) 102 15,839 15,941
Notes: In/out split for BART passengers assumed to be similar to vehicle trip generation. Source: BART, 2019, Fehr & Peers, 2021.
BART capacity is highly constrained on service segments through the Transbay Tube between the East Bay (Oakland) and San Francisco. Based on existing ridership data, approximately 13 percent of BART riders entering or exiting the system at the San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Millbrae stations have an origin or destination in the East Bay and travel through the Transbay Tube (most stations in the East Bay are more than 40 minutes away). The project is expected to result in similar City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-49 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
travel patterns, adding approximately 100 to 120 trips to the Transbay Tube during peak hours (roughly 13 percent of project-related peak hour BART trips). Although capacity is highly constrained during these periods, this represents less than a 1 percent contribution to total ridership on this segment of the system under existing conditions and under cumulative conditions as well. In addition, trips would be spread across multiple trains during each peak hour, with an expected increase of only 15 to 20 riders per train, representing one or two additional passengers in each BART car. Therefore, the project would not detrimentally affect BART performance or cause substantial crowding.
Caltrain riders would access the project from the South San Francisco or San Bruno stations, depending on service schedules after completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project.
Trip distribution on Caltrain is expected to roughly mirror existing conditions, with about twothirds of project-related travel traveling northbound in the AM peak period and southbound in the PM peak period. This distribution would result in approximately 233 northbound passengers during the AM peak period and 195 southbound passengers during the PM peak period. Spread across six trains per hour in each direction, the project would add an average of about 30 to 40 passengers per train, or about five or six passengers per train car. Upon completion of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, Caltrain would have the capacity for 5,400 passengers per hour in each direction, with about 900 passengers per train and six trains operating per hour in each direction.
Because the project’s contribution to Caltrain capacity would amount to approximately 4 percent or less, it is anticipated that the project would not detrimentally affect Caltrain performance or cause substantial crowding.
Therefore, the project at buildout would have a less-than-significant impact on transit performance, and no mitigation is required.
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project with a similar transit mode share and less overall transit ridership. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-than-significant impact on transit performance, and no mitigation is required.
Impact TR-5b: The project would not have a detrimental impact on bicycle or pedestrian facilities. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
The project would add approximately 1,000 to 1,100 pedestrian and bicycle trips to and from the site during the AM and PM peak hours (of which 90 percent would be walking or biking to or from transit). In particular, the project is likely to add bicycle trips along the Centennial Way Trail, Huntington Avenue, South Linden Avenue, and Sneath Lane, which are designated bicycle routes in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.
Most project-related pedestrian and bicycle trips would be concentrated along Huntington Avenue between the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue entrance and the San Bruno BART Station entrance. To address this increased demand, the project would extend the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART Station, providing an approximately 15- to 17-footwide multi-use path along the west side of Huntington Avenue. A Viswalk analysis of Huntington Avenue evaluated “pedestrian space,” described as the average amount of area available for a City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-50 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
pedestrian walking along a trail, sidewalk, or crosswalk (the inverse of pedestrian density). The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6th Edition provides a qualitative description of the pedestrian space that can be used to evaluate the performance of pedestrian facilities. Since pedestrians are anticipated to comprise the vast majority of users on the Centennial Way Trail during peak hours, analyzing pedestrian space helps illustrate how much room remains for bicyclists to pass pedestrians as well as the potential for conflicts between modes. This scale is summarized in Table
4.15-12, p. 4.15-50, which shows a worst-case condition for pedestrian space experienced by users of the Centennial Way Trail during the AM and PM peak hours.
Table 4.15-12. Pedestrian Space Crowding Scale
Pedestrian Space
(square feet per pedestrian) Description
> 60 Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter movements > 40-60 Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 24-40 Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts > 15-24 Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restricted > 8-15 Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower pedestrians <= 8 Speed severely restricted, frequent contact with other users Notes: Based on the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
The Viswalk analysis shown in Figure 4.15-7, p. 4.15-51, indicates that the proposed trail extension is sufficiently sized to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle volumes under project buildout conditions. Although there is some potential for crowding to occur at the southwest corner of the Huntington/BART intersection during the AM peak hour as pedestrians wait for the ‘walk’ signal, the adequate duration of the walk phase and the lack of conflicts with vehicular movements would allow all pedestrians to cross in the same signal cycle. The high volume of pedestrians after a BART train arrival would control the speed of travel on the proposed multi-use path adjacent to the station. As pedestrians and bicyclists travel farther from the station, spacing between pedestrians would increase, allowing bicyclists to comfortably pass. Therefore, the proposed design is unlikely to pose a hazardous condition.
The project would also add vehicle trips along designated bicycle routes and in areas with high levels of pedestrian activity. These areas include Huntington Avenue, South Linden Avenue, Sneath Lane, and San Bruno Avenue as well as the edge of downtown San Bruno and downtown South San Francisco. However, because project traffic would be distributed across several routes while accessing freeway ramps, walking and biking conditions are not expected to be adversely affected by the project.
Construction activity during project construction could result in temporary bikeway and sidewalk closures as well as effects on pedestrian and bike circulation due to construction trucks or an increase in vehicle trips. These types of construction-related changes would be temporary, generally short term, and conducted in accordance with City requirements to develop a Construction Management Plan compliant with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) that would provide for temporary bicycle and pedestrian crossing during construction activities.
>60
Pedestrian Space
(square feet per pedestrian)
Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter movements Signalized Intersection Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflictsSpeed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restrictedSpeed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower pedestriansSpeed severely restricted, frequent contact with other users Undefined
>40-60
>24-40
>15-24
>8-15
<=8
AM PM
HUNTINGTON AVENUE
SNEATH LANE
TANFORAN AVENUE
SOUTHLINE AVENUE
Bus Transit
Center
BART Station Entrance: ~250-ft
HUNTINGTON AVENUE
SNEATH LANE
TANFORAN AVENUE
SOUTHLINE AVENUE
Bus Transit
Center
BART Station Entrance: ~250-ft
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (4-29-2021) JC
Figure 4.15-7
Pedestrian Spacing – AM and PM Peak Hours
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-52 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The project at buildout would not detrimentally affect the performance or safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on bicycle and pedestrian conditions, and no mitigation is required.
Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as those of the project since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project and would have a similar bicycle and pedestrian mode share with lower overall volumes. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure changes described above, including the proposed Southline Avenue extension and new intersection, would be constructed during Phase
1. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would have a less-thansignificant impact on bicycle and pedestrian conditions, and no mitigation is required.
4.15.4.5 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative plus-project conditions represent the 2040 future baseline condition with the addition of the project at buildout. Therefore, the impact evaluation above considered cumulative plus project conditions; as a result, the analysis above considers cumulative impacts. Cumulative impacts are restated here for ease of reference.
Impact C-TR-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact TR-1, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact related to inconsistency with transportation-related plans and policies.
Cumulative development projects would be subject to design review and CEQA review, if applicable, to ensure consistency with transportation-related plans and policies. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-TR-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Project: Less than Cumulatively Considerable; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
As discussed under Impact TR-2, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, meets the criteria set by OPR and CEQA statutes to establish the presumption of a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Thus, the project’s VMT impact is also considered to be less than cumulatively considerable. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-TR-3a: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) As discussed under Impact TR-3a, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact related to design hazards. Design hazards are site-specific impacts, and none of the cumulative development projects are located within sufficient proximity to the project site to have the potential to combine with the project to create a substantial design hazard.
Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-53 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact C-TR-3b: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not substantially increase hazards due to freeway ramp queuing. (Project:
Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact TR-3b, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact related to freeway queuing. The analysis is based on cumulative 2040 traffic conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-TR-3c: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not substantially increase hazards at at-grade rail crossings. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact TR-3c, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact related to at-grade rail crossings. The analysis is based on cumulative 2040 traffic conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-TR-3d: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would contribute to existing hazardous conditions due to project-related traffic, leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable) As discussed under Impact TR-3d, the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meets the peak-hour signal warrant under no-project and with-project conditions during the PM peak hour. The project would add approximately 301 PM peak-hour trips, which would affect intersection operations more substantially. While mitigation exists that could reduce the Project Buildout contribution to the impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, no funding mechanism exists, and implementation of this mitigation is outside of the jurisdiction of the City of South San Francisco. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be significant and unavoidable, and the project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable. Given the limited number of trips that would result from Phase 1, Phase 1’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.
Impact C-TR-4: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not have a detrimental impact on emergency access. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact TR-4, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact related to emergency access. Emergency access impacts are site-specific impacts, and none of the cumulative development projects are located within sufficient proximity to the project site to have the potential to combine with the project to create a detrimental impact on emergency access. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-TR-5a: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not result in substantial delay or overcrowding on transit vehicles. (Project:
Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact TR-5a, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact related to transit performance. The analysis is based on cumulative City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Transportation and Circulation
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.15-54 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
2040 conditions. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact C-TR-5b: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified would not have a detrimental impact on bicycle or pedestrian facilities. (Project:
Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
As discussed under Impact TR-5b, the project, inclusive of the Phase 1 development, would have a less-than-significant impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Impacts on bicycle and pedestrian facilities are site-specific, and none of the cumulative development projects are located within sufficient proximity to the project site to have the potential to combine with the project to create a detrimental impact on bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-1September 2021
ICF 00082.20
4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources
4.16.1 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 tribal cultural resources. 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 tribal cultural resources include a response from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC confirmed that the NOP was received and provided a response summarizing the statutory requirements related to tribal consultation under Assembly Bill (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18; no request for tribal consultation was received. A summary of AB 52/SB 18 notification for the project is included below in Section 4.16.4.2. Approach to Analysis, and responses received are included in Appendix 4.16-1.
4.16.2 Environmental Setting
4.16.2.1 Historic Setting
Information about ethnographic lifeways and the post-contact history of Native Americans who traditionally inhabited the vicinity of the project site is provided in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
4.16.2.2 Existing Setting
The Specific Plan area is developed with office and industrial buildings as well as surface parking lots. The off-site improvement areas consist of rights-of-way and easements located in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. The off-site improvement areas are developed with circulation and utility infrastructure and do not contain any buildings or structures.
Information about the existing setting relevant to tribal cultural resources, both in the surrounding area and on project site, including the Phase 1 site, is provided in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR. As discussed therein, the records search conducted for the proposed project identified two prehistoric shell midden sites within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. No tribal cultural resources were identified within the project site.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-2September 2021
ICF 00082.20
4.16.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of state laws related to tribal cultural resources. For purposes of this analysis, there are no other applicable local, regional, or federal policies or regulations that affect the project site.
4.16.3.1 State
As described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, archaeological, historical, and tribal cultural resources are protected under a variety of state policies and regulations, as enumerated under the California Public Resources Code (PRC). Tribal cultural resources, which are recognized as nonrenewable resources, receive additional protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
⚫ PRC Section 5024 requires state agencies to identify and protect state-owned resources that meet the listing criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including significant tribal cultural resources. It further specifically requires the California Department of Transportation to inventory state-owned structures in its rights-of-way. Sections 5024(f) and 5024.5 require state agencies to provide notice to and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before altering, transferring, relocating, or demolishing stateowned historical resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP or registered or eligible for registration as California Historical Landmarks. ⚫ California PRC Sections 5097.9–5097.991 provide protection to Native American historical and cultural resources as well as sacred sites. The sections also identify the powers and duties of the NAHC and require notification of descendants when Native American human remains are discovered. They also provide for the treatment and disposition of human remains and associated grave goods.
⚫ PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21084.2 and 21084.3 codify the key points of AB 52 (Chapter 532, Statutes of 2014), which establishes a formal consultation process for California Native American tribes as part of CEQA, as set forth in more detail below.
Senate Bill 18
Senate Bill (SB) 18 was established in September 2004 and requires local governments to consult with California Native American tribes prior to preparing or amending both general plans (as defined in California Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (as defined in (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq). The purpose of this consultation is to include California Native American tribes early in the planning process to allow for the identification and protection of cultural resources. This process also allows cultural resources to be considered during the broad scale local and region planning process rather than at a project level. The following includes a sequential list of local government responsibilities:
⚫ Local governments must notify appropriate tribes, as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), prior to the adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan. ⚫ Tribes have 90 days from the receipt of notification to request consultation (Government Code §65352.3).
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-3September 2021
ICF 00082.20
⚫ Prior to the adoption or substantial amendment of a general plan or specific plan, local governments must refer the proposed action to the appropriate tribes, as identified by the NAHC, regardless of whether previous consultation has taken place. ⚫ Local governments must allow a 45-day comment period (Government Code §65352), ⚫ Local governments must provide notice of public to all tribes who have filed a written request for such notice at least 10 days prior to the hearing (Government Code §65092).
Assembly Bill 52
Following adoption of SB 18, tribal cultural resources were identified as a distinct CEQA environmental category with the adoption of AB 52 in September 2014. For all projects that are subject to CEQA and filed an NOP, or notice of negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration on or after July 1, 2015, AB 52 requires the lead agency on a proposed project to consult with the geographically affiliated California Native American tribes. (CEQA Section 20180.3.1). The legislation creates a broad new category of environmental resources, “tribal cultural resources,” which must be considered under CEQA. AB 52 requires a lead agency to not only consider the resource’s scientific and historical value but also whether it is culturally important to a California Native American tribe.
AB 52 defines tribal cultural resources as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); or determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to the criteria of PRC Section 5024.1(c) (CEQA Section 21074).
The CRHR criteria for the listing of resources, as defined in PRC Section 5024.1(c), are the following:
1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual; or possesses high artistic values.
4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
AB 52 also sets up an expanded consultation process. For projects initiated after July 1, 2015, lead agencies are required to provide notice of the proposed projects to any tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area and that requested to be informed by the lead agency, following PRC Section 21018.3.1(b). If, within 30 days, a tribe requests consultation, the consultation process must begin before the lead agency can release a draft environmental document.
Consultation with the tribe may include a discussion regarding the type of review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe. The consultation process will be deemed concluded when either (a) the parties agree to mitigation measures or (b) any party concludes, after a good-faith effort, that an agreement cannot be reached. Any mitigation measures agreed to by the tribe and lead agency must be recommended for inclusion in the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-4September 2021
ICF 00082.20
environmental document. If a tribe does not request consultation, or otherwise assist in identifying mitigation measures during the consultation process, a lead agency may still consider mitigation measures if the agency determines that a project will cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource.
4.16.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to tribal cultural resources 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.
4.16.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant tribal cultural resources impact if it would:
⚫ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that is:
Listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020. 1(k), or
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
4.16.4.2 Approach to Analysis
The project site and surrounding area were studied to determine whether tribal cultural resources are potentially present and, if so, the potential impacts of the proposed project on those resources.
Several methodologies were employed for the purpose of determining the presence of tribal cultural resources.
Records Search
As described Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, a records search was conducted through the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) on June 16, 2020. The records search included previously conducted cultural resources studies and previously recorded archaeological resources (which could include tribal cultural resources) both within the project site and within 0.25-mile of the project site. The records search identified 17 previous cultural resources studies that were conducted within 0.25 mile of the project site, including two studies within the project site. The records search concluded that there are no known cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources) within the project site. Three archaeological resources have been previously identified within 0.25 mile of the project site (outside of the project site area), as shown in Table 4.4-1 in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources; none of these resources have been identified as a tribal cultural resource. Two of these previously identified City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-5September 2021
ICF 00082.20
archaeological resources, P-41-000048 (CA-SMA-44) and P-41-000051 (CA-SMA-47), are prehistoric shell midden sites, and one, P-41-000207, consists of the Tanforan Detention Center.
Native American Consultation
On June 3, 2020, the City of South San Francisco (City) sent notification letters, pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18, to the following five individuals, who have been designated as contacts of or representatives of tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the vicinity of the project site and who have requested notification of proposed projects in this geographic area. A 90-day review period was provided for comments and/or requests for consultation. A record of the City’s notification letters and responses received are included in Appendix 4.16-1 of this EIR. ⚫ Tony Cerda, Chairperson – Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe ⚫ Irenne Zwierlein, Chairperson – Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista ⚫ Rosemary Cambra, Chairperson – Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco Bay Area ⚫ Andrew Galvan – The Ohlone Indian Tribe
⚫ Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson – Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan On June 10, 2020, Mr. Galvan contacted the City, inquiring where the project was located and whether a literature review or pedestrian survey had been conducted for the project. He also requested a copy of reports of such survey if conducted. The City responded on June 11, providing Mr. Galvan with the project location and letting him know that they would follow up regarding the literature review and pedestrian survey. On June 16, the City followed up with Mr. Galvan, stating that both are under way and that the City will notify him when a literature review or pedestrian survey are ready for review.
Additionally, as described above, the NOP comments pertaining to tribal cultural resources include a response from the NAHC, who confirmed that the NOP was received and summarized statutory requirements related to tribal consultation under AB 52 and SB 18; no request for consultation was received. NAHC’s response to the NOP is included in Appendix 1.
No additional correspondence occurred, and none of the tribal representatives who were contacted by the City requested consultation on the project within the 90-day period, or subsequently.
Buildout Scenario Studied (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.
A project’s impacts to tribal cultural resources are site-specific, and analysis of the potential impacts related to tribal cultural resources is dependent on a number of factors, including the project location, proposed demolition, the amount of ground that would be disturbed, the type of City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-6September 2021
ICF 00082.20
disturbance, the potential depth of excavation, and other factors. The two buildout scenarios would occur on the same parcels, so present no difference in location. Both scenarios would remove all existing uses in the Specific Plan area and would include implementation of the same off-site improvements. While the two potential buildout scenarios are similar, the Office Scenario has the greatest building footprint (543,315 square feet versus 531,765 square feet), lot coverage (49 percent versus 46 percent), and built area (2,800,000 square feet versus 2,025,050 square feet).
Similarly, while both scenarios would have the same maximum depth of excavation (31 feet below grade surface), 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). Therefore, the Office Scenario has a greater potential to result in significant impacts to tribal cultural resources and is analyzed as the “worst-case” scenario.
4.16.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe and that is listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020. 1(k), or is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. (Project: Less than Significant with Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project
Although no known tribal cultural resources were identified during Native American consultation or the NWIC records search, the project has the potential to encounter previously undocumented prehistoric archaeological resources, as described in Section 4.4 Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
These resources, in turn, have the potential to be tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the potential exists for previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074.2) to be encountered during demolition or construction activities associated with the project. Furthermore, buried deposits may be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2a, Mitigation Measure CR-2b, and Mitigation Measure CR-3 (as described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources) would ensure that impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 has the potential to encounter as-yet undocumented precontact archaeological deposits, which have the potential to be considered tribal cultural resources. This impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2a, Mitigation Measure CR-2b, and Mitigation Measure CR-3 (as described in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources) would ensure that impacts related to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (All Phases). Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.16-7September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Mitigation Measure CR-2b: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources (All Phases). Refer to Section
4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission (All Phases). Refer to Section 4.4, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
4.16.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative geographic context for tribal cultural resources is the vicinity of the project site. The approach to cumulative impacts is described in Section 4,1.6, Approach to Cumulative Analysis.
Impact C-TCR-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 tribal cultural resources. (Project: Less than Cumulatively Considerable; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The cumulative geographic context for tribal cultural resources is the immediate vicinity of the project site, which is the area where construction activities, including ground-disturbing activities, could encounter tribal cultural resources that may be present on or near the site. The cumulative projects within 0.5 mile of the project site are described in Section 4.1.6, Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis, of this EIR and shown in Figure 4.1-1.
The cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site would be constructed on infill sites in highly disturbed areas. It is likely that the cumulative projects would be constructed on sites where the ground surface has been disturbed and/or covered with fill and gravel. Similar to the proposed project, all cumulative projects would be required to implement mitigation measures to ensure that project activities would not result in the inadvertent destruction of tribal cultural resources and that discovery procedures pertaining to human remains would be implemented. Nonetheless, cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources are considered potentially significant because the reasonably foreseeable projects would most likely involve ground-disturbing activities that could uncover resources related to resources that could be uncovered by the project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a, Mitigation Measure CR-2b, and Mitigation Measure CR-3 would ensure that the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than cumulatively considerable.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
4.17.1 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 utilities and service systems. This section also describes the existing conditions at the project site, including the Phase 1 site, and 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:
⚫ Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan, South San Francisco District, California Water Service – Draft (WSA), prepared for the proposed project by EKI Environment & Water, Inc. in July 2021 (Appendix 4.17-1);
⚫ Water Infrastructure Technical Study, Southline Development Project (Water Infrastructure Technical Study), prepared for the proposed project by BKF in December 2020 (Appendix 4.17- 2);
⚫ Sanitary Sewer Technical Study, Southline Development Project (Sanitary Sewer Technical Study), prepared for the proposed project by BKF in January 2021 (Appendix 4.17-3); ⚫ 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); ⚫ Southline Project PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study, South San Francisco, CA (PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study), prepared for the proposed project by Power Systems Design in April 2021 (Appendix 4.17-4);
⚫ Will-serve letter for the proposed project from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Gas WillServe Letter), dated March 16, 2021 (Appendix 4.17-5).
Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. The NOP comments pertaining to utilities and service systems include a comment letter from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) containing general comments regarding construction and development within and near PG&E easements, and comments from the City of San Bruno about the proposed project’s potential impacts on San Bruno’s utilities and service systems and the project’s consistency with San Bruno’s Green Infrastructure Plan. These issues are addressed below in Section 4.17.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures.
With regard to impacts on San Bruno’s utilities and service systems, the analysis evaluates: 1) impacts to San Bruno’s storm drain system from development within the off-site improvement areas that flow to that system; and 2) impacts to wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities shared by the Cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco. No impacts would occur on San Bruno’s water service because San Bruno and South San Francisco are served by different water systems and providers; the new development within the Specific Plan area would be served by Cal Water, as City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
described in Section 4.17.2, below. The proposed project does not propose any changes to San Bruno-owned water infrastructure, and the off-site improvements in San Bruno’s jurisdiction would not generate a demand for water because they are limited to transportation and circulation improvements in areas currently developed with similar infrastructure. For the same reasons, the proposed project would have no potential impact on services provided by San Bruno’s solid waste agency, Recology San Bruno. As discussed below, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications services are provided by regional service providers, and there would be no impacts to San Bruno facilities or infrastructure.
4.17.2 Environmental Setting
This section provides a discussion of the existing conditions related to utilities and service systems serving the project site, inclusive of the Phase 1 site. Described utilities and service systems include:
potable water supply and infrastructure; wastewater conveyance infrastructure and treatment facilities; stormwater conveyance infrastructure; solid waste collection and disposal facilities; and electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure.
Water
Regional
The City of South San Francisco (City) is served by the California Water Service Company (Cal Water), and is located in Cal Water’s South San Francisco (SSF) District service area, which includes South San Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and Broadmoor. The Cal Water South San Francisco District utilizes both groundwater supply from the Westside Basin and imported surface water supply purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 1 The majority of the water supply to the Cal Water South San Francisco District (i.e., approximately 89% from 2005-2020) is treated water purchased from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), which is operated by the SFPUC. Within the South San Francisco District, Cal Water takes delivery from eleven active and two standby metered turnouts from RWS transmission lines. The RWS supply originates predominantly from the Sierra Nevada but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. Approximately 85% of the RWS supply is from the Tuolumne River via the Hetch-Hetchy Reservoir and aqueducts. The remaining 15% is from local watersheds and the San Antonio, Calaveras, Crystal Springs, Pilarcitos and San Andreas Reservoirs.2 The business relationship between San Francisco and its wholesale customers (including Cal Water) is largely defined by the Water Supply Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and wholesale customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County, and Santa Clara County (Agreement) entered into in July 2009. The Agreement, which has a 25-year term, addresses water supply availability for the RWS as well as the methodology used by the SFPUC in setting wholesale water rates. The Agreement provides a 184 million gallons per day (MGD) Supply Assurance to the 1 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan – Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021. 2 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
SFPUC’s wholesale customers collectively. Each wholesale customer’s share of the 184 MGD is referred to as their Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG).3 Cal Water’s contractual allocation of SFPUC supply is shared among its Bear Gulch, Mid-Peninsula, and South San Francisco Districts (Peninsula Districts). Cal Water’s ISG for the Peninsula Districts is
35.68 MGD (39,993 acre-feet per year [AFY]). Cal Water’s collective current and projected purchase quantities are approximately equal to an average of 29.38 MGD in 2020 and 30.35 MGD in 2045, respectively. Both current and projected quantities are less than Cal Water’s ISG of 35.68 MGD.4 The RWS historically has met demand in its service area in all year types. However, the water available to SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers from the RWS is constrained by hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional parameters that allocate the water supply of the Tuolumne River. In addition, statewide regulations and other factors can impact the system reliability. Of note, the adoption of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) is anticipated to impact the reliability of the RWS supplies in the future.
5 The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in December 2018, Resolution No. 2018-0059, to establish water quality objectives to maintain the health of the Bay-Delta ecosystem, with the stated goal of increasing salmonid populations in three San Joaquin River tributaries (the Stanislaus, Merced, and Tuolumne Rivers) and the Bay-Delta. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment requires the release of 30-50 percent of the “unimpaired flow”6 on the three tributaries from February through June in every year type. If the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, the SFPUC will be able to meet the projected water demands presented in its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in normal years but would experience supply shortages in single dry years or multiple dry years (refer to Section 4.17.3 for additional information on UWMPs). Based on an analysis by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented, the proposed unimpaired flow volumes would significantly reduce the water supply available through the RWS during future drought conditions, and BAWSCA member agencies (including the Cal Water South San Francisco District) would be required to reduce their water use by as much as 50 percent during drought years.7
The SWRCB has stated that it intends to implement the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment on the Tuolumne River by the year 2022, assuming all required approvals are obtained by that time.
However, implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is uncertain for multiple reasons, as summarized below.
⚫ First, since adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, over a dozen lawsuits have been filed in both state and federal courts, challenging the SWRCB’s adoption of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, including a legal challenge filed by the federal government, at the request of the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. This litigation is in the early stages and there have been no dispositive court rulings as of this date. 3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Unimpaired flow represents the natural water production of a river basin, unaltered by upstream diversions, storage, or by export or import of water to or from other watersheds. 7 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan – Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Second, the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is not self-implementing and does not automatically allocate responsibility for meeting its new flow requirements to the SFPUC or any other water rights holders.
⚫ Third, in recognition of the obstacles to implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, the SWRCB Resolution No. 2018-0059 adopting the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment directed staff to help complete a “Delta watershed-wide agreement, including potential flow measures for the Tuolumne River” by March 1, 2019, and to incorporate such agreements as an “alternative” for a future amendment to the Bay-Delta Plan to be presented to the SWRCB “as early as possible after December 1, 2019.” In accordance with the SWRCB’s instruction, on March 1, 2019, SFPUC, in partnership with other key stakeholders, submitted a proposed project description for the Tuolumne River that could be the basis for a voluntary substitute agreement with the SWRCB.
On March 26, 2019, the SFPUC adopted Resolution No. 19-0057 to support its participation in the voluntary agreement negotiation process. To date, those negotiations are ongoing under the California Natural Resources Agency and the leadership of the Newsom administration. 8 Additionally, the SFPUC is pursuing numerous options to improve the supply reliability projected in its 2020 UWMP and meet its Level of Service (LOS) Goals. In particular, the SFPUC’s Water Supply Improvement Program (WSIP) and its Water Management Action Plan (Water MAP) articulate the SFPUC’s goals and objectives to improve the delivery reliability of the RWS, including water supply reliability. The WSIP includes several water supply projects. Its program goal is to improve the SFPUC’s ability to reliably meet its retail and wholesale customer water needs in non-drought and drought periods. The anticipated completion date of the overall WSIP is May 2023. As of September 2020, WSIP local projects are 100 percent complete and regional projects are 98.8 percent complete.
9 The SFPUC also developed a Water MAP in 2016 to provide the information necessary to begin developing a water supply program for the 2019 to 2040 planning horizon. The SFPUC intends that the Water MAP will guide its efforts to continue to meet its commitments and responsibilities to its customers, including the BAWSCA member agencies.
Through implementation of its Long-Term Water Supply Reliability Strategy, BAWSCA is also actively evaluating opportunities to increase the supply reliability of the RWS. The strategy includes short- and long-term implementation plans including water supply management projects that could be implemented to meet identified needs. Potential projects include recycled water projects, desalination projects, water transfer projects, and local capture and reuse projects.10 In addition to water supply from SFPUC, surface water and groundwater supply a small portion of water to Cal Water. From 2016 to 2020, surface water supplied an average of 537 AF, or less than 2 percent of total supplies.11 Surface water is collected from the Bear Gulch Creek by two diversion facilities and is stored in Bear Gulch Reservoir prior to use.
Cal Water also uses groundwater from the Westside Basin, which underlies the project site and the Cal Water South San Francisco District service area. Cal Water operates five groundwater production wells within its South San Francisco District service area. From 2005 to 2019, the Cal Water South San Francisco District met up to 19 percent of its water demand from groundwater, excluding purchased in-lieu groundwater credits, and up to 22 percent including in-lieu 8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
groundwater credits purchased from SFPUC. Groundwater use was reduced in 2016 and later due to in-lieu recharge.12 The Basin is not adjudicated13 and, in its recent evaluation of California groundwater basins, DWR determined that the Basin was not in overdraft and designated the Basin as low priority.14
Table 4.17-1, below, shows the water supply in Cal Water’s South San Francisco District for the most recent five years for which data are available. Table 4.17-2, p. 4.17-6, shows historical supplies and demand from 2016 through 2020 and projected normal year supplies and demand through 2045 for Cal Water’s Peninsula Districts. The information is from Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District, which includes an estimated demand of 527 AFY associated with the project. As shown, Cal Water had sufficient water supplies to serve the water demand in each sector for the past five years, and Cal Water forecasts that it will continue to have adequate supplies through 2045 during normal year conditions.
Table 4.17-1. Historical Water Supply in the Cal Water South San Francisco District 2016
(AFY)
2017
(AFY)
2018
(AFY)
2019
(AFY)
2020
(AFY)
Supply by Source
Purchased Surface Water 5,296 5,308 5,322 5,332 5,379
Purchased In‐Lieu Groundwater 863 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,539 Groundwater 527 0 0 0 0
Total 6,687 6,842 6,857 6,867 6,936
Source: EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
AFY = acre feet per year
12 Ibid.
13 Basin adjudications involve a judicial process in which a party initiates a lawsuit against all other users in a groundwater basin so that the court can determine the groundwater rights of all parties overlying the basin and whether others may export water from the basin.
14 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.17-2. Historical and Projected Water Supplies by Source – Normal Year Water Supplier
Historical Supply and Demand (AFY) Projected Supply and Demand (AFY) 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Historical and Projected Demand
South San Francisco Districta 6,687 6,842 6,857 6,867 6,936 7,543 7,483 7,635 8,000 8,423 Mid-Peninsula District 12,534 13,601 13,924 14,046 14,563 14,418 14,530 14,786 14,977 15,279 Bear Gulch District 10,105 11,395 11,834 11,772 12,972 12,796 12,699 12,730 12,675 12,693 Total Demand 29,326 31,838 32,614 32,684 34,471 34,757 34,712 35,151 35,652 36,396 Historical and Projected Supply (All Peninsula Districts) Purchased (SFPUC) 27,180 29,204 30,909 30,310 32,932 32,383 32,338 32,777 33,278 34,022 Bear Gulch Reservoir 757 1,100 170 839 0 840 840 840 840 840 Groundwater 1,390 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,539 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 1,534 Total Supply 29,326 31,838 32,614 32,684 34,471 34,757 34,712 35,151 35,652 36,396 Supply Minus Demand 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a Future demand estimates are from Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District (June 2021). As discussed in Section 4.17.3 below, the future demand estimates presented in the 2020 UWMP account for an estimated demand of 527 AFY associated with the project. The project’s WSA (Appendix 4.17-1) deducts 527 AFY from the future demand estimates for the South San Francisco District under the assumption that the project would comply with Cal Water’s pending Water Neutral Development Policy. However, as discussed in Section 4.17.4 below, as of the date of publish of this Draft EIR, Cal Water has not adopted a Water Neutral Development Policy. Therefore, this analysis conservatively does not deduct the project’s demand from future demand estimates for the South San Francisco District.
Source: EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
AFY = acre feet per year
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.17-3, below, shows projected single dry year supplies and demand through 2045 for Cal Water’s Peninsula Districts. The information is from Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District, which includes an estimated demand of 527 AFY associated with the project. As shown, during single dry years, the annual supply within the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas will be reduced to 21,039 AFY by 2045. Supply shortfalls relative to total demands during single dry years are estimated to range between 34 percent in 2025 and 44 percent in 2045.
Table 4.17-4, p. 4.17-9, shows projected multiple dry year supplies and demand through 2045 for Cal Water’s Peninsula Districts. The information is from Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District, which includes an estimated demand of 527 AFY associated with the project. As shown, during multiple dry years, annual supply within the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas will be reduced to 23,615 AFY in 2025 during the first year of a drought, and 20,492 AFY in 2025 in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years of drought. The 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District further estimates that in 2045, annual supply will be reduced to 20,954 AFY during the first three years of a drought, and 18,061 AFY in fourth and fifth years of drought. Supply shortfalls relative to total demands are estimated to range between 36 percent during the first year of a drought in 2025 to 53 percent during the fifth year of a drought in 2045.
Table 4.17-3. Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand
Water Supply Source
Projected Dry Year Supply and Demand (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Total Supply (All Peninsula Districts) 23,580 23,546 23,835 23,809 21,039 Demand
SSF District a 7,831 7,767 7,925 8,304 8,743
Mid-Peninsula District 14,797 14,908 15,168 15,359 15,662 Bear Gulch District 13,354 13,253 13,285 13,228 13,248
Total Potable Water Demand 35,982 35,928 36,378 36,891 37,653 Supply Shortfall (% demand) 34% 34% 34% 35% 44%
a Future demand estimates are from Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District (June 2021). As discussed in Section 4.17.3 below, the future demand estimates presented in the 2020 UWMP account for an estimated demand of 527 AFY associated with the project. The project’s WSA (Appendix 4.17-1) deducts 527 AFY from the future demand estimates for the South San Francisco District under the assumption that the project would comply with Cal Water’s pending Water Neutral Development Policy. However, as discussed in Section 4.17.4 below, as of the date of publish of this Draft EIR, Cal Water has not adopted a Water Neutral Development Policy. Therefore, this analysis conservatively does not deduct the project’s demand from future demand estimates for the South San Francisco District.
Source: EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
AFY = acre feet per year
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.17-4. Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand Supply Source
Projected Water Supply and Demand During Multiple Dry Years (AFY) 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total Supply (All Peninsula
Districts)
23,615 20,492 20,492 20,492 20,492 23,483 20,383 20,383 20,383 20,383 23,647 20,313 20,313 20,313 18,849 23,762 20,594 20,594 18,424 18,424 20,954 20,954 20,954 18,061 18,061 Demand
SSF Districta 8,009 8,009 8,009 8,009 8,009 7,943 7,943 7,943 7,943 7,943 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,104 8,492 8,492 8,492 8,492 8,492 8,940 8,940 8,940 8,940 8,940 Mid-Peninsula District 15,031 15,031 15,031 15,031 15,031 15,143 15,143 15,143 15,143 15,143 15,405 15,405 15,405 15,405 15,405 15,595 15,595 15,595 15,595 15,595 15,900 15,900 15,900 15,900 15,900 Bear Gulch District 13,699 13,699 13,699 13,699 13,699 13,595 13,595 13,595 13,595 13,595 13,629 13,629 13,629 13,629 13,629 13,570 13,570 13,570 13,570 13,570 13,591 13,591 13,591 13,591 13,591 Total Potable Water Demand 36,739 36,739 36,739 36,739 36,739 36,681 36,681 36,681 36,681 36,681 37,138 37,138 37,138 37,138 37,138 37,657 37,657 37,657 37,657 37,657 38,431 38,431 38,431 38,431 38,431 Supply Shortfall (% demand) 36% 44% 44% 44% 44% 36% 44% 44% 44% 44% 35% 45% 45% 45% 49% 37% 45% 45% 51% 51% 45% 45% 45% 53% 53% a Future demand estimates are from Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District (June 2021). As discussed in Section 4.17.3 below, the future demand estimates presented in the 2020 UWMP account for an estimated demand of 527 AFY associated with the project.
The project’s WSA (Appendix 4.17-1) deducts 527 AFY from the future demand estimates for the South San Francisco District under the assumption that the project would comply with Cal Water’s pending Water Neutral Development Policy. However, as discussed in Section 4.17.4 below, as of the date of publish of this Draft EIR, Cal Water has not adopted a Water Neutral Development Policy. Therefore, this analysis conservatively does not deduct the project’s demand from future demand estimates for the South San Francisco District.
Source: EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
AFY = acre feet per year
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Specific Plan Area, Including Phase 1 Site
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for water service because they would consist of transportation and infrastructure improvements. Therefore, this discussion describes the existing water infrastructure that serves the Specific Plan area and the demand associated with existing uses within the Specific Plan area.
Cal Water distribution mains are located in each of the public street frontages abutting the Specific Plan area. A 6-inch cast-iron main, installed in 1943 in South Maple Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and South Linden Avenue, provides water service to the parcels fronting Tanforan Avenue, Dollar Avenue, and South Linden Avenue, including the portion of the Phase 1 site located south of the proposed Southline Avenue. The 6-inch main is supplied by a 12-inch asbestos-cement main located in Tanforan Avenue. A 12-inch asbestos-cement main, installed in 1964 in South Maple Avenue, provides water service to the parcels fronting Maple Avenue. The existing water mains serving the Specific Plan area are shown in Figure 4.17-1, p. 4.17-12. There is no public recycled water infrastructure surrounding the proposed Specific Plan area. However, there is currently a coordinated effort between Cal Water and other partners to potentially develop recycled water for various uses, which is currently in the feasibility study stage.
Based on available metered data, historical water use for the existing uses within the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site, was approximately 11 AFY between 2018 and 2020. 15 Wastewater
Regional
The City owns and maintains its sanitary sewer system and infrastructure within the public rights-of-way. The collected wastewater is conveyed to the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) located adjacent to San Francisco Bay on Colma Creek. This facility provides secondary wastewater treatment for the Cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. During dry weather conditions, the WQCP has a peak flow capacity of 13 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater, which is increased to a peak capacity of 62 MGD during wet weather flow conditions.
16 The average dry weather flow through the facility is 9 MGD, and average peak wet weather flows can exceed 60 MGD.17 To accommodate peak wet-weather flows, the WQCP is in the process of conducting facility improvements, which would include installation of a new storage basin to retain excess flows during wet-weather 15 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021. 16 Carollo Engineers. 2011. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update. April.
Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1330. Accessed: September 25, 2020. 17 BKF. 2021. Sanitary Sewer Technical Study. January.
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/21/2021) TG
Figure 4.17-1
Existing and Proposed Water Infrastructure
Source: Lane Partners, Kimley-Horn & Associates, DES Architects, BKF Engineers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
conditions.18 Currently, the City generates an average of approximately 8.3 MGD of daily dryweather flow and an average daily wet-weather flow of 10.8 MGD, which is eventually conveyed to and treated at the WQCP.19
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order, which requires the City of South San Francisco to develop and implement a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP). As further described in Section 4.17.3.2, the City is currently updating its SSMP, which identifies ongoing maintenance and system improvements necessary to maintain the sewer system. Identified improvements that are relevant to the proposed project are described below.
Specific Plan Area, Including Phase 1 Site
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for wastewater service because they consist of transportation and circulation improvements that do not generate wastewater.
Therefore, this discussion describes the wastewater infrastructure that serves the Specific Plan area.
The existing wastewater facilities serving the Specific Plan area are shown in Figure 4.17-2, p. 4.17-
14. The proposed Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site, is located in Tributary Basin B-9 within the South San Francisco West Sanitary Sewer System. Existing parcels within the Specific Plan area discharge wastewater to the public sanitary sewer mains located in the adjacent public roadways. These public mains are part of the Lowrie Trunk system and drain to Lift Station #11 on Shaw Road, which pumps the wastewater to the WQCP. The south portion of the Specific Plan area, including the portion of the Phase 1 site located south of the proposed Southline Avenue, drains to a 24-inch vitrified clay pipe main in Tanforan Avenue, identified as LO-P14 in the SSMP. The northwest portion of the Specific Plan area drains to an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe located in South Maple Avenue. This main in turn drains to an 18-inch vitrified clay pipe identified as LO-P12 and LOP13 in the SSMP. Parcels located on the east side of the Specific Plan area drain to an 8-inch vitrified clay pipe in Linden Avenue, which also drains north to LO-P13.20 The SSMP identifies LO-P14, located within Tanforan Avenue, as a segment in need of capacity improvements, and it indicates an upsize to a 27-inch main. The next two segments downstream, LO-P15 and LO-P16, are also identified to be upsized in the SSMP. Additionally, in the SSMP, Lift Station #11 is identified as deficient and requiring capacity upgrades.21 Existing wastewater generation within the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site, is estimated to range from 12,617 gallons per day (gpd) (average dry weather flow) to 17,664 (maximum day dry weather flow), with an estimated maximum day wet weather flow of 82,013 gpd.
22 No wastewater is generated within the off-site improvement areas. 18 Carollo Engineers. 2011. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update. April.
Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1330. Accessed: September 25, 2020. 19 Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Case Study - City of South San Francisco Sewer System Asset Management Planning. January. Available: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/region9/ water/npdes/asset-mgmnt/pdf/npdes-asset-mgmnt-case-study-south-san-francisco.pdf. Accessed: September 25, 2020.
20 BKF. 2021. Sanitary Sewer Technical Study. January.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/21/21) TG
Figure 4.17-2
Existing and Proposed Wastewater Infrastructure
Source: Lane Partners, Kimley-Horn & Associates, DES Architects, BKF Engineers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Stormwater Drainage
Regional
The City owns and maintains storm drainage infrastructure within the public rights-of-way, which then discharge to San Mateo County flood control facilities. The City is part of the Colma Creek watershed, which is approximately 16 square miles. The watershed generally drains from west to east conveying surface runoff in underground storm drains, street surfaces, gutters, and improved creek channels to eventually discharge into San Francisco Bay. The tributary watershed is divided into three main regions: Northern Region, Southern Region, and Lower Region. The Northern and Southern Regions consist of relatively steep sloped urban and residential areas located within and along the bottom of the surrounding foothills. The Lower Region is relatively flat and is largely comprised of industrial development areas. Each of the three regions is further divided into Subwatersheds A through L.23 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). 24 In 2016, the City developed a Storm Drain Master Plan to address storm drain capacity deficiencies and trash capture opportunities citywide. The goal of the Storm Drain Master Plan 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.25 Drainage areas outside the City, including Subwatershed A, are incorporated into the model due to their impact on drainage systems within the City. The SDMP notes that any improvements outside the City boundary should be discussed with neighboring cities.
Identified improvements that are relevant to the proposed project are described below.
It is noted that the project site, including the off-site improvement areas in San Bruno’s jurisdiction, is located outside of the six watershed areas that comprise San Bruno’s storm drain system.26 Project Site, Including Phase 1 Site
The proposed project would have the potential to alter stormwater flows from the Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, this discussion describes the stormwater infrastructure that services the entire project site.
The existing stormwater facilities serving the project site are shown in Figure 4.17-3, p. 4.17-17.
As discussed above, the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site, and the off-site improvement areas in South San Francisco are located within the Southern Region Watershed, Subwatershed B.
The off-site improvement areas in San Bruno’s jurisdiction are located within Lower Level Region Watershed, Subwatershed A. On-site storm drainage systems convey storm runoff from each parcel within the Specific Plan area to the adjacent public roadways. The southern portion of the Specific Plan area drains to a 42-inch reinforced concrete pipe located within Tanforan Avenue. The northwest portion of the Specific Plan area drains to 4-inch-by-4-inch box culvert located within South Maple Avenue. Parcels located on the east side of the project site Specific appear to mostly 23 City of South San Francisco. 2016. Storm Drain Master Plan. February. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=16097. Accessed: September 24, 2020. 24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 City of San Bruno. 2014. Storm Drain Master Plan. June. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=24092. Accessed September 7, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
drain north via the roadway gutter in both Dollar Avenue and South Linden Avenue, as there is no public storm drain infrastructure within these two roadways. The gutter flow along South Linden Avenue drains to a 7-inch-by-5.5-inch box culvert that crosses Linden Avenue north of the Specific Plan area. There is also one parcel on Dollar Avenue assumed to drain south to Tanforan Avenue. 27 The City of South San Francisco’s 2016 SDMP does not identify any recommended facility improvements for infrastructure serving the Specific Plan area within 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 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.
The proposed project would be required 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.28
Solid Waste
Regional
South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer Inc. provide solid waste disposal services citywide, including garbage and recycling services.29 The South San Francisco Scavenger Company transports all solid waste to the Blue Line Transfer Facility at 500 E Jamie Court, where solid waste is processed, treated, and transported to other disposal facilities. The Blue Line Transfer Facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.30 Any trash remaining after the usable materials have been separated at the transfer facility are transported to the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill or the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.
As of 2015 (the most recent year for which data are available), the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 22.18 million cubic yards, a maximum permitted disposal capacity of 3,598 tons per day, and is estimated to close in 2034.31As of 2014 (the most recent year for which data are available), the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 21.2 million cubic yards, a maximum permitted disposal capacity of 4,000 tons per day, and is estimated to close in 2041.
32 27 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study. April. 28 Ibid.
29 South San Francisco Scavenger Company. n.d. About Us. Available: https://ssfscavenger.com/about-us/. Accessed:
September 24, 2020.
30 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Blue Line MRF and TS. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1598?siteID=3259. Accessed: September 24, 2020.
31 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn).
Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed:
September 24, 2020.
32 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1362?siteID=3388. Accessed: September 24, 2020.
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/21/21) TG
Figure 4.17-3
Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Infrastructure
Source: Lane Partners, Kimley-Horn & Associates, DES Architects, BKF Engineers, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
In 2019, the City generated 52,519 tons of solid waste, with residents generating approximately 4.3 pounds of solid waste per capita per day and employees generating 5 pounds of solid waste per capita per day.33 CalRecycle’s 2019 disposal goals for the City were 6.9 pounds per day for residents and 9.0 pounds per day for employees; therefore, the City met its per capita disposal goals for residents and employees in 2019.
34 Per capita solid waste generation in the City has decreased over time due to numerous waste diversion programs, including source reduction, recycling, composting, incentivization, and public education initiatives.
Specific Plan Area, Including Phase 1 Site
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for solid waste service. Therefore, this discussion describes the existing solid waste generated within the proposed Specific Plan area.
As described above, South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer Inc. provides solid waste disposal services to the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company transports all solid waste to the Blue Line Transfer Facility at 500 E Jamie Court, where solid waste is processed, treated, and transported to other disposal facilities. Based on a rate of 5 pounds per employee per day provided by CalRecycle, and an existing employment of 455 employees, existing uses within the Specific Plan area are estimated to generate approximately 2,275 pounds per day of solid waste.
35 Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunication Services Regional
PG&E provides both electric and natural gas services to the City.36 PG&E is a California Public Utilities Commission-regulated public utility in the State of California, and owns, operates, and maintains above- and below-ground electric and natural gas facilities in the City, including substations.
In the City, energy consumption has generally decreased over recent years, despite a growing population. This is likely the result of public awareness of energy conservation needs, as well as increased availability of energy-saving electronic devices and appliances, and other policy-level considerations. For more information regarding energy use in the City and the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site, refer to Section 4.5, Energy, of this EIR.
The City is also served by both wired and wireless telecommunications providers. Comcast and AT&T provide the City with wired telecommunications services.37 Mobile cellular service, including mobile data, is provided by major carriers including Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T. 33 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator – South San Francisco. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed: September 24, 2020.
34 Ibid.
35 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator – South San Francisco. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed: September 24, 2020.
36 Power Systems Design. 2021. PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study. April. 37 Ibid.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Specific Plan Area, Including Phase 1 Site
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for electricity, natural gas, or telecommunication services. Therefore, this discussion describes the electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure that serves the Specific Plan area.
The project site is served by existing PG&E electric lines. The East Grand Substation serves the project site, which has 115-kilovolt (kV) overhead feeds and is equipped with four, three-phase 115/12kV transformer banks. Local electric distribution utilities around the project site consist of 600A and 200A 12kV underground and overhead distribution lines and secondary systems of below 600V. Specifically within project site are PG&E 12kV overhead and underground radial distribution and secondary service systems. Along South Maple Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and Dollar Avenue, overhead 12kV distribution facilities are present.38
Natural gas is also currently provided by PG&E. Telecommunication services are provided by Comcast and AT&T. Public gas distribution mains are located within the public roadways adjacent to the Specific Plan area. There is a 16-inch gas main within South Maple Avenue, and a 4-inch gas main within Tanforan, Dollar, and South Linden Avenues. Telecommunication lines are located both overhead and belowground in the adjacent public rights-of-way.
As shown in Table 4.5-3 in Section 4.5, Energy, of this EIR, the existing uses within the Specific Plan area, inclusive of the Phase 1 site, consume an estimated 1,606,732 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 59,934 therms of natural gas annually.
4.17.3 Regulatory Framework
This section provides a summary of the utilities and service systems plans and policies of state, regional, and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site.
4.17.3.1 State and Regional
Senate Bill 610 and Southline Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires cities and counties to confirm through a WSA that sufficient water supply sources are available before certain large developments are approved (see California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10915). The WSA for a project must be included in that project’s CEQA documentation. A WSA must be prepared if a project includes, among other things: (1) the equivalent demand of 500 residential units; or (2) a shopping center or business establishment that employs more than 1,000 persons or has a floor space of more than 500,000 square feet; or (3) a commercial office building that employees more than 1,000 persons or has a floor space of more than 250,000 square feet. The proposed project would result in a maximum of approximately 10,745 net new employees at the project site under the Office Scenario and would include an office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2.8 million square feet, which would be greater than the 1,000 persons or 250,000 square feet of floor space associated with a business establishment or commercial office building use under SB 610.
Therefore, the proposed project meets the definition of a “project” requiring a WSA pursuant to SB 610 (California Water Code Section 10910(a) and 10912(a)(3)).
California Water Code Section 10910(g)(1) provides that the governing body of the public water system shall submit a WSA to the requesting city or county not later than 90 days from the date on 38 Power Systems Design. 2021. PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study. April.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
which the request was received. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 10910(c)(1), the City requested a WSA for the proposed project from Cal Water in April 2020. Cal Water provided a draft WSA to the City and project applicant in September 2020 and a revised draft WSA in December 2020. In March 2021, Cal Water informed the City and project applicant that Cal Water would be revising the WSA again to include updated language regarding the reliability of wholesale water supplies and provided another draft WSA to the City and project applicant in July 2021. This Draft EIR analysis is based on the July 2021 WSA, which is included in Appendix 4.17-1. Notwithstanding the passage of the statutory 90-day period to complete a WSA, Cal Water has stated that it intends to finalize the WSA following preparation of a Water Neutral Development Policy for the South San Francisco District, which is anticipated to occur by the end of 2021.39 The final WSA is anticipated to be included in the Final EIR, together with a Water Neutral Development Policy, if it has been adopted, as an Appendix B. Based on information provided by Cal Water, the final WSA conclusions are anticipated to remain consistent as stated in the July 2021 WSA.
The WSA describes the Water Neutral Development Policy based on what Cal Water anticipates will be included in the policy and assumes that the project will be required to comply with a final adopted policy.40 According to the WSA:
The Water Neutral Development Policy [will require] any new residential, commercial, or industrial development within the South San Francisco District that is expected to use 100 AFY or more in new demand to offset its net increase in water demand. The net increase in water demand associated with any new development [will be] calculated as the expected total water use due to the proposed development and/or expansion, minus the amount of existing water use, onsite credits (if available), and/or alternative sources of water supply.
Alternative sources may include, but are not limited to: (1) reused graywater, (2) reused blackwater, (3) reused mixed gray/blackwater, (4) captured rainwater/stormwater, and (5) air conditioning condensate.
The offset amount [will be] determined using a detailed projection of total annual water demand resulting from the proposed development, excluding temporary demands such as those required for landscape establishment. The applicant may choose to comply with the defined offset amount by any combination of the following activities: (1) paying to the South San Francisco District the required offset amount calculated according to the offset costs table included in the policy, (2) conducting offsite conservation activities, or (3) conducting other preapproved demand offset projects. … Cal Water will verify compliance with this Water Neutral Development Policy (i.e., ensure that all payments for offsets and/or conservation offset measures are completed) prior to establishing a water service connection.
39 Personal communication with Michael Hurley, Water Resources Manager, Cal Water, August 6, 2021. 40 Page 11 of the WSA (Appendix 4.17-1) states: “In July 2021, prior to the date of publish of this WSA, Cal Water adopted a Water Neutral Development Policy (or Policy) for its three Peninsula Districts, which share the same SFPUC supply allocation. A copy of this Policy is provided in Appendix B.” However, as of the date of publish of this Draft EIR, Cal Water has not adopted a Water Neutral Development Policy, and the policy is not included in Appendix B of the July 2021 draft WSA.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1016
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, or AB 939, established the Integrated Waste Management Board, required the implementation of integrated waste management plans, and mandated that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste (from 1990 levels), beginning January 1, 2000, and divert at least 75 percent by 2010. In 2006, SB 1016 updated the requirements. The new per capita disposal and goal measurement system moves the emphasis from an estimated diversion measurement number to an actual disposal measurement number, along with an evaluation of program implementation efforts. These two factors will help determine each jurisdiction’s progress toward achieving AB 939 diversion goals. The 50 percent diversion requirement is now measured in terms of per capita disposal, expressed as pounds per day. Under the SB 1016 measurement system, a city is required to annually dispose of an amount equal to or less than its “50 percent equivalent per capita disposal target,” as calculated by CalRecycle.
Assembly Bill 1826
Assembly Bill 1826 (AB 1826) requires that state agencies, businesses, and multifamily complexes that generate specific quantities of organic or solid waste each week enroll in organic recycling programs through an applicable solid waste disposal company. AB 1826 defines organic waste as food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. Solid waste is defined as the total of trash, recycling, and organics. Organic recycling programs may take the form of composting, mulching, or anaerobic digestion. Businesses and multifamily residential housing complexes that generate the following quantities are required to implement organic or solid waste recycling programs under AB 1826:
⚫ Eight or more cubic yards of organic waste per week as of April 1, 2016; ⚫ Four of more cubic yards of organic waste per week as of January 1, 2017; ⚫ Four or more cubic yards of solid waste per week as of January 1, 2019; and ⚫ Two or more cubic yards of solid waste per week as of January 1, 2020, if statewide disposal of organic waste is not reduced by half.
In September 2020, CalRecycle reduced the threshold to 2 cubic yards of solid waste generated by covered businesses.
Title 14, CalRecycle
CCR Title 14, Division 7, contains CalRecycle regulations pertaining to all nonhazardous waste management in California. It contains regulations regarding the minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal, standards for handling and disposal of asbestos containing waste, special waste standards, enforcement of standards, commercial recycling, and solid waste cleanup programs, among other topics.
Title 24, California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) In accordance with CCR Title 24, part 6 (last amended in 2019, effective January 1, 2020), buildings constructed after June 30, 1977, must comply with the standards identified in CCR Title 24. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. Title 24 requires the inclusion of state-of-the-art energy conservation features in building designs and construction, City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
such as specific energy-conserving design features and non-depletable energy resources. In addition, it must be demonstrated that a building would comply with a designated energy budget.
Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). Unless otherwise noted in a regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject to the requirements of the CALGreen Code.
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, for a discussion of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act) requires every public and private urban water supplier that directly or indirectly provides water for municipal purposes to prepare and adopt a UWMP. This plan is required to be updated every five years, in years ending with “0” or “5.” The UWMP must include a description of the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage (to the extent practicable) and provide data for average, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years as well as an urban water shortage contingency analysis.
The UWMP Act was enacted in 1983. Over the years it has been amended in response to water resource challenges and planning imperatives confronting California. A significant amendment was made in 2009 as a result of the governor’s call for a statewide 20 percent reduction in urban water use by 2020, referred to alternately as “20x2020,” the Water Conservation Act of 2009, or “SB X7-7.” This amendment required urban retail water suppliers to establish water use targets for 2015 and 2020 that would result in statewide water savings of 20 percent by 2020. Beginning in 2016, urban retail water suppliers were required to comply with the water conservation requirements in SB X7- 7 in order to be eligible for state water grants or loans.
A subsequent substantial revision to the UWMP Act was made in 2018 through Assembly Bill 1668 and Senate Bill 606, referred to as “Making Water Conservation a California Way of Life” or the “2018 Water Conservation Legislation.” These changes include, among other things, additional requirements for Water Shortage Contingency Plans (WSCPs), expansion of dry year supply reliability assessments to a five-year drought period, establishment of annual drought risk assessment procedures and reporting, and new conservation targets referred to as “annual water use objectives,” which will require retailers to continue to reduce water use beyond the 2020 SB X7- 7 targets. The UWMP Act contains numerous other requirements that an UWMP must satisfy. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan for the South San Francisco District
Cal Water adopted its 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District on June 20, 2021. The 2020 UWMP provides information about the South San Francisco District’s historical and projected water demands, water supplies, supply reliability and vulnerability, water shortage contingency planning, and demand management programs. The 2020 UWMP is used as a long-range planning document by Cal Water for water supply and system planning. The future demand estimates presented in the 2020 UWMP include an estimated demand of 527 AFY for the project.41 41 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Based on the 2020 UWMP analysis, the District’s supply is expected to be sufficient to meet demands in normal year conditions. However, the District is expected to experience significant shortfalls during single dry and multiple dry year conditions as a result of the potential Bay-Delta Plan Amendment implementation (refer to Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and Table 4.17-4, p. 4.17-9). As discussed in Section 4.17.2, at this time, numerous uncertainties remain in the implementation of the Bay-Delta Amendment and the resultant allocation of the available supply to the South San Francisco District and the other SFPUC wholesale customers.
The 2020 UWMP includes a WSCP for the South San Francisco District, which was prepared in accordance with the UWMP Act, as amended and is included in Appendix L of the 2020 UWMP.
According to the 2020 UWMP, the WSCP sufficiently addresses the potential water shortage conditions that have been identified under the UWMP during single -and multiple-dry year conditions. The WSCP is also independently reflected in Cal Water rules approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (Rule 14.1 and Schedule 14.1).42,43 The WSCP serves as a standalone, self-enforcing document that is engaged in the case of a water shortage event, such as a drought or supply interruption, and defines specific policies and actions that will be implemented at various shortage level scenarios. The primary objective of the WSCP is to ensure that the South San Francisco District has in place the necessary resources and management responses needed to protect health and human safety, minimize economic disruption, and preserve environmental and community assets during water supply shortages and interruptions. As required by California Water Code Section 10632, the WSCP includes six levels to address shortage conditions ranging from up to 10 percent to greater than 50 percent shortage, identifies a suite of demand mitigation measures for the South San Francisco District to implement at each level, and identifies procedures for the South San Francisco District to annually assess whether or not a water shortage is likely to occur in the coming year, among other things. Examples of demand mitigation measures include:
⚫ Stage 1:
Limit landscape irrigation to specific times
Prohibit use of potable water for washing hard surfaces ⚫ Stage 2:
Prohibit the use of single pass cooling systems in new connections Limit landscape irrigation to 1-3 days per week
⚫ Stage 3:
Prohibit irrigation of ornamental turf on public street medians with potable water Prohibit use of potable water for construction and dust control ⚫ Stage 4:
Prohibit vehicle washing except with recirculated water or low-volume systems 42 California Water Service Company, Rule 14.1, Non-Essential, Wasteful Uses of Potable Water. Approved July 14, 2021. Available: https://www.calwater.com/docs/rates/rules/rule_14.1.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2021. 43 California Water Service Company, Schedule 14.1, Water Shortage Contingency Plan with Staged Mandatory Reductions and Drought Surcharges. Approved July 14, 2021. Available:
https://www.calwater.com/docs/rates/rates_tariffs/all/20210714- Schedule_14.1_Water_Shortage_Contingency_Plan.pdf. Accessed September 14, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Prohibit use of water for recreational purposes such as water parks and the filling of pools ⚫ Stage 5:
Require net zero demand increase on new water service connections ⚫ Stage 6:
Place a moratorium on new water service connections
Prohibit all landscape irrigation
NPDES Permits
Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, for a discussion of the NPDES permit applicable to the proposed project.
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program The City is one of twenty participating cities in the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, which manages a shared National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit utilized by all participating agencies. The Program ensures that participating jurisdictions manage stormwater runoff flows such that contaminated water runoff and discharge into water bodies is minimized. The program accomplishes this by directing construction projects, municipal operations, and other potential stormwater sources countywide to incorporate appropriate Low-Impact-Development (LID) measures that contain, filter, and treat stormwater prior to discharge. The City administers stormwater quality protection through the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) which is issued under NPDES and by RWQCB through this program.
4.17.3.2 Local
South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 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 Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element, which outlines policies relating to parks and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities. The General Plan also contains a Health and Safety Element, which acknowledges the importance of reducing solid waste. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to utilities and service systems:
⚫ Policy 5.3-G-1: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the water supply system to meet projected needs.
⚫ Policy 5.3-G-2: Encourage water conservation measures for both existing and proposed development.
⚫ Policy 5.3-G-3: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing water service to new development.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Policy 5.3-I-2: Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation and actively promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings.
⚫ Policy 5.3-I-3: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing water service to new development in South San Francisco. ⚫ Policy 5.3-G-4: Promote the orderly and efficient operation and expansion of the wastewater system to meet projected needs.
⚫ Policy 5.3-G-5: Promote the equitable sharing of the costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development.
⚫ Policy 5.3-G-6: Maintain environmentally appropriate wastewater management practices. ⚫ Policy 5.3-I-5: Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco. ⚫ 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-I-1: Continue to work toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan.
South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)
44, adopted in 2014 and discussed in greater detail in Section
4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR includes goals, policies, and strategies to reduce the city’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, in compliance with AB 32 and SB 375.
The CAP provides guidance for a scientific and regulatory framework, a GHG emissions inventory, a GHG reduction strategy, adaptation and resiliency, and implementation. The CAP incorporates several policies regarding water usage and diversion of solid waste, including the policies listed below.
⚫ Measure 5.1: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials to achieve a 75% diversion of landfilled waste by 2020.
Continue to enforce the existing construction and demolition recycling ordinance, requiring 100% of inert waste and 65% of non-inert waste to be recycled from all eligible projects. ⚫ Measure 6.1: Reduce water demand. Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following:
Establishing a variable-speed pump exchange for water features. Limiting turf area in commercial and large multi-family projects. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
Landscaping with native, water-efficient plants.
Installing drip irrigation systems.
44 City of South San Francisco. 2014. City of South San Francisco Climate Action Plan. Prepared by PMC. Available:
at https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=5640. Accessed: September 21, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Reducing impervious surfaces.
⚫ Measure 6.2: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation. Create water policies for the stormwater management strategy that seek to capture storm runoff (e.g., bioswale, rainwater collection, and irrigation programs). Continue to implement the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Guidelines.
The CAP includes a Development Checklist for City staff to use to identify applicable CAP measures for discretionary projects and required mitigation standards. The Development Checklist serves as the summary of project-level standards from the CAP. Criteria applicable to utilities and service systems include, but are not limited to, the following questions:
⚫ Will certification of the building be sought under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or other green building criteria?
⚫ Will any water features exceed CALGreen standards?
⚫ Will the project incorporate low-impact development practices? ⚫ Will any xeriscaping be installed?
⚫ Will captured rainwater or graywater be used for irrigation? South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order which requires the City to develop and implement a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP). The latest City SSMP was adopted in June 2014 and identifies ongoing maintenance and system improvements necessary to maintain the sewer system. The City issued an updated Preliminary Draft Sanitary Sewer Master Plan in February 2020. The City anticipates that the final updated SSMP will be substantially consistent with the 2020 draft SSMP. As such, the 2020 draft SSMP was used as the basis for wastewater infrastructure capacity design for the Specific Plan area.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan
Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR for a discussion of the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan prepared pursuant to the MRP.
South San Francisco Storm Drain Master Plan
Refer to Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR for a discussion of the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP).
City of South San Francisco Sewer Capacity Charge
The Sewer Capacity Charge established in Resolution 56-201745 is a “capacity charge,” as defined in Government Code, § 66013(b)(3), the purpose of which is to finance the replacement and renewal of existing sanitary sewer facilities and the upgrade and construction of new sanitary sewer facilities to reduce impacts caused by future development and redevelopment in the City. The Sewer Capacity Charge does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the charge is imposed because the charge imposes a proportional share of City’s total sewer system investment, 45 City of South Francisco. 2017. City Council Resolution: RES 56-2017.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
including specified future capital improvement projects, on new development requesting a connection to the sewer system, and redevelopment resulting in an increase in the use of the sewer system.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 14, Water and Sewage, establishes regulations including, but not limited to, stormwater management and control, water quality control, sewer rates, sewer lateral construction, maintenance and inspection, and associated impact fees for use of the City’s water and sewage utilities. Specifically, Section 14.04, Stormwater Management and Discharge Control, is intended to protect and enhance the water quality of the City’s watercourses, water bodies, and wetlands in a manner that is pursuant to and consistent with the Clean Water Act.
The purpose of this section is to eliminate non-stormwater discharges to the separate municipal storm sewer, control the discharge to the separate municipal storm sewers from spills, dumping or disposal of materials other than stormwater, and reduce the pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Section 14.04.320, Coordination with hazardous materials inventory and response program, includes prohibitions on non-stormwater discharges and illicit discharges, and the requirement to reduce stormwater pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.
Chapter 14.08, Water Quality Control, establishes uniform requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the publicly owned treatment works for the City and enables the City to comply with all applicable state of California laws (Water Code Section 1300 et seq.) and federal laws required by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.) and the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR, Part 403). Specifically, Section 14.08.170, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for Permittee, requires a variety of reporting and recordkeeping, such as discharge reports, baseline monitoring reports, and periodic compliance reports. Section 14.08.210, General discharge regulations, establishes discharge regulations into public sanitary sewers.
Chapter 8.16, Solid Waste—Scavenger Services, aims to prevent accumulation of quantities of solid waste on all lands and premises within the boundaries of the city, except for dump sites approved by the City Council, in order that the public health and welfare of the inhabitants of the city and surrounding communities may be protected and preserved through strict regulation and supervision of all phases of accumulation, collection and disposal of solid waste within the City. In addition, the City Municipal Code, Section 15.60, Recycling and Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition, establishes regulations for recycling and the diversion of debris generated from construction and demolition. Specifically, the code details diversion requirements, such as submitting and completing a waste management plan, directing 100 percent of building materials to reuse or recycling facilities approved by the City, and either recycling all mixed debris to recycling facilities or separating/directing non-building materials to recycling facilities at a diversion rate of 65 percent.
Lastly, the City’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which amended Section 20.300.007 of the City’s zoning code, incorporates the provisions and standards of the State of California model water efficient landscape ordinance to ensure that the requirements within this code are at least as effective in conserving water as the model water efficient landscape ordinance.
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 but would not City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. 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 storm drain main within Huntington Avenue to 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 Green Infrastructure Plan related to utilities and service systems. 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 City of San Bruno 2009 General Plan outlines a vision for the long-range physical and economic development of the community through 2025. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to utilities and service systems proposed in San Bruno:
⚫ PSF-D: Ensure that the City of San Bruno’s wastewater collection and treatment systems are adequate to serve the city's present and anticipated needs, are safe, and are environmentally sound.
⚫ PFS-20: Require expansion of the City of San Bruno’s sewer collection system proportionate with new development's fair share of demand.
⚫ PFS-21: Upgrade or replace sewer lines to accommodate anticipated flows and to prevent overflows. Upgrade sewer lift stations as needed.
⚫ PFS-73: Provide for utility access and prevent easement encroachments that might impair the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities.
San Bruno Green Infrastructure Plan
The City of San Bruno Green Infrastructure Plan, approved in August 2019, guides sustainable development in the city of San Bruno, with a focus on converting San Bruno’s storm drainage systems from a traditional “grey” infrastructure system, in which stormwater flows across impervious surfaces directly into storm drains, to an integrated approach that will direct runoff to vegetated areas for infiltration. The plan intends to identify and prioritize low-impact development (LID) opportunities citywide in which such stormwater management infrastructure can be installed in the form of bioretention areas, stormwater tree well filters, suspended pavement systems, pervious pavement, infiltration facilities, green roofs, and rainwater harvesting facilities. Near the project site, the Green Infrastructure Plan would implement a component of the San Bruno Walk ‘n Ride Plan’s Huntington Cycle Track project. Specifically, the Green Infrastructure Plan will improve the pedestrian and bicycle network on Huntington Avenue from San Bruno Avenue to the entrance of the Centennial Way Trail. Project improvements include converting the rightmost lane on northbound Huntington Avenue to a two-way cycle track with a concrete barrier and installation of streetscape improvements such as pedestrian scale lighting. The proposed project’s off-site improvement of the new intersection and Huntington Avenue would be located near the Green Infrastructure Plan’s implementation of the Huntington Cycle Track terminus at the Centennial Way Trail.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
San Bruno Sewer System Management Plan
The San Bruno Sewer System Management Plan is a comprehensive planning document that describes the policies and procedures required to maintain compliant sewer services Citywide.
These policies help fulfill RWQCB water quality and sewer management requirements and prevent sanitary sewer overflows and maintain water quality. Generally, goals and policies described in the Sewer System Management Plan pertain to maintaining adequate sanitary sewer wastewater conveyance and treatment capacity, minimizing sewer overflow incidents, and preventing illicit discharges including contaminated stormwater, chemicals, debris, and fats and oils. The Sewer System Management Plan includes a 20-year capacity improvements plan to address significant structural and maintenance issues and aging infrastructure and pump station upgrades necessary to meet the current and future improvement needs. No sewer improvement projects are identified in the vicinity of the project site.46
San Bruno Storm Drain Master Plan
The City of San Bruno Storm Drain Master Plan guides storm drain infrastructure planning for San Bruno’s storm drain system, helping to reduce overall storm drain runoff and localized flooding risks, with special consideration for site topography, drainage patterns, and system capacity limitations. The City’s storm drain system is comprised of six main watersheds, which do not include the project site.
4.17.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section describes the impact analysis related to utilities and service systems 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.
4.17.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant utilities and service systems impact if it would:
1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which would cause significant environmental effects;
2. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years;
3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
4. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals; or 46 City of San Bruno. 2019. Sewer System Management Plan, Table VIII-1, p. 86. Available:
https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69857.4&BlobID=31253. Accessed:
September 7, 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
5. Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Thresholds 4 and 5 related to solid waste are addressed together under Impact UTIL-4.
4.17.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Utilities and service systems impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed project were assessed and quantified, where applicable, using standard and accepted software tools and techniques as described in the technical report appendices that form the basis of this analysis.
The utilities and service systems impact analysis considers whether proposed project implementation would result in substantial impacts to utilities systems due to either construction or operation of the proposed project. Impacts could include exceedances of existing system capacity, a need to expand utilities systems to meet future needs with project implementation, or supply availability impacts, such as potential project-related exceedances of available water resources.
Impacts to off-site improvements in San Bruno are evaluated using this same methodology.
Potential project-related impacts on utilities and service systems were evaluated based on existing capacity and demand data identified in the WSA (Appendix 4.17-1), 47 2020 UWMP for the South
San Francisco District, Water Infrastructure Technical Study (Appendix 4.17-2), 48 Sanitary Sewer
Technical Study (Appendix 4.17-3),
49 Storm Drainage Technical Study (Appendix 4.9-1),50 PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study (Appendix 4.17-4),
51 as well as from site plans and publicly
available sources.
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” buildout scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.
This section analyzes the buildout scenario which represents the “worst-case” scenario for each individual utility type (i.e., water demand, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, and dry utilities).
The “worst-case” buildout scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts, or, in the case of utilities and service systems, the buildout scenario that generates the greatest demand. The buildout scenarios selected for evaluation for each utility are as follows:
47 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021. 48 BKF. 2020. Water Infrastructure Technical Study. December. 49 BKF. 2021. Sanitary Sewer Technical Study. January.
50 BKF. 2021. Storm Drainage Technical Study. April.
51 Power Systems Design. 2021. PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study. April.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Water: As demonstrated in the WSA and the Water Infrastructure Technical Study, the Life Sciences Scenario would generate a greater demand for water than theOffice Scenario. Therefore, the analysis of water impacts is based on the Life Sciences Scenario. 52, 53
⚫ Wastewater: As demonstrated in the Sanitary Sewer Technical Study, the Office Scenario would generate a greater demand for wastewater than the Life Sciences Scenario, resulting in higher wastewater volume. 54 Therefore, the analysis of wastewater impacts is based on the Office Scenario.
55 ⚫ Stormwater: As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, 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. ⚫ Solid Waste: Solid waste impacts are calculated based on employee-based factors, and employeegenerated solid waste in the City occurs at a rate of 5 lbs/employee/day. 56 As described in greater
detail in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the Office Scenario (inclusive of Phase 1) would have a larger population of employees (10,745 net new employees) than the Life Sciences Scenario (5,331 net new employees). Therefore, the Office Scenario is considered the “worst case” scenario for solid waste impacts, and is therefore evaluated below.
⚫ Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications: As demonstrated in Section 4.5, Energy, the Office Scenario the worst-case scenario in terms of the energy consumption associated with operation, resulting in a greater demand for electricity and natural gas than the Life Sciences Scenario. Therefore, the analysis of electricity and natural gas impacts is based on the Office Scenario.
For telecommunications, it is anticipated that demand would be similar under either buildout scenario. Therefore, the analysis of telecommunications impacts addresses both the Office and Life Sciences Scenarios.
52 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021. 53 BKF. 2020. Water Infrastructure Technical Study. December. 54 The buildout scenarios for water impacts and wastewater impacts are different because different demand factors are applied. For the water modeling, the demand factors used were 0.13 gpd for office per square foot and 0.21 gpd for R&D per square foot, based on factors used by Cal Water. Because the Life Science buildout scenario includes more R&D space and the R&D demand factor is considerably higher as compared to office, the Life Science buildout yields the greatest total water demand despite having less total square footage compared to the Office Scenario. For the wastewater modeling, demand factors from the City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan were used, which do not distinguish between office and R&D building uses; as such, both the Office buildout and the Life Science buildout are modeled at 0.0248 gpd per square foot. In this case, the Office buildout scenario yields the largest total wastewater generation as it has comparatively more square footage of building area. 55 BKF. 2021. Sanitary Sewer Technical Study. January.
56 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator – South San Francisco. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed: September 24, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
4.17.4.3 Impact Evaluation
Impact UTIL-1: The project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which would cause significant environmental effects. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) The proposed project, inclusive of the Phase 1 site, would involve the relocation, construction, or expansion of numerous utility facilities in order to provide utilities services for the new land uses associated with the project, as described below in Table 4.17-5. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the Project Description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, etc.). The purpose of the analysis in this Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, is to evaluate whether the proposed facilities would have adequate capacity to serve the project’s demand for utilities and service systems during construction and operation, or whether further relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities would be required.
Table 4.17-5. Proposed Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Improvements Existing Facility
(Jurisdiction in which
Facility is Located) Location Proposed Action
16-inch water main
(San Bruno)
Huntington Avenue, east of
Sneath Lane intersection
Relocate east within Huntington Avenue
to avoid conflict with Huntington
intersection improvements.
6-inch water main
(CalWater / South San
Francisco)
South Linden Avenue and
Dollar Avenue north and south
of the new Southline Avenue
Relocate to conform with the proposed
realignment of the Southline Avenue /
South Linden Avenue / Dollar Avenue
intersection.
New facility (CalWater /
South San Francisco)
Southline Avenue Install new 12-inch water main from
South Maple Avenue along the entirety of
Southline Avenue to the existing six-inch
water line on South Linden Avenue.
New facility (CalWater /
South San Francisco)
Tanforan Avenue, South Maple
Avenue, Southline Avenue, and
South Linden Avenue
Install new service connections to each
building within the Specific Plan area.
24-inch and 27-inch
sewer main (South San
Francisco)
Tanforan Avenue and Shaw
Road
Upsize mains in Tanforan Avenue and
Shaw Road that flow to existing pump
station.
24-inch sewer main
(South San
Francisco/San Bruno)
Huntington Avenue, east of
Sneath Lane
Relocate east to avoid conflict with
Huntington intersection improvements.
8-inch sewer main
(South San Francisco)
Dollar Avenue south of the new
Southline Avenue
Install new 8-inch sewer main to connect
proposed development south to
Tanforan Avenue.
8-inch sewer main
(South San Francisco)
South Maple Avenue Upsize main to the northerly portion of South Maple Avenue and the main that
runs from South Maple Avenue through
an easement to Lowrie Avenue.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Existing Facility
(Jurisdiction in which
Facility is Located) Location Proposed Action
New facility (South San
Francisco)
Tanforan Avenue, South Maple
Avenue, Southline Avenue, and
South Linden Avenue
Install new sewer connections to each
new building within the Specific Plan
area.
24-inch storm drain
main (South San
Francisco)
South Linden Avenue and
Dollar Avenue north and south
of the new Southline Avenue
Install new 24-inch storm drain to
conform with the proposed realignment
of the Southline Avenue / South Linden
Avenue / Dollar Avenue intersection.
42-inch storm drain
main (South San
Francisco/San Bruno)
Huntington Avenue, east of
Sneath Lane and Tanforan
Avenue
Relocate east within Huntington to avoid
conflicts with proposed Huntington
intersection improvements.
New facility (South San
Francisco)
Tanforan Avenue, South Maple
Avenue, Southline Avenue, and
South Linden Avenue
Install new stormwater connections
from the new buildings to public storm
drain system.
The proposed water supply improvements are shown in Figure 4.17-1, p. 4.17-12; the proposed wastewater improvements are shown in Figure 4.17-2, p. 4.17-14; and the proposed storm drain improvements are shown in Figure 4.17-3, p. 4.17-17.
Construction
Project
The proposed project would require construction activities within the proposed Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, this discussion evaluates construction impacts on utilities from new development within the entire project site (i.e., Specific Plan area and off-site improvement areas).
Construction activities within the project site would be served by existing utility systems and infrastructure. Because there is adequate utility service available at the project site, it is reasonably expected that construction activities requiring electricity, such as lighting and operation of construction equipment, would be serviced by existing electric outlets and that no expansion of electrical facilities would be necessary to serve construction activities. Additionally, because it is expected that construction equipment would operate with gasoline- or diesel-powered engines, the need to install additional electric connections is not anticipated. Furthermore, natural gas and telecommunications facilities are generally not used during construction. Limited constructionphase water needs for activities such as dust suppression would be met through the metered use of water conveyed by water trucks and tanks. Because portable restrooms would be temporarily installed on site, construction is not anticipated to result in substantially elevated wastewater generation levels into the local sanitary sewer system.
As discussed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR, temporary construction dewatering would be required during certain site preparation and subterranean construction within the Specific Plan area associated with excavation for the subterranean garages. Groundwater dewatering would only be required for major excavations in Specific Plan Area and only in the South San Francisco jurisdiction. Dewatering would not be required for construction in off-site improvement areas. Dewatering would be discharged into the storm drain system, subject to City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
applicable regulatory controls. Discharging to the public storm drainage system is permitted by the RWQCB under either the VOC and Fuel Discharge Permit (Order R2-2017-0048) if there are priority pollutants identified, or by the Construction General Permit (Order 2009-0009-DWQ) if there are no pollutants. Dewatering activities associated with construction of the proposed subterranean parking garages would be expected to result in a dewatering discharge rate of 45 gallons per minute (gpm) to 450 gpm, depending on the location within the Specific Plan area and the amount of time dewatering has occurred.57 Compared to the total existing 10-year peak storm drain flow of 37.62 cubic feet per second (CFS; or 16,885 gpm), dewatering discharge rates would be less than peak storm flows and would be within system capacity, as further described in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, Impact HWQ-2. Therefore, this rate of dewatering is not expected to result in storm drain capacity exceedance issues because dewatering flows would be below system capacity.
Further, the contractor would comply with San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board and Construction General Permit requirements related to discharges associated with dewatering activities.
While not anticipated, if additional dewatering capacity is needed, the project could discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The City of South San Francisco is the permitting agency for dewatering permits to the sanitary sewer system. The discharge rate to the sanitary sewer system would be restricted to the anticipated average dry weather flow rate of 12 gpm. As discussed below, the sanitary system is designed to accommodate the average dry weather flow. Therefore, the sanitary sewer system would have capacity to receive excess dewatering discharge, if needed.
Based on the analysis above, project construction activities would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities to serve construction activities, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
For the reasons stated above in the proposed project analysis, construction impacts associated with Phase 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
Project
Water Facilities
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for water service. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential impacts on water infrastructure from new development within the Specific Plan area.
As shown in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and Figure 4.17-1, p. 4.17-12, the proposed project would relocate the existing 16-inch water main east within Huntington Avenue to avoid a conflict with the Huntington Avenue intersection improvements; relocate the existing 6-inch water main at South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue to conform with the proposed realignment of the Southline Avenue/Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue intersection; install a new 12-inch water main from South Maple Avenue along the entirety of Southline Avenue to the existing six-inch water line on South 57 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation for the Southline Development, Appendix D, Groundwater Control Assessment. July.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Linden Avenue; and install new service connections to each building on the project site. These infrastructures upgrades would ensure that adequate water pressure would be maintained during peak hour conditions.
The construction of the proposed water infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the Project Description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, etc.).
The Water Infrastructure Technical Study in Appendix 4.17-2 of this EIR evaluates the sufficiency of the local potable water system to serve the proposed project’s water demand. The analysis accounts for the proposed pipeline improvements identified in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and shown in Figure
4.17-1, p. 4.17-12, and concludes that all fire flow locations evaluated will meet fire flow requirements under project buildout conditions under the maximum demand Life Sciences Scenario, and that adequate water pressure would be maintained during peak hour conditions. Based on flow information provided by CalWater, the fire flow available at the existing public fire hydrants meets the required flow of 6,000 gpm. Also, the Fire Marshal would evaluate fire flow locations to ensure that they meet applicable requirements at build-out, in accordance with California Fire Code Appendix BB.
In addition, the project proposes to install a dedicated fire service and metered domestic water service for each proposed building. The project also would include metered irrigation service within the Specific Plan area, as well as the public landscape areas as part of the roadway and streetscape improvements. Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Wastewater Facilities
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for wastewater service.
Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential impacts on wastewater infrastructure from new development within the Specific Plan area, including impacts on downstream infrastructure shared by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno.
Wastewater generated within the Specific Plan area would be conveyed through sewer pipelines through Tanforan Avenue, Maple Avenue, and S. Linden Avenue into the sewer system and eventually to the Shaw Road Pump Station. Wastewater would then be transported from the South San Francisco Shaw Road Sewage Pump Station to the WQCP in South San Francisco for treatment.
As described below in Impact UTIL-3, the treatment facility has sufficient capacity to support anticipated project-generated wastewater quantities.
As shown in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and Figure 4.17-2, p. 4.17-14, the proposed project would upgrade the 24-inch and 27-inch sewer main in Tanforan Avenue and Shaw Road that flows to an existing pump station; relocate the existing 24-inch sewer main east to avoid conflict a with the Huntington Avenue intersection improvements; relocate the existing 8-inch sewer main at Dollar Avenue to connect to the proposed development south to Tanforan Avenue; upsize the 8-inch sewer main in the northerly portion of South Maple Avenue and the main that runs from South Maple Avenue through an easement to Lowrie Avenue; and relocate all existing interior sewer connections by installing new service connections to each building within the Specific Plan area. These City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
improvements would be completed by the project applicant and/or subsequent Precise Plan applicants in connection with each phase of the project and are also consistent with the capital improvements identified in the City’s SSMP.
The construction of the proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the Project Description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration).
The Sanitary Sewer Technical Study in Appendix 4.17-3 of this EIR evaluates the sufficiency of the local wastewater conveyance system to serve the project’s estimated wastewater flow. The analysis evaluates pipeline capacity under peak dry weather flow and peak wet weather flow, based on the model used in the City’s SSMP, under the maximum demand Office Scenario. The analysis accounts for the proposed pipeline improvements identified in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and shown in Figure
4.17-2, p. 4.17-14, and the project’s projected wastewater demand. The City also revised the SSMP to model for the maximum FAR allowed under the General Plan for the proposed Specific Plan area (2.5), which is slightly higher than the proposed project’s FAR of 2.4. The results of that reevaluation indicate that the maximum proposed sewer demands for the project would be within the anticipated SSMP levels for future demands for the project area, and no additional improvements to off-site or downstream public infrastructure, including infrastructure shared by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, would be required beyond those currently identified in the SSMP. 58 Therefore, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
The proposed project would have the potential to alter stormwater flows from the proposed Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, this discussion evaluates impacts on stormwater infrastructure from new development within the entire project site (i.e., Specific Plan area and off-site improvement areas).
As described in greater detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project (Life Sciences Scenario) would result in an increase (189,050 square feet) of pervious surface within the Specific Plan area (including an increase of 132,858 square feet of pervious surface under Phase 1) through implementation of new landscaping and other improvements. This would reduce flows to the storm drain system from the Specific Plan area compared to existing conditions within both watersheds that make up the Specific Plan area. 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 from the off-site improvements are anticipated.
Notwithstanding the overall reduction in stormwater flow volumes that would occur, the proposed project includes improvements to the storm drain system to align the system with the future roadway configurations and implement improvements already identified in the City’s Storm Drain 58 City of South Francisco. 2021. City-Wide Sewer System Master Plan. February.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Master Plan. As shown in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and Figure 4.17-3, p. 4.17-17, the proposed project would install a new 24-inch storm drain main to conform with the proposed realignment of the Southline Avenue/Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue intersection; relocate the 42-inch storm drain main in South San Francisco and San Bruno east within Huntington Avenue to avoid conflicts with the proposed Huntington Avenue intersection; and install new stormwater mains with lateral connections from the new buildings to public storm drain system. The project would be served by the existing public storm drain infrastructure within Tanforan Avenue and South Maple Avenue and does not anticipate construction of new public storm drainage infrastructure within those roadways or downstream.
The construction of the proposed storm drain infrastructure improvements would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the Project Description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration).
Stormwater runoff from the Specific Plan area would be captured and treated on-site using LID methods (landscaped bioretention and biofiltration planters) per current NPDES Municipal Regional Permit section C.3 requirements, as described in greater detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. Treated runoff would discharge to the public storm drain system through new on-site underground storm drain piping, as described above. The new Southline Avenue 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 storm drain infrastructure would be connected 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, and would be constructed in compliance with the San Bruno Green Infrastructure Plan. The project would also construct pedestrian circulation and trail improvements on Huntington Avenue consistent with the Green Infrastructure Plan. The proposed project’s off-site improvement of the new intersection and Huntington Avenue would support accessibility by the Green Infrastructure Plan’s implementation of the Huntington Cycle Track terminus at the Centennial Way Trail. The project does not contain any policies that would interfere with the implementation of the goals or projects described in the Green Infrastructure Plan.
The project would be required to comply with the Municipal Regional Permit San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance. Specifically, the project would be required to replicate the pre-project stormwater water balance under NPDES permitting requirements. The stormwater management measures proposed for the project include incorporating sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, water conservation measures and drought-tolerant/low-water use or equivalent landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features. Development within the Specific Plan area would also 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, described in further detail in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. The applicable City standard conditions regarding stormwater drainage and surface runoff detention measures include Condition No. 13, requiring a plan showing City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the location of all storm drains and sanitary sewers; Condition No. 23, requiring all parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turn-around areas to be drained and plumbed to the sanitary sewer; and Condition No. 24, requiring on-site stormwater catch basins to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo.
Based on the analysis above, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects as further described throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration). This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for electricity, natural gas, or telecommunication services. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential impacts on electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure from new development within the Specific Plan area.
The utility providers for the Specific Plan area would be PG&E for natural gas and electricity and Comcast and AT&T for telecommunications service. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the demand for natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications service at the Specific Plan area. The total cumulative peak power demand for the proposed project at full buildout is about 11 megavolt amperes (MVA)
59 and the buildout of the Specific Plan would increase operational electricity consumption at the Specific Plan area by 143,445 million BTUs compared with existing conditions.
60 To meet this demand, the proposed project would install new connections to the surrounding PG&E electric grid to provide service to future buildings, including a 600A, 12kV main electrical line and 200A, 12kV protected radial electrical tap lines throughout the Specific Plan area.
Several existing overhead electrical lines would also be converted to underground electrical lines along S. Maple Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and Dollar Avenue.61 In addition, buildout of the Specific Plan would increase operational natural gas consumption at the Specific Plan area by 56,463 million BTUs compared with existing conditions. 62 As indicated in the
Gas Will Serve Letter (Appendix 4.17-5), PG&E has confirmed that adequate gas supply and infrastructure capacity is available to serve the project. Demand for telecommunications would also increase due to increased density and from the transition from industrial/warehouse uses to office/R&D uses, which generally have greater demand for technology services. To meet this demand, the project would install new connections to the surrounding PG&E natural gas system to provide service to future buildings. The project would also provide connections to communication lines along adjacent roadways. The project does not propose major upgrades to natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure serving the Specific Plan area.
As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, the sustainability measures incorporated within the Specific Plan area, including Phase 1, would reduce energy use consistent with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Future development within the Specific Plan area, 59 Power Systems Design. 2021. PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study. April. 60 Refer to Appendix 4.2-1 for CalEEMod model outputs.
61 Power Systems Design. 2021. PG&E Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study. April. 62 Refer to Appendix 4.2-1 for CalEEMod model outputs.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
including Phase I, would achieve a minimum LEED version 4 Silver rating or equivalent. Examples of the proposed sustainability measures include all-electric energy sources to the extent feasible (and high-efficiency units for any new natural gas appliances); passive design strategies to minimize reliance on active heating and cooling systems; and energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems and equipment. The project will also be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, of the California Code of Regulations (CALGreen), which includes green and sustainable building requirements to achieve energy efficiency, water efficiency and conversation, reduce construction waste, and material conversation and resource efficiency.
The construction of the proposed electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications infrastructure improvements incorporated within the project would have the potential to cause significant adverse environmental effects such as fugitive dust generation, noise generation, sedimentation, and erosion. The proposed utility expansions are a part of the Project Description, and the potential impacts that would result from construction of these facilities are evaluated throughout this EIR (e.g., refer to Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, etc.).
Based on the analysis above, the project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant.
No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
Water Facilities
As shown in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and Figure 4.17-1, p. 4.17-12, multiple potable water pipeline facilities would be abandoned, relocated, and expanded to accommodate Phase 1 development.
Though some of these facilities are located outside of the direct Phase 1 footprint, they would all be constructed to support operational Phase 1 needs as part of Phase 1. These specific improvements are described above for the Specific Plan area, as the majority of these improvements would be completed during Phase 1. As with the project, Phase 1 would increase water use within the Specific Plan area as compared to existing uses, thus increasing the quantity of water that must be conveyed through water facilities. As a component of the project, Phase 1 would also achieve LEED version 4 silver rating, which would incorporate water use reduction strategies that would reduce anticipated water demand associated with Phase, thereby minimizing the affects that elevated use may have on water conveyance facilities. Furthermore, the water demand associated with Phase 1 is accounted for in the Water Infrastructure Technical Study which concludes that adequate water supply capacity would be maintained, as discussed above in the project analysis. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant impact. No mitigation is required.
Wastewater Facilities
As noted in the project analysis above, the Sanitary Sewer Technical Study, included as Appendix
4.17-3 of this EIR, evaluates the sufficiency of the local wastewater conveyance system to serve the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project’s estimated wastewater flow, including Phase 1, and determines that the sewer demands of the proposed project would still be within the anticipated SSMP levels for future demands for the project area. In addition, the wastewater facility improvements to upgrade the 24-inch and 27-inch sewer main in Tanforan Avenue and Shaw Road, as shown in Figure 4.17-2, p. 4.17-14, would be completed as part of Phase 1. All other improvements to wastewater facilities would be completed during subsequent phases of the project. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Stormwater Drainage Facilities
As shown in Table 4.17-3, p. 4.17-7, and Figure 4.17-3, p. 4.17-17, multiple stormwater drainage facilities would be abandoned, relocated, and expanded to accommodate Phase 1. Though some of these facilities are located outside of the Phase 1 site footprint, they would all be constructed to support operational Phase 1 needs and would be constructed as part of Phase 1. These specific improvements are described above for the Specific Plan area. In addition, the drainage estimates in the Storm Drainage Technical Study (Appendix 4.17-4) account for Phase 1. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR, the sustainability measures incorporated in Phase 1 would reduce energy use consistent with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Like the project, Phase 1 would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, Part 11, of the California Code of Regulations. This state code includes green and sustainable building requirements to achieve energy efficiency. Phase 1 would install new connections to the surrounding PG&E electric grid and natural gas system to provide service to future buildings. Phase 1 would also provide connections to communication lines along adjacent roadways. Phase 1 does not propose major upgrades to natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure serving the Phase 1 site. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis, Phase 1 would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities beyond the facilities already included in the Project Description and evaluated in this EIR, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. This impact would be less than significant for Phase
1. No mitigation measures are required.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Impact UTIL-2: The project would not have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. (Project: Less than Significant With Mitigation; Phase 1: Less than Significant With Mitigation)
Project
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for potable water. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential impacts on water supply from new development within the Specific Plan area.
Projected Water Demand
Table 4.17-6, p. 4.17-42, describes anticipated operational water uses associated with the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1. Water demands were estimated based on standard unit demand factors as described in the project’s WSA, which is included in Appendix 4.17-1 of this EIR.
As determined by the project engineers, and shown in Table 1 of the WSA, the Life Sciences Scenario would generate a greater demand for water than the Office Scenario; therefore, this analysis assumes buildout of the Life Sciences Scenario. The unit demand factor used for the R&D portions of the proposed project is 0.21 gallons per day/square foot (gpd/sf). The unit demand factors utilized for the amenities building vary from 0.10 gpd/sf to 0.80 gpd/sf depending on specific amenity use type (e.g., restaurant, cafeteria, fitness, or auditorium uses). All unit demand factors were sourced from published Redwood City water demand assumptions, which are substantially higher than those of current non-residential uses within the South San Francisco District, which, based on 2016-2018 data, are 0.063 gpd/sf.
63 Furthermore, the project’s annual water demand estimate assumes full operation of the project 365 days/year, which is unlikely for the types of non-residential uses proposed. Therefore, this represents a conservative analysis of water demand for the proposed project.
As shown in Table 4.17-6, below, the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, would require up to approximately 557 AFY of water for each year through 2045 based on the demand factors described above. The analysis conservatively assumes that the project’s full demand would be realized in 2025 even though full buildout is projected for 2030. Water demand beyond the proposed project’s buildout year of 2030 is presented because California Water Code Sections 10910-10912 specify that a WSA must look at supplies and demand on a 20-year horizon (i.e., to 2040), but given the available data, the WSA for the proposed project looks beyond that to 2045, consistent with the 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District.
63 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-42 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.17-6. Anticipated Water Demand for Project Buildout (Life Sciences Scenario), Including Phase 1
Water Use Area (sf)
Demand
Factor
(gpd/sf)
Total Water Demand (AFY)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
R&D 1,936,850 0.21 456 456 456 456 456
Amenity Building
Restaurant/ Dining 16,400 0.47 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
Cafeteria 9,000 0.80 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1
Fitness Center 49,000 0.75 41 41 41 41 41
Auditorium/Other 13,800 0.10 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
Irrigation 260,400 0.070 20 20 20 20 20
Distribution System
Losses1
-- -- 33 33 33 33 33
Existing Site Demand2 -- -- -11 -11 -11 -11 -11
Total Annual Water Demand3 557 557 557 557 557
Source: EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021. sf = square feet; gpd = gallons per day; AFY = acre-feet per year 1 Estimated distribution system water loss is calculated using the 2019 DWR Water Audit Report percent water loss (i.e., 5.8% of project demands), and includes both real and apparent losses. 2 Existing demands are subtracted from total projected water demands to show the incremental increase in demands associated with the project.
3 Total may not sum due to rounding.
The estimated project demand shown in Table 4.17-6, above, is also conservative because it does not account for the project’s numerous sustainability features that would reduce water consumption. All phases of the project, including Phase 1, would achieve a minimum LEED version 4 Silver rating and would be consistent with the South San Francisco Municipal Code and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen. Examples of the proposed sustainability measures include use of water efficient devices (i.e., plumbing fixtures, appliances, and cooling equipment) and water efficient landscaping practices, such as landscaping with native, drought-tolerant plants. The proposed project would also be subject to the City’s CAP requirements, including the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements for landscaping.
Lastly, the Specific Plan (Appendix 2) includes a number of design guidelines that would encourage water reduction, such as the following:
⚫ Incorporate sustainable and environmentally sensitive design and equipment, energy conservation features, water conservation measures and drought-tolerant or equivalent landscaping, and sustainable stormwater management features. ⚫ Encourage sustainable design solutions that reduce energy consumption, use water efficiently, and minimize waste.
⚫ When feasible, utilize local, native and/or adaptive plant materials. ⚫ Landscape buffers should include a combination of native and/or adaptive trees. They should be complemented by layered ground plant materials that are site and microclimate appropriate, including shrubs, ornamental grasses and groundcovers.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-43 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Landscape buffers should include, where feasible, stormwater treatment areas that are compliant with low impact development policies, incorporating native and/or adaptive landscaping that is drought tolerant and able to handle periods of inundation.
Projected Water Supply
The projected potable water supply sources are surface water purchased from the City and County of San Francisco’s Regional Water System (RWS), local surface water from the Bear Gulch Reservoir, and groundwater. As shown in Table 4.17-2, p. 4.17-6, Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District states that Cal Water will have sufficient supplies to serve the projected demand within the South San Francisco District, Mid-Peninsula District, and Bear Gulch District for normal hydrologic years through 2045, with no excess supplies available. The demand estimate in the 2020 UWMP includes an estimated demand of 527 AFY for the project, including Phase 1. As shown in Table 4.17-6, the project’s estimated demand at full buildout would be 557 AFY. Although this is a conservative estimate, as discussed above, the estimated demand in the project’s WSA exceeds the assumed project demand in the 2020 UWMP, and excess supplies are not forecasted during normal year conditions. As discussed in Section 4.17-3, Cal Water has stated that it intends to adopt a Water Neutral Development Policy in the coming months, which would require any new residential, commercial, or industrial development within the South San Francisco District that is expected to use 100 AFY or more in new demand to offset its net increase in water demand. If the Water Neutral Development Policy is adopted as indicated, it would reduce the project’s estimated water demand.
However, the potential would remain for the project to exceed the 527 AFY assumed in the 2020 UWMP (e.g., if the Water Neutral Policy is not enforced during normal year conditions, or if the Water Neutral Development Policy is not adopted or does not apply to certain development within the Specific Plan area). Therefore, a significant impact could occur at project buildout during normal year conditions.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 requires the City to monitor the estimated water demand for new development under the Specific Plan and limit the total demand to no more than 527 AFY, consistent with the 2020 UWMP’s estimate for the project. Limiting the project’s total demand to 527 AFY is considered feasible given the conservative assumptions applied in the WSA’s demand estimate (i.e., demand rates, assumed operation of 365 days/year, and no deduction for sustainability features).
With implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, impacts during normal year conditions would be less than significant with mitigation.
As discussed in Section 4.17-3, during single dry years, the annual supply within the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas will be reduced to 21,039 AFY by 2045. Supply shortfalls relative to total demands during single dry years are estimated to range between 34 percent in 2025 and 44 percent in 2045. During multiple dry years, the annual supply within the three Peninsula Districts’ service areas will be reduced to 23,615 AFY in 2025 during the first year of a drought, and 20,492 AFY in 2025 in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years of drought. Supply shortfalls relative to total demands are estimated to range between 36 percent during the first year of a drought in 2025 to 53 percent during the fifth year of a drought in 2045. These estimates assume implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, which, as described in Section 4.17-2, is uncertain. The project’s projected increased demand of up to 557 AFY (up to 527 AFY with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1) would exacerbate existing projected shortages during dry year conditions and assuming implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment. Therefore, a significant impact would occur during dry year conditions.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-44 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
To address projected dry year shortfalls, under Rule 14.1, Cal Water plans to enact its WSCP, which includes Mandatory Staged Restrictions of Water Use. The WSCP systematically identifies ways in which the South San Francisco, Bear Gulch, and Mid-Peninsula Districts will reduce water demands during dry years. The overall reduction goals in the WSCP are established for six drought stages and address water demand reductions from ten percent to greater than 50 percent. According to the 2020 UWMP, Cal Water expects to be able to meet all future demands within its existing South San Francisco District service area (as well as the Mid-Peninsula and Bear Gulch Districts) during dry years with implementation of the WSCP (assuming a demand of 527 AFY for the project, ensured through implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1). As stated in the project’s WSA (Appendix
4.17-1), the project would also be required to comply with Cal Water’s planned Water Neutral Development Policy, if adopted. Mitigation Measure UTIL-2 requires the project to comply with the WSCP and the Water Neutral Development Policy, if adopted. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, the project would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements or resources, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Limit Total Water Demand under the Specific Plan to 527 AFY (Future Phases)
If Cal Water has lawfully adopted a Water Neutral Development policy that is applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant(s) shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Cal Water that the project complies with said policy. Upon demonstrating compliance with said policy, no further action is required. The applicant(s) shall provide the City with documentation of Cal Water’s concurrence that the project has complied with said policy.
If a Water Neutral Development policy has not been lawfully adopted or is not applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested, applicants of future Precise Plans shall prepare an estimate of their individual project’s net water demand for the City’s review and approval prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. The net increase in water demand shall be calculated based on the expected total water use due to the proposed development and/or expansion, minus the amount of existing water use, onsite credits, alternative onsite sources of water supply, and/or offsite credits.
The City shall ensure, through its review of individual projects’ demand estimates, that the individual project’s net increase in demand does not result in total demand within the Specific Plan area that exceeds 527 AFY. When preparing demand estimates for a future phase(s) of development, applicants shall include Phase 1’s net increase in demand based on actual water usage data for Phase 1, if Phase 1 is fully constructed and operational and such data are readily available. If Phase 1 is not fully constructed and operational, or if actual water demand data are not readily available, the applicant shall prepare an estimate of the Phase 1 demand and include it in the estimate of total demand. If the total estimated demand for all projects within the Specific Plan is found to exceed 527 AFY, the City shall withhold issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for that portion of the project that causes total demand within the Specific Plan area to exceed 527 AFY until the applicant provides evidence that additional water supply is available, or sufficient offsets are provided, to satisfy any additional demand in excess of 527 AFY.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-45 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Implement Measures to Address Projected Dry Year Water Shortages (All Phases)
If Cal Water has lawfully adopted a Water Neutral Development policy that is applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant(s) shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Cal Water that the project complies with said policy. Upon demonstrating compliance with said policy, no further action is required. The applicant(s) shall provide the City with documentation of Cal Water’s concurrence that the project has complied with said policy.
If said policy has not been lawfully adopted or is not applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested and the 2018 amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) is not being implemented as adopted due to pending or concluded litigation, rescission, modification through voluntary agreement(s), or other circumstances, no further action is required.
If said policy has not been lawfully adopted or is not in effect at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is requested and the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is being implemented, then if a Shortage Level 1 or greater shortage has been established, as defined under the Cal Water 2020 UWMP Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) for the South San Francisco District or otherwise applicable WSCP at that time, applicants of projects under the Specific Plan shall comply with applicable requirements under the WSCP. Consistent with the 2020 UWMP-WSCP, coordination with Cal Water District staff will be required to determine the specific range of strategies identified under the WSCP needed to address water shortage levels, including water use restrictions and/or consumption reduction actions applicable to the project (UWMP, Appendix L, Table 5-1). The applicant(s) shall provide the City with documentation of Cal Water’s concurrence that the applicant(s) have committed to implement an agreed upon strategy to address water shortage levels in compliance with the requirements of the WSCP.
Phase 1
The water demand associated with Phase 1 is included in the estimated water demand for the project presented in the WSA and summarized above (see Table 4.17-6, p. 4.17-42). As discussed in the project analysis, Cal Water’s 2020 UWMP for the South San Francisco District states that Cal Water will have sufficient supplies to serve the projected demand within the South San Francisco District, Mid-Peninsula District, and Bear Gulch District for normal hydrologic years through 2045 during normal years, assuming a demand of 527 AFY for the project. Applying an office demand rate of 0.13 gpd/sf,
64 Phase 1’s net increase in demand would be significantly less than 527 AFY.65 Therefore, Phase 1 impacts during normal years would be less than significant. 64 EKI Environment & Water Inc. Water Supply Assessment for the Southline Specific Plan—Draft, South San Francisco District California Water Service. July 2021. 65 For office use: 612,715 SF x 0.13 gpd/sf = 79,563 gpd (89 AFY). 89 AFY + 59.3 AFY (amenity building demand, Table 4.17.6) +20 AFY (irrigation demand, Table 4.17.6) + 33 AFY (distribution system loss, Table 4.17.6) – 11 AFY (existing site demand, Table 4.17.6) = 190.3 AFY. Note that irrigation demand and distribution system loss estimates are for the project at buildout, and therefore applying these estimates to Phase 1 alone is conservative.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-46 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As stated above in the project analysis, during single and multiple dry years, Cal Water projects supply shortages of up to 53 percent. These estimates assume implementation of the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment, which, as described in Section 4.17-2, is uncertain. Phase 1’s increase in demand would exacerbate existing projected shortages during dry year conditions. Therefore, a significant impact would occur during dry year conditions. For the reasons stated above in the project analysis, with implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, Phase 1 would not require new or expanded water supply entitlements or resources, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact UTIL-3: The project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected wastewater treatment demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for wastewater treatment.
Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential impacts on wastewater treatment facilities from new development within the Specific Plan area. Specifically, impacts on the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which serves the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma, are evaluated. Improvements to wastewater infrastructure are discussed under Impact UTIL1.
As described in greater detail under Impact UTIL-2, the proposed project would increase wastewater demand within the Specific Plan area due to the intensification of land uses within the Specific Plan area. As determined by the Sanitary Sewer Technical Study included in Appendix 4.17-3, the Office Scenario would generate a greater demand for wastewater than the Life Sciences Scenario; therefore, this analysis assumes buildout of the Office Scenario.66 This was determined using the sewer demand factors provided by the Sewer System Master Plan and applying them to the proposed building areas. The Sewer System Master Plan modeled Office Commercial areas with an Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) Factor of 1,080 gpd/Acre. The Sewer System Master Plan model assumed an FAR of 1.0 for the planned site area, which results in a building demand factor of 0.0248 gpd/sf. Using this demand factor, sewer demand for the proposed area was calculated. Peaking factors used to determine the Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow (MDDWF) and Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow (MDWWF) were also taken from the Sewer System Master Plan.
Based on the analysis in the Sanitary Sewer Technical Study, and as shown in Table 4.17-5, below, the project would result in an increase in wastewater generation of 69,440 gpd of Average Dry Weather Flow, 97,216 gpd of Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow, and 451,360 gpd of Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow. Phase 1’s share of the increase in wastewater usage would be 17,383 gpd of Average Dry Weather Flow, 24,336 gpd of Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow, and 112,987 gpd of Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow.
66 BKF. 2021. Sanitary Sewer Technical Study. January.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-47 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.17-7. Anticipated Wastewater Generation for Project Buildout (Office Scenario), Including Phase I
Project
Phasing
Proposed
Sewershed
Designation
SSMP
Pipe
System
Proposed
Building
Total
Area
(GSF)
SSMP
Demand
Factor
ADWF
(gpd)
MDDWF
(gpd)
MDWWF
(gpd)
Phase 1 A (Tanforan
Ave.)
LO-P14
LO-P15
LO-P16
1 317,495 0.0248 7,874 11,023 51,180
2 88,200 0.0248 2,187 3,062 14,218
7 295,220 0.0248 7,321 10,250 47,589
Sewershed Subtotal 700,915 17,383 24,336 112,987
Future
Phase
B (Maple Ave.) LO-P12
LO-P13
3 576,900 0.0248 14,307 20,030 92,996
4 455,560 0.0248 11,298 15,817 73,436
5 342,265 0.0248 8,488 11,883 55,173
Sewershed Subtotal 1,374,725 34,093 47,730 221,606
C (S. Linden
Ave.)
LO-P13 6 724,360 0.0248 17,964 25,150 116,767
Sewershed Subtotal 724,360 17,964 25,150 116,767
Project Totals 2,800,000 69,440 97,216 451,360
Source: BKF, Sanitary Sewer Technical Study, 2020.
Notes:
SSMP = Sanitary Sewer Master Plan; ADWF = Average Dry Weather Flow; MDDWF = Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow; MDWWF = Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow; GSF = Gross Square Foot; gpd = Gallons Per Day.
The new sewer lines would tie into the existing sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment network, which follows the Specific Plan area’s boundaries along Maple Avenue, S. Linden Avenue, and Tanforan Avenue, as shown in Figure 4.17-2, p. 4.17-14. All wastewater and sewage generated within the Specific Plan area, including the Phase 1 site, would discharge to the pipelines along S.
Maple Avenue, S. Linden Avenue, and Tanforan Avenue and the South San Francisco WQCP. After taking into account existing wastewater discharges from the Specific Plan area, which totals 12,617 gpd of Average Dry Weather Flow, 17,665 gpd of Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow, and 82,014 gpd of Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow, the project would result in a net increase of 0.06 MGD under Average Dry Weather Flow, 0.08 MGD under Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow, and 0.37 MGD under Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow, as shown in Table 4.17-6.
Table 4.17-8. Anticipated Net Increase in Wastewater Generation for Project Buildout (Office Scenario)
Flow Existing (gpd) Net Increase (gpd)
Net Increase
(MGD)
Average Dry Weather Flow 12,617 56,823 0.06
Maximum Day Dry Weather Flow 17,665 79,552 0.08
Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow 82,014 369,346 0.37
Source: BKF, Sanitary Sewer Technical Study, 2020.
Notes:
gpd = Gallons Per Day; MGD = Million Gallons Per Day
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-48 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Regarding treatment capacity, the WQCP has confirmed that there is sufficient capacity available to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed Maximum Day Wet Weather Flow flows for the proposed project, up to approximately 0.4 MGD.
67 This also takes into account the anticipated
contributions from the City of San Bruno, according to references to the San Bruno SSMP within the South San Francisco SSMP, as the WQCP treats flows from the Cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma. Furthermore, the WQCP currently treats approximately 9 MGD of wastewater under average dry weather flow conditions, a quantity substantially below its dry weather peak flow capacity of 13 MGD. The WQCP also operates below its 62 MGD treatment capacity for wet weather flow conditions, and is currently undergoing facility improvements, including installation of a new storage basin to retain excess flows and increase treatment capacity during wet weather conditions.
68 Therefore, the WQCP has sufficient capacity to treat the project’s net increase of approximately 0.4 MGD of wastewater. The Specific Plan’s water conservation policies noted above in Impact UTIL-2 could also result in proportionate reductions in the project’s wastewater generation. However, since these measures are not mandated, they are not factored into this analysis. Lastly, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Sewer Capacity Charge through its fee contribution, ensuring that wastewater treatment capacity would be maintained.
Based on the above, project-related operational impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
Wastewater that would be generated as part of Phase 1 would be a portion of that analyzed above, under project-related impacts. Because the wastewater treatment facility would have sufficient capacity to serve the project, it would also have the capacity to serve Phase 1. Therefore, operational impacts on wastewater treatment capacity from Phase 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Impact UTIL-4: The project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. In addition, the project would not fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project
Construction
The proposed project would require demolition and construction activities within the proposed Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, this discussion evaluates construction impacts on solid waste from new development within the entire project site (i.e., Specific Plan area and off-site improvement areas).
Demolition and construction activities for the project would result in a temporary increase in solid waste generation, which would occur periodically during construction. All existing on the Specific Plan area would be removed during Phase 1, totaling approximately 343,800 square feet of building 67 Schumacker, Brian. Plant Superintendent. City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant Division. July 9, 2021.
68 Carollo Engineers. 2011. South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update. April.
Available: https://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=1330. Accessed: September 25, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-49 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
demolition. The proposed project would require major grading and excavation to construct the new subterranean parking garages up to a depth of 31 feet below grade level. An estimated 32.96 acres of ground area would be disturbed, requiring a total excavation of approximately 688,400 cubic yards of soil under the Office Scenario and 353,700 cubic yards of soil under the Life Science scenario, the majority of which is anticipated to be excavated from the Specific Plan area, although a portion would come from the off-site improvement areas. However, this increase in solid waste generation would be temporary. In addition, 100 percent of all inert solids (building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter
15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and under state CALGreen requirements. Any demolition and construction debris remaining after recycling would then transported to the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill or the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 22.18 million cubic yards, and the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 21.2 million cubic yards.
69, 70 The solid waste generated by demolition of construction debris from proposed project would represent a very small amount of the remaining capacity at these landfills. Hazardous solid waste from construction and demolition would comply with applicable regulations, as discussed under Section 4.8.3, Regulatory Framework. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure during construction and would not conflict with solid waste regulations; this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate solid waste. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential impacts on solid waste service and landfill capacity from new development within the Specific Plan area.
Development within the project site would result in increased site occupancy when compared to current conditions, subsequently increasing the amount of operational solid waste that would be generated within the Specific Plan area. CalRecycle provides solid waste generation rates for nonresidential uses on a per-employee basis. As described in Approach to Analysis, above, the Office Scenario is evaluated here as the worst case scenario, with a maximum of 10,745 net new employees. The project would not result in direct population growth, as no residential uses are proposed as part of the project. Though the proposed project would result in indirect population growth within both the city and other nearby jurisdictions, it would be speculative to presume the exact quantities of solid waste that this indirect population would generate, and to which landfills their solid waste would be transported; solid waste generated by indirect population growth is therefore not included in this analysis. The estimated net new project-related operational solid waste generation (inclusive of Phase 1), assuming the Office Scenario, is displayed in Table 4.17-9, below, according to the most recent solid waste diversion rates and per-employee solid waste generation rates for the city provided by CalRecycle.
69 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn).
Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed:
September 24, 2020.
70 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1362?siteID=3388. Accessed: September 24, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-50 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.17-9. Estimated Solid Waste Generation for the Proposed Project Buildout (Office Scenario), Including Phase 1
Buildout
Scenario
Net New
Employees
Disposal
Ratea (lbs/
capita/day)
Net New
Daily Solid
Waste
Generation
(tons)
Net New
Annual Solid
Waste
Generation
(tons)b
Net New
Annualc, d
Solid Waste
Generation
(cubic yards)
Proposed Project
(Office Scenario)
10,745 5 25.7 6,707.7 17,511.5
Phase 1 2,804 5 7.0 1,829.6 4,574.0
Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. Disposal Rate Calculator – South San Francisco. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DisposalRateCalculator.
Accessed: September 24, 2020.
Notes:
a Solid Waste generation rates are based on the 2019 generation rates identified by CalRecycle for the city (5 pounds per capita per day for employees).
b Assumes 261 working days per year.
c While there is no direct conversion between tons and cubic yards, CalRecycle estimates that one cubic yard of “Household Trash” is equivalent to approximately 800 pounds. This conversion rate was used to approximate the amount of net new solid waste that would be generated from proposed project operation (CalRecycle. 2018.
Calculations: Solid Waste Cleanup Program Weights and Volumes for Project Estimates. Available at https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/cdi/tools/calculations. Accessed October 6, 2020). d Solid waste generation totals in this table do not account for any recycling that would be required by the project applicant as part of applicable regulations.
Key:
lbs/capita/day = pounds per capita per day
lbs = pounds
As displayed in Table 4.17-9, p. 4.17-50, under the Office Scenario, the proposed project is estimated to generate 25.7 tons per day, or 6,707.7 tons (17,511.5 cubic yards), of solid waste annually. Of the approximately 6,707.7 tons (17,511.5 cubic yards) of solid waste that would be generated annually under the Office Scenario, approximately 1,829.6 tons (4,574.0 cubic yards) of solid waste would be generated by the Phase 1 site annually. Combined with 2019 city solid waste disposal quantities (52,519 tons, or 131,297.5 cubic yards), this would result in a total combined quantity of approximately 59,226.7 annual tons (or 148,809 cubic yards) of solid waste generated annually citywide under the Office Scenario (including Phase 1), which is an increase of approximately 13 percent compared to current conditions. These solid waste generation rates do not account for any recycling/waste diversion that would be required by the project under applicable regulations.
The Specific Plan area would continue to be served by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer Inc. The South San Francisco Scavenger Company would transport all solid waste generated at the Specific Plan area to the Blue Line Transfer Facility, which has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day.71 Any trash remaining after the usable materials have been separated at the Blue Line Transfer Facility are then transported to the Corinda Los Trancos (Ox Mountain) Sanitary Landfill or the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill had a 71 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020. Blue Line MRF and TS. Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1598?siteID=3259. Accessed: September 24, 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-51 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
remaining capacity of approximately 22.18 million cubic yards, and the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill had a remaining capacity of approximately 21.2 million cubic yards. 72, 73 The solid waste
generated by the proposed project would represent approximately 0.6 percent of the maximum daily intake allowed at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, approximately 0.6 percent of the maximum daily intake allowed at the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, and approximately 1.1 percent of the maximum daily intake allowed at Blue Line Transfer Facility. This represents a small amount in comparison to the total remaining capacities of each landfill. Therefore, the proposed project’s estimated solid waste generation could be accommodated by the remaining capacities at the Blue Line Transfer Facility, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, and Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.
Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City is regulated by the Municipal Code, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or recycling requirements, the proposed project would not be subject to City-mandated diversion requirements.
Based on the analysis above, the project would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure during operation and would not conflict with solid waste regulations; this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Phase 1
Construction
For the reasons stated above in the proposed project analysis, construction waste impacts associated with Phase 1 would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
Operation
As described above and in Table 4.17-9, p. 4.17-50, Phase 1 would generate a total of approximately 7 daily tons, or 1,829.6 annual tons (4,574.0 cubic yards) of solid waste, and would be served by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and Blue Line Transfer Inc. Combined with 2019 City solid waste disposal quantities (52,519 tons, or 131,297.5 cubic yards), this would result in a total combined quantity of approximately 54.348.6 annual tons (or 135,871.5 cubic yards) of solid waste generated annually citywide under Phase 1, which is an increase of approximately 3.5 percent.