Exhibit A Southline DEIR.pdf — South San Francisco City Council, July 13, 2022 (part 5 of 5)

The solid waste generated by Phase 1 would represent approximately 0.2 percent of the maximum daily intake allowed at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, approximately 0.2 percent of the maximum daily intake allowed at the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, and approximately 0.3 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, Phase 1’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. 72 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.
73 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 4.17-52 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Additionally, as described above for the proposed project, 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, Phase 1 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.

4.17.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative geographic contexts for utilities and service systems are the service territories of the various utility providers. For water, the geographic context is Cal Water’s Peninsula Districts’ service areas. For wastewater, the geographic context is the Cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Colma, which all flow to the same WQCP. For stormwater, the geographic context is the Colma Creek watershed. For solid waste, the geographic context is the service areas of the Blue Line Transfer Facility, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, and the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. For electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications, the geographic context is the service areas of PG&E and the various telecommunication providers. Given the size of each area, it is beyond the scope of this EIR to identify every cumulative project within their boundaries.

Over time, growth throughout the City and county will result in increased demand for water, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications. As shown in Table 4.12-1 in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, of this EIR, ABAG projects the City’s population will increase by approximately 8,765, from 67,435 in 2020 to 76,200 in 2030. In addition, ABAG projects the number of jobs in the city will increase by 4,635 between 2020 and 2030. ABAG also projects the County’s population will increase by approximately 55,185, from 786,875 in 2020 to 842,060 in 2030, and that the total number of jobs in San Mateo County would increase by 23,730 between 2020 and 2030. Citywide and countywide growth would also generate increased demand for utilities. With regard to local water, wastewater, and storm drain infrastructure, nearby cumulative development is also relevant. The cumulative projects located within approximately 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.

Much of the analysis presented above for Project-specific effects also includes analysis of potential cumulative impacts to utilities and service systems. The Project, in combination with other cumulative development, would result in increased demands on utilities and service systems, as summarized below.

Impact C-UTIL-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on water infrastructure or water supply. (Project: Less than Cumulatively Considerable; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for water service or potable water. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential cumulative impacts on water service and water supply from new development within the Specific Plan area and anticipated cumulative development.

With respect to water infrastructure, the Water Infrastructure Technical Study concludes that all fire flow locations evaluated will meet fire flow requirements under Project buildout conditions, and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-53 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
that adequate water pressure would be maintained during peak hour conditions. As shown in Figure 4.1-1 in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, none of the cumulative projects are close enough to the proposed project to have the potential to result in cumulative impacts on water infrastructure. However, as a City requirement, all cumulative projects would be required to provide sufficient water infrastructure for their anticipated demand, and comply with all City requirements regarding new water facilities and fire flow requirements. Therefore, cumulative impacts on water infrastructure would not result.

Regarding water supply, the project analysis above (Impact UTIL-2) is inherently cumulative because it is based on demand and supply projections for Cal Water’s Peninsula Districts’ service areas, including the South San Francisco District, as presented in the 2020 UWMP. For the reasons stated above, a cumulative impact would occur during dry year conditions due to projected supply shortfalls related to implementation of the Bay-Delta Amendment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1, which limits the project’s demand to 527 AFY consistent with the 2020 UWMP, and Mitigation Measure UTIL-2, which requires compliance with Cal Water’s WSCP and Water Neutral Development Policy, if adopted, would reduce the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact to less than cumulatively considerable.

Impact C-UTIL-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on wastewater infrastructure or wastewater treatment capacity. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for wastewater service or wastewater capacity. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential cumulative impacts on wastewater service and wastewater capacity from new development within the Specific Plan area and anticipated cumulative development.

As described in under Impact UTIL-1 above, while the project will increase wastewater/sanitary sewer flows to the public sanity sewer system, there is sufficient capacity at the WQCP to provide wastewater treatment for the proposed flows from buildout of the Southline Project. The SSMP, which analyzes a 5-year development horizon, evaluates estimated wastewater contributions from cumulative projects. The SSMP determined that a cumulative impact on the City’s wastewater infrastructure resulting wastewater contributions from cumulative projects would not result assuming that the necessary sewer upgrades are completed as identified in the SSMP. These sewer upgrades would either be included as part of individual projects or would be completed by the City as part of its capital improvements. Additionally, the project’s proposed wastewater system infrastructure improvements implement the recommended improvements in the SSMP, including the upgrading of several public sewer mains that directly serve the Specific Plan area to account for the additional sanitary sewer flow generation. Therefore, a cumulative impact to wastewater infrastructure would not result.

Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, would generate a net increase of 0.37 MGD of wastewater. Currently, the city generates an average of approximately 8.3 MGD of wastewater which is conveyed to and treated at the WQCP. Therefore, with the additional

0.37 MGD of wastewater that would be generated by the project, the city would convey a total of

8.67 MGD of wastewater to the WQCP for treatment. New planned development in San Bruno, Colma, and citywide would also generate additional wastewater, creating a cumulative increase in demand for wastewater treatment at the WQCP.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-54 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The WQCP currently treats approximately 9 MGD of wastewater under average dry weather flow conditions, which is substantially below its maximum capacity of 13 MGD under average dry weather flow days. The WQCP therefore has sufficient capacity to treat the additional 0.37 MGD of wastewater that would be generated by the project, as well as the additional wastewater that would be generated by the cumulative projects. While future development within the cities of San Bruno and South San Francisco and the Town of Colma would also contribute to cumulative demand, given the remaining capacity at the WQCP (4 MGD) and the ongoing wet-weather treatment and storage capacity improvements at the WQCP, it is unlikely that additional development within or outside of the city would result in an exceedance of capacity because as a standard condition of approval, the City would require the proponents of each project to provide project-specific sewer capacity studies, and each project would be required to contribute towards the City’s sewer capacity charge.

Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative wastewater impact, as wastewater generation would not exceed WQCP treatment system capacity. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact C-UTIL-3: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on stormwater drainage infrastructure. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
The proposed project and anticipated cumulative development 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).

The City’s Storm Drain Master Plan takes into account anticipated development in the city and is updated at a minimum every 10 years; it was last updated in 2016. Therefore, the Storm Drain Master Plan evaluates stormwater drainage impacts from cumulative projects. The Storm Drain Master Plan determined that a cumulative impact on stormwater drainage flows would not result in the city if the necessary storm drain upgrades are completed. These storm drain upgrades would either be included as part of individual projects or would be completed by the City as part of its capital improvements. Additionally, the project’s proposed storm drain system infrastructure improvements implement the recommended improvements in the Storm Drain Master Plan, as discussed under Impact UTIL-1. Therefore, a cumulative impact to stormwater drainage infrastructure would not result.

Additionally, cumulative development within the Colma Creek watershed would likely be constructed on infill sites in highly urbanized areas where there is a substantial amount of existing impervious surface area. All cumulative projects would be required to include post-construction stormwater management features, such as LID measures, to reduce flows to pre-project conditions.

New projects would be subject to the requirements of the San Francisco Bay MS4 Permit, the Construction General Permit, and the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code related to protecting water resources. Thus, the proposed project, in combination with anticipated cumulative development, would not substantially increase impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions.

As discussed under Impact UTIL-1, pervious surfaces would increase under the proposed project, as compared to existing conditions.; accordingly, post-construction peak stormwater flows would not increase compared to existing conditions. Similar to the proposed project, the reasonably foreseeable future projects would be required to comply with all BMPs and the City’s standard City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-55 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
conditions regarding stormwater drainage and surface runoff detention measures (including Condition No. 13, requiring a plan showing 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). For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative stormwater facilities impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact C-UTIL-4: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication services facilities. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
The proposed off-site improvements would not generate a demand for electricity, natural gas, or telecommunication service facilities. Therefore, this discussion focuses on the potential cumulative impacts on electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication service facilities from new development within the Specific Plan area and anticipated cumulative development.

The cumulative development in the PG&E and telecommunication providers service areas would likely be constructed on infill sites in highly urbanized areas; it is anticipated that these projects would not substantially increase electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications demands.

There are also no known capacity limitations within the existing electrical system or gas system.

Service providers of these utilities will be able to serve new cumulative development from known and available sources. In addition, similar to the proposed project, the anticipated cumulative development would comply with all applicable City and state water conservation measures, including title 24, part 6, the California Energy Code, with baseline standard requirements for energy efficiency; the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards; and the 2019 CALGreen Code. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications demand and facilities impact. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Impact C-UTIL-5: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on solid waste generation or on failure 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)
The proposed project would require demolition and construction activities within the proposed Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas. Therefore, the construction 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). However, the proposed off-site improvements would not generate solid waste. Therefore, the operational discussion focuses on the potential impacts on solid waste service and landfill capacity from new development within the Specific Plan area.

Construction of the proposed project, as well as construction activities required for cumulative development within the service areas of Blue Line Transfer Facility, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.17-56 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, would generate substantial solid waste, including demolition waste. However, all of these projects would be required to comply with Chapter 15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which requires 100 percent of all inert solids (building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all other materials) to be recycled. Therefore, through compliance with local requirements, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative construction-generated solid waste impact related to solid waste generation or failure to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.

In 2019, residents of the city generated approximately 4.3 pounds of solid waste per capita per day and employees within the city generated 5 pounds of solid waste per capita per day.74 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 solid waste disposal goals in 2019. 75 The
anticipated cumulative development within the service areas of Blue Line Transfer Facility, Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, and the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill would incrementally increase the amount of solid waste generated by increasing the number of employees and residents in the service areas; excavation, demolition, and remodeling activities associated with growth would also increase total solid waste generation. However, 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. 76, 77 The proposed
project, in combination with anticipated cumulative development, would generate a very small amount of solid waste in comparison to the total remaining capacities of each landfill.

In addition, the increasing rate of diversion citywide and in the service areas, achieved through recycling, composting, and other methods, would decrease the total amount of waste deposited in landfills. The proposed project, in combination with the anticipated cumulative development in the service areas, would not cause a significant impact on regional landfill capacity because the projects would be required to comply with the City’s waste reduction and diversion requirements.

Compliance with such regulatory requirements would reduce the project’s and the cumulative projects’ contribution to overall solid waste volumes generated during construction and operation.

Given the future long-term capacity available at Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, Newby Island Sanitary Landfill, and other area landfills, the proposed project and anticipated cumulative development in the services areas would be served by a landfill with adequate permitted capacity to accommodate their solid waste disposal needs. For these reasons, the proposed project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative solid waste impact related to solid waste generation or failure to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The cumulative impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 74 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.
75 Ibid.
76 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.
77 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
Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.18-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.18 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
In the course of evaluating the potential impacts of the proposed project with respect to the topics included in Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed project, including the first phase of development under the Specific Plan (Phase 1) and the off-site improvements, was found to have no impact with respect to the following environmental topics:

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, and Wildfire. Therefore, these issues are not discussed in detail in this EIR. Additionally, as further described in Section 4.18.1, below, the proposed project does not require the analysis of impacts related to Aesthetics or vehicular parking.

This section describes the basis for the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) determination with regard to each of these topics, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128. This section also describes requirements related to the evaluation of aesthetics and parking impacts.

4.18.1 Aesthetics and Vehicular Parking Analysis
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21099, Modernization of Transportation Analysis for Transit-Oriented Projects, 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 under Public Resources Code Section 21099:
⚫ The project is on an infill site.1
⚫ The project is in a Transit Priority area (TPA).
2 ⚫ The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment-center project. 3 The proposed project meets the above criteria as a qualifying employment-center project for purposes of Public Resources Code Section 21099 and, therefore, aesthetics and vehicular parking are not further analyzed. The Specific Plan area is a qualifying infill site that is currently developed with existing office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities. The entire perimeter of the Specific Plan area adjoins urban uses or public rights-of-way. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has identified locations of TPAs within the Bay Area.4 As shown in Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3, Project Description, MTC mapping indicates that the entire project site is within a TPA, due to its proximity to the San Bruno BART station and qualifying SamTrans bus routes. The majority of the proposed Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres) is zoned Business and Professional Office (BPO) under the City’s Zoning Code. A small, 0.3-acre area corresponding with an historic rail easement is zoned Parks and Recreation. The proposed project would demolish all existing uses on the Specific Plan area and construct up to approximately 2,800,000 square feet of new office and 1 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)) 2 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))
3 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)) 4 MTC. 2017. Open Data Catalog, Transit Priority Areas. Available: https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/ d97b4f72543a40b2b85d59ac085e01a0_0. Accessed: October 7, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.18-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
research-and-development (R&D) uses. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) would range from 1.75 to 2.4. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies as an employment center project.

Because the project meets the three criteria above, this EIR does not consider aesthetics or vehicular parking in determining the significance of impacts under CEQA. However, a discussion of the proposed project’s potential to shade adjacent properties is provided below for informational purposes, in response to a comment received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

Shadow
During the NOP scoping period, a comment was received which expressed concern regarding the proposed project’s potential shadow impacts on nearby residential areas to the south (see Appendix 1). Per Public Resources Code Section 21099 described above, the City is not required to evaluate the alteration of shadow patterns (an aesthetic impact) for CEQA purposes.

Notwithstanding, for informational purposes and in response to this comment, a shadow study was conducted for the proposed project and is included in Appendix 4.18-1. A shadow study is a tool that plots the potential reach of project shadow over the course of a year relative to the location of adjacent areas. Shadow studies account for topographical variation and shadows cast by existing buildings. Shadows were modeled at 10:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. during the spring equinox (March 21), summer solstice (June 21), fall equinox (September 21), and winter solstice (December 21). Shadows were modeled for the Office Scenario, which would have slightly taller building heights (115 feet above grade) as compared to the Life Sciences Scenario (113 feet above grade).

During each season, the proposed project would cast shadows on commercial and industrial properties, roadways, and rail tracks to the northwest, north, and northeast of the Specific Plan area at various times between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. The shortest shadows would occur during the summer solstice and the longest shadows would occur during the winter solstice.

Shadows on the streets, sidewalks, and other surrounding properties would be transitory in nature and would not be expected to exceed levels commonly experienced in urban areas. At no time would the proposed project cast shadows on the residential uses south of Tanforan Avenue in the City of San Bruno.

4.18.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Impact AG-1: The project would not convert designated Farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, nor would it conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, nor would it involve any changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of designated Farmland. (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact) Project
The California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, maps important farmland, including Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status; the best quality land is called Prime Farmland. The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the project site as “Urban and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.18-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Built-up.”5 The project site does not contain any designated Farmland. Thus, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use. The Specific Plan area is in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, which includes a variety of commercial and small business park land uses. The majority of the Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres) is zoned BPO, with a small portion (approximately 0.3 acre) being zoned as Parks and Recreation corresponding with a former railway easement, neither of which permits agricultural use. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any agricultural zoning. In addition, no land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site is zoned for or used as agriculture.

There are no Williamson Act contracts for land within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. 6 Thus, the
proposed project, would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract or involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. Based on the analysis above, the proposed project would have no impact on agricultural resources. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the proposed project as a whole because Phase 1 is a component of the project, which would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract or involve other changes in the existing environment, or result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use. Phase 1 would have no impact related to agricultural resources. No mitigation is required.

Impact AG-2: The project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]). (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact) Project
There is no timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production on the project site.7 None of the trees currently growing on or adjacent to the project site are managed for a public benefit, and therefore the project site is not “forestland.”8 Thus, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. As mentioned above, the Specific Plan area is in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The majority of the Specific Plan area is zoned BPO (approximately 26.2 acres), and a small portion is zoned Parks and Recreation (approximately 0.3 5 Urban and Built-up land is defined as land with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres or six structures per 10 acres on the 2018 San Mateo County Important Farmland map as well as land used for residential, industrial, and commercial purposes; institutional facilities; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; sewage treatment; and water control structures. 6 The Williamson Act is a California law enacted in 1965 that provides property tax relief to owners of farmland and open space land in exchange for a 10-year agreement that the land will not be developed or converted into another use.
7 According to Public Resources Code Section 4526 and California Government Code Section 51104(g), “timberland” is defined as land, other than that owned by the federal government or designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as Experimental Forestland, that is available for and capable of growing a crop of trees of any commercial species to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. 8 According to Public Resources Code Section 12220[g], “forestland” is land that can support a 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions and allow management of one or more forest resources, including resources with timber, aesthetic, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreational, or other public benefits.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.18-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
acre) corresponding with a former railway easement. No portion of the project site includes forest land, timber land, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. In addition, no land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the project site is zoned for or used for timberland or forestland. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with any existing zoning or forestland or timberland use or involve any changes to the environment that could result in the conversion of forestland or timberland. Thus, there would be no impact with respect to forest land or timberland. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the proposed project as a whole because Phase 1 is a component of the project, which would not conflict with any existing zoning or forestland or timberland uses or involve any changes to the environment which would result in the conversion of forestland or timberland. Phase 1 would have no impact related to forest resources.

No mitigation is required.

4.18.3 Mineral Resources
Impact MIN-1: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state and/or a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated in a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact) Project
The project site is in an area that has been zoned by the state as Mineral Resource Zone 1 (MRZ-1), an area where no significant mineral deposits are present and little likelihood exists for their presence.9 The area surrounding the project site is not known to support significant mineral resources of any type, and no mineral resources are currently being extracted in the area. The list of mines from the Office of Mine Reclamation (the Assembly Bill [AB] 3098 List), which lists mines that are regulated under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, does not include any mines that are within the area of the project site.
10 In addition, the project site has not been designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan, any specific plan, or other land use plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the loss of availability of a known statewide or regionally important mineral resource, or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project as a whole because Phase 1 is a component of the proposed project, which would not result in any impacts on the loss of availability of a known statewide or regionally important mineral resource, or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. Phase 1 would have no impact related to mineral resources. No mitigation is required.
9 California Division of Mines and Geology. 1996. Open File Report 96-03—Update of Mineral Land Classification:

Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. Available:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_96-03/OFR_96-03_Text.pdf. Accessed: October 8, 2020. 10 California Department of Conservation. 2020. AB 3098 List. Available:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dmr/smara-mines. Accessed: October 8, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Impacts Found Not to Be Significant
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.18-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.18.4 Wildfire
Impact WF-1: The project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, and would not: a) substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; b) exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire; c) require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or d) expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. (Project: No Impact; Phase 1: No Impact)
Project
The project site is located in a developed, urban environment. The topography of the project site and surrounding area is relatively flat. There is no wildland vegetation cover on the project site or in the surrounding area. According to CAL FIRE, the entire City, including the project site, is in a nonVery High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). 11 The nearest VHFHSZ is approximately 3.5 miles
southwest of the project site, near the City of Millbrae. In addition, there are no mapped State Responsibility Areas (SRA) in the City.12 The nearest SRA, San Bruno Mountain State and County Park, is approximately 2 miles north of the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to exacerbating wildfire risks. No mitigation is required.

Phase 1
The impacts of Phase 1 would be the same as the impacts of the project as a whole because Phase 1 is a component of the proposed project. Phase 1 would have no impact related to exacerbating wildfire risks. No mitigation is required.
11 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2007. San Mateo County Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazards-buildingcodes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed: October 8, 2020. 12 Ibid.

Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-1
September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Chapter 5
Alternatives

5.1 Introduction
This chapter evaluates alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative. By comparing these alternatives to the proposed project, the relative environmental advantages and disadvantages of each may be analyzed and weighed. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the proposed project’s basic objectives identified in Chapter 3, Project Description, but would avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed project identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation.

Nine alternatives to the project were considered, including the required No Project Alternative. To determine which of the alternatives should be evaluated in this EIR, each alternative was screened to determine whether it would meet most of the objectives of the project, reduce any of the significant impacts identified in the EIR, and be potentially feasible.

This chapter provides a description of the six alternatives considered but rejected, followed by an analysis of the No Project Alternative (Alternative A) and two additional alternatives selected for evaluation: the No Intersection Alternative (Alternative B) and the Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative C). This chapter concludes with a matrix comparing the project to all three alternatives analyzed in this chapter and a discussion of the “environmentally superior” alternative.

5.1.1 Requirements for Alternatives Analysis
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those potentially feasible alternatives necessary to foster informed public participation and an informed and reasoned choice by the decision-making body (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). Therefore, an EIR does not need to address every conceivable alternative or consider infeasible alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 generally defines “feasible” to mean the ability to be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) lists the following factors that may be considered when determining the feasibility of alternatives to be evaluated:
⚫ Site suitability
⚫ Economic viability
⚫ Availability of infrastructure
⚫ General plan consistency
⚫ Other plans or regulatory limitations
⚫ Jurisdictional boundaries
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Ability of the project’s proponent to attain site control (per CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(f)(1))
An EIR does not need to consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(3)).

5.1.2 Project Objectives
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b), the EIR must include a statement of objectives, including the underlying purpose of the project. Refer to Section 3.5 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR for a list of project objectives that have been identified by the project applicant.

5.1.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
A central purpose of the discussion of alternatives is to determine whether there are potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project. Based on the analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR, the project would have the following significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, noise, and transportation and circulation (an asterisk denotes that the impact would also be significant and unavoidable for Phase 1): Impact AQ-2a, Impact AQ-2b,* Impact AQ-3, Impact C-AQ2,* Impact C-AQ-3, Impact NOI-1a,* Impact C-NOI-1,* Impact TR-3d, and Impact C-TR-3d. These impacts are summarized below.

Air Quality
Impact AQ-2a: Construction of future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal (ozone) or state (ozone and particulate matter [PM]) ambient air quality standard during construction. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Project: Construction associated with the new developments that would be permitted under future Precise Plans approved under the proposed Specific Plan (not including Phase 1, which was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact) would result in the temporary generation of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5) that could exceed BAAQMD’s daily project-level pollutant thresholds. While impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, emissions of criteria pollutants may not be reduced to levels below BAAQMD’s thresholds. In cases where emissions continue to exceed applicable threshold levels after implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would be required, which requires applicants of future Precise Plans (not including Phase 1) to track all land use development construction activities occurring under the Specific Plan, assess and determine total emissions for all concurrent construction activities (subject to City of South San Francisco [City] review and approval), and coordinate with a third-party or governmental entity to determine the mitigation fees for each development project’s applicant to pay on a pro rata basis to offset pollutant emissions, thereby ensuring that BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds would not be exceeded. Based on recent experience regarding the offsets feasibly available for other large projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is reasonable to assume City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
that offset programs will be available in the future and that emissions associated with development under future Precise Plans can be reduced to levels below threshold levels. Should offset programs be available for this future development, then project impacts on air quality related to construction would be less than significant with mitigation. However, because it cannot be concluded that offset programs would always be available in the future at the time and in the amount needed for any given future development, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, the construction air quality impacts of future Precise Plans, including health impacts from construction emissions, are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Impact AQ-2b: Operation of the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard during operation. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable)
Project: The Specific Plan includes numerous sustainability design features and objectives to reduce operational emissions, operation of projects developed under the Specific Plan would generate criteria pollutant emissions from area, energy, mobile, and stationary sources that could exceed BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-7, applicants of Precise Plans proposing development that exceeds BAAQMD screening criteria would be required to estimate total emissions for operational activities and pay mitigation fees for any operational emissions that exceed BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds. Offsetting emissions to a level below BAAQMD’s threshold levels would ensure that development under the Specific Plan would not contribute a significant level of air pollution such that regional air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) would be degraded. Based on recent precedent regarding the offsets feasibly available for other large projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is reasonable to assume that offset programs will be available in the future and that emissions can be reduced to levels below threshold levels. However, because it cannot be concluded that offset programs would always be available in the future at the time and in the amount needed for any given future development under the Specific Plan, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, operational air quality impacts for the project, including health impacts from operational emissions, are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Based on recent precedent regarding the offsets feasibly available for other large projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is reasonable to assume that offset programs will be available in the future, and that Phase 1 emissions can be reduced to levels below threshold levels. However, because it cannot be concluded that offset programs would always be available in the future at the time and in City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the amount needed to mitigate Phase 1’s annual emissions, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, operational air quality impacts of Phase 1 are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Impact AQ-3: Operation of future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project: The project would generate localized criteria pollutants of fugitive dust and CO. During grading and excavation activities associated with construction, localized fugitive dust would be generated. Because BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be implemented, per Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction-related fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with mitigation and would not expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or risks.

CO impacts were analyzed at the intersection of San Bruno Avenue/El Camino Real, with project CO concentrations summed with background CO levels and compared against the CAAQS and NAAQS.

CO concentrations are not expected to contribute to any new localized violations of the 1-hour or 8- hour ambient state or federal air quality standards. Accordingly, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of CO. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for the project.

The project would generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction and operation.

Specifically, construction activities would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 that could expose adjacent sensitive receptors to health risks in excess of applicable thresholds.

However, emissions generated by construction activities could still expose receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-9 would be required to provide a project-level evaluation of health risks from future projects.

During operation, in the Life Sciences Scenario R&D buildings could involve research activity in wet laboratories and/or require process boilers. The wet laboratories could result in reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions from solvents and chemicals specific to the type of research being conducted (e.g., chemistry, chemical engineering, biological sciences, physical sciences). Similarly, the process could result in ROG emissions of ROG and its constituent gases. Additionally, diesel-fueled generators could expose receptors to PM2.5 concentrations in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations. At this time, definitive conclusions regarding localized health risks from future phases cannot be made (Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a lessthan-significant impact with mitigation). Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-9, applicants proposing development of future phases within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD (e.g., residential), are required to prepare site-specific construction and operational health risk assessments (HRAs). However, this mitigation measure does not ensure that the evaluations would find less-than-significant impacts. Therefore, it is possible that mitigation to address future City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project health risks and pollutant concentrations may be inadequate with respect to reducing impacts to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.

Impact C-AQ-2: Construction and operation under the Specific Plan, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a non-attainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable)
Project and Phase 1: As discussed under Impact AQ-2a, construction emissions resulting from individual future Precise Plan projects developed under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could exceed BAAQMD’s regional ROG, NOx, and PM thresholds. Similarly, as discussed under Impact AQ-2b, long-term operation of individual projects developed under the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, could generate emissions in excess of BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. According to BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for air pollutants, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, cumulative operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. Both Phase 1 and the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution.

Impact C-AQ-3: Construction and operation of future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, together with cumulative project identified, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable)
Project: As stated in Impact C-AQ-2, a significant cumulative impact to the region’s existing air quality conditions would occur, which could result in adverse health impacts on sensitive receptors.

Therefore, cumulative health impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

The project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution.

Phase 1: Phase 1, which was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation, would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution.

Noise
Impact NOI-1a: Project construction would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable) Project: Project construction activities would generate noise at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residential and hotel uses). Most construction activities under the project are expected to occur during standard daytime hours for construction, as defined by the South San Francisco and San Bruno Municipal Codes. However, a limited amount of project construction could be necessary outside these daytime hours. Based on modeled noise levels, construction noise from concrete pours and other noise-generating construction activities that would occur outside of daytime hours during Phase 1 would exceed applicable criteria for both the cities of South San Francisco and San City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Bruno at the residential receptors along Tanforan Avenue. Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which includes measures to reduce noise from construction activity during all hours (including nondaytime hours) and Mitigation Measure NOI-1b, which includes installation of a temporary noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue near the project site, would be implemented to reduce the project’s significant impact related to non-daytime construction noise. While these mitigation measures would reduce construction noise effects, it may not be possible to reduce noise levels during all non-daytime construction activities to less-than-significant levels. For example, locating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive uses and using equipment with mufflers and sound control devices would reduce noise, but may not reduce noise to below significance criteria. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

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 ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Project:

Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable) Project: As described under Impact NOI-1a, 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 during Phase 1, including concrete pours, as well as early-morning construction, 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. 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. 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 includes installation of a temporary noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue near 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.

Transportation & Circulation
Impact TR-3d: The project would contribute to existing hazardous conditions due to projectrelated traffic, leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. (Project:

Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project: As analyzed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meets the peak-hour signal warrant under noproject and with-project conditions during the PM peak hour. Phase 1 of the project would add approximately 11 trips to the intersection during the PM peak hour, which is unlikely to change intersection operations materially or exacerbate the risk of collisions relative to 2024 Baseline conditions. However, the project would add approximately 301 PM peak-hour trips, which would affect intersection operations more substantially. 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. Therefore, the project would result in a 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 project impacts to a less-thansignificant 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. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency, does not have authority to require completion of this mitigation in the City of San Bruno. 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, the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the project.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation required.

Impact C-TR-3d: The project, 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 Significant)
Project: As explained in Impact TR-3d above, the project would result in a significant impact due to the addition of approximately 301 PM peak-hour trips to Huntington Avenue/ Herman Street/Forest Avenue intersection, which would contribute to existing hazardous conditions at the intersection. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable, and the project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation required. Therefore, Phase 1’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.2 Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated to Lessthan-Significant Levels As stated above, a focus of the discussion of alternatives is to determine whether there are potentially feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the proposed project. This can include significant impacts for which mitigation measures have been identified to reduce the severity of project impacts to less than significant.

As discussed throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR and summarized in Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation, in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, the project would result in potentially significant impacts related to the following resources, which can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation:
⚫ Biological resources (nesting birds, bats, lighting impacts on birds, and bird strike) ⚫ Cultural resources (historic resources, archaeological resources, and human remains) ⚫ Energy
⚫ Geology and soils (paleontological resources)
⚫ Greenhouse gas emissions
⚫ Hazards and hazardous materials (risk of upset or accident from subsurface contaminants, building hazards, and hazardous materials sites)
⚫ Hydrology and water quality (groundwater quality)
⚫ Noise (stationary equipment noise)
⚫ Tribal cultural resources
⚫ Utilities and service systems (water supply)
Phase 1 would result in potentially significant impacts related to the following resources, which can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation:
⚫ Air quality (construction criteria pollutants, pollutant concentrations) ⚫ Biological resources (nesting birds, bats, lighting impacts on birds, and bird strike) ⚫ Cultural resources (historic resources, archaeological resources, and human remains) ⚫ Energy
⚫ Geology and soils (paleontological resources)
⚫ Greenhouse gas emissions
⚫ Hazards and hazardous materials (risk of upset or accident from subsurface contaminants, building hazards, and hazardous materials sites)
⚫ Hydrology and water quality (groundwater quality)
⚫ Noise (stationary equipment noise)
⚫ Tribal cultural resources
⚫ Utilities and service systems (water supply)
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Refer to Table 2-1 in Chapter 2, Executive Summary, for additional discussion of these impacts.

5.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR should “identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.” The screening process for identifying the viable EIR alternatives included consideration of the following criteria. ⚫ Ability to meet the project objectives
⚫ Potential ability to substantially lessen or avoid environmental effects associated with the proposed project
⚫ Potential feasibility, taking into account economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal factors
The discussion below describes the alternatives that were considered during preparation and scoping of this EIR, and gives the rationale for eliminating these alternatives from detailed consideration, including because they would not fulfill most of the basic objectives of the project, would not avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental impacts, and/or would be infeasible. Because the project evaluated in this EIR is buildout under the Specific Plan, inclusive of Phase 1, the City considered alternatives to the overall project, including alternatives with different Phase 1 characteristics that could reduce or avoid impacts specific to Phase 1.

5.3.1 Phase 1-Only Alternative
An alternative that would develop Phase 1 without any future phases of development was considered. This alternative would develop all of the Phase 1 components in the same manner as the project, with the exception of Parking Structure C, which would be reduced in size due to a reduced overall demand for parking associated with the project. This alternative includes development of the new Southline Avenue, and the remainder of the off-site improvements except for the street widening and streetfront improvements on South Maple Avenue, and upsizing sewer mains on the northerly portion of South Maple Avenue which are included in the future phases development. The alternative would result in approximately 612,715 square feet of office/R&D space and approximately 88,000 square feet of amenities space. The Phase 1-Only Alternative would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the emission of criteria air pollutants during construction (Impact AQ-2a), construction and operational health risks on sensitive receptors (Impact AQ-3), and hazardous conditions at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection (Impact TR-3d). The Phase 1-Only Alternative would also reduce the project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to those topics (Impacts C-AQ2, C-AQ-3, and C-TR-3d) to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level.

The Phase 1-Only Alternative would not develop an integrated commercial campus, and as such, would not meet the underlying purpose of the project to create a state-of-the-art, transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D (including life science) uses, and supporting amenities (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations. The Phase 1-Only Alternative also would not meet a number of the project objectives, including to:
create a commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation for the City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-10 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Specific Plan area; establish a commercial campus development with sophisticated, unified architectural and landscape design and site planning, resulting in a distinctive campus identity and strong sense of place; establish flexibility to build the proposed project in phases that respond to market conditions; and redevelop underutilized parcels within the Specific Plan area to realize the highest and best use of the land by increasing the intensity of the land uses. Therefore, the Phase 1- Only Alternative was rejected from further consideration due to its inability to meet the project objectives. Additionally, the Phase 1-Only Alternative may not be economically viable, as the off-site infrastructure and transportation improvements would remain the same as with the project, but with significantly less tenanted space across which the costs could be allocated and absorbed.

5.3.2 Future Phases-Only Alternative
An alternative that would only develop the future phases of the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, was considered. This alternative would develop all of the buildings and open spaces north of the Phase 1 site in the same manner as the project, with the exception of Parking Structure C, which would be reduced in size due to a reduced demand for parking. The alternative would result in approximately 2.1 million square feet of office/R&D space under a maximum development scenario, but would not include any of the amenity uses proposed as part of Phase 1 of the proposed project.

This alternative would not develop the new Southline Avenue, and the only off-site improvements constructed would be the street widening and streetfront and utility improvements along South Maple Avenue. The Future Phases-Only Alternative was considered for its potential to reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Phase 1, including the emission of criteria air pollutants during Phase 1 operation (Impact AQ-2b) and construction noise impacts during Phase 1 construction (Impact NOI-1a). Certain significant and unavoidable impacts associated with Phase 1 could still occur during construction or operation of future phases, although air quality and noise impacts would be reduced for sensitive receptors along Tanforan Avenue due to the future phases being sited at a greater distance from those receptors.

Similar to the Phase 1-Only Alternative, the Future Phases-Only Alternative would not develop an integrated commercial campus, and as such, would not meet the underlying purpose of the project to create a state-of-the-art, transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D (including life science) uses, and supporting amenities (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations. The Future Phases-Only Alternative also would not meet a number of the project objectives, including to: create a commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Specific Plan area; establish a commercial campus development with sophisticated, unified architectural and landscape design and site planning, resulting in a distinctive campus identity and strong sense of place; establish flexibility to build the proposed project in phases that respond to market conditions; and redevelop underutilized parcels within the Specific Plan area to realize the highest and best use of the land by increasing the intensity of the land uses.

In addition, the Future-Phases Only Alternative would not construct the signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue, the proposed Southline Avenue, or the circulation improvements along Huntington Avenue intended to improve connectivity to the San Bruno BART station. Therefore, the Future Phases-Only Alternative would not meet the following objectives of the project: promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by emphasizing public transit linkages, TDM, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings; create convenient and safe pedestrian and bike access City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
from the Specific Plan area to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail; construct a new east–west public street through the Specific Plan area to improve site access and regional roadway circulation, in furtherance of City General Plan policies; and enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access in the area surrounding the Specific Plan area. Therefore, the Future-Phases Only Alternative was rejected from further consideration due to its inability to meet the project objectives.

5.3.3 Reconfigured Project Alternative
The Reconfigured Project Alternative would reconfigure new office/R&D uses and potential toxic air contaminant (sources (e.g., emergency generators, boilers, and construction activity, generally) by concentrating new development in the northern portion of the Specific Plan area, farther from the sensitive residential receptors to the south. The alternative would result in approximately 840,000 square feet of office/R&D space but no amenity space since the corner of Southline and Huntington Avenues would not be developed. This alternative would not develop the new Southline Avenue, and the only off-site improvements constructed would be the street widening and streetfront and utility improvements along South Maple Avenue. This alternative was considered for its potential to reduce or avoid the project’s construction and operational health risks on sensitive receptors (Impact AQ3), and construction noise impacts during Phase 1 construction (Impact NOI-1a). The Reconfigured Project Alternative would also reduce and potentially avoid the project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to those topics (Impacts C-AQ-3 and C-NOI-1).

The longest distance between the residential uses to the south and the Specific Plan area’s farthest boundary is approximately 1,700 feet (as measured from the residence at the corner of Tanforan Avenue and Huntington Avenue East to the northern tip of the Specific Plan area). Maintaining a setback of 1,000 feet or more from off-site receptors would greatly reduce the portion of the Specific Plan area available for project buildings, by approximately 70 percent. Therefore, there is no feasible setback that would allow for the proposed uses to be developed at such a distance without exceeding Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height restrictions (100 to 150 feet above ground level) and/or substantially reducing the project’s size to the extent where the project objectives are no longer met. Therefore, this alternative was rejected based on its infeasibility and inability to meet the basic project objectives.

5.3.4 Residential Alternative
Residential uses typically generate fewer vehicle trips than commercial uses, on a per-square foot basis, and do not include diesel-fueled emergency generators or boilers that would be utilized by the project. Accordingly, an alternative that would develop all residential uses at the Specific Plan area was considered based on its potential to reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during operation (Impact AQ-2b), operational health risks at sensitive receptors (Impact AQ-3), and hazardous conditions at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection (Impact TR-3d). The Residential Alternative would also reduce and potentially avoid the project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to those topics (Impacts C-AQ-2, C-AQ-3, and C-TR-3d). Approximately 2,300 residential units would be constructed under the Residential Alternative. Residential uses would only be developed in the 2012 SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP)’s 65 decibel (dB) noise contour (approximately half of the Specific Plan area in the northern/eastern portion) because according to the ALUCP, residential uses are incompatible uses in the 70 dB noise contour (approximately half of the Specific City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Plan area in the southern/western portion ). This assumes high-density development at approximately 180 units/acre, consistent with the density the City applies in the Downtown Transit Core district, which is similarly transit-oriented.1 The portion of the Specific Plan area in the 70 dB noise contour would be developed with private open space to serve the residential uses. Refer to Figure 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Noise and Vibration, of this EIR for a map of the noise contour zones that cross the Specific Plan area.

Residential development is not consistent with the Specific Plan area’s current General Plan land use designation (Office) or zoning district (Business and Professional Office), 2 which are intended to
provide for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices in locations proximate to BART or Caltrain stations. The City’s pending General Plan Update, Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, has proposed to maintain the existing land use designation for the Specific Plan area in the preferred alternative (although would rename it as Business and Professional Office), which would ultimately serve as the basis for the updated Land Use Element.3 Although residential uses in San Bruno are located to the south, the Specific Plan Area generally is not well suited for residential development as the Specific Plan area is an existing industrial site that is surrounded by commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities to the north and east. In addition, it is likely that under the Residential Alternative, additional studies, remediation, or mitigation measures beyond what have been currently completed or proposed in Chapter 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would be required to prevent the release of or exposure to potentially contaminated on-site soil and/or groundwater that would enable the development of residential uses. Furthermore, a residential alternative would be inconsistent with virtually all of the project objectives. Therefore, this alternative was rejected based on its infeasibility and inability to meet the basic project objectives.

5.3.5 Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D) A residential-only alternative was determined to be inconsistent with virtually all of the project objectives; therefore, a mixed-use residential, office, and R&D alternative was considered. As stated above, residential uses typically generate fewer vehicle trips than commercial uses and do not include diesel-fueled emergency generators or boilers that would be utilized by the project. This alternative would develop residential uses in the ALUCP’s 65 dB noise contour (northern/eastern portion of the Specific Plan area) because according to the ALUCP, residential uses are incompatible uses in the 70 dB noise contour (southern/western portion of the Specific Plan area). Approximately 2,300 residential units would be constructed, based on the assumptions stated in Section 5.3.4. The portion of the Specific Plan area in the 70 dB noise contour would be developed with approximately 1.4 million square feet of office/R&D space and 88,000 square feet of amenity space, assuming similar building intensity across that portion of the site as the proposed project. This alternative would also develop the new Southline Avenue and all of the off-site improvements. Similar to the project, non-residential uses in the southern portion of the site would be constructed first, along with Southline Avenue and the majority of the off-site improvements, while the future phase areas would be used for construction staging and vehicle parking. The Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D) Alternative was 1 26.5 acres * 0.5 (portion of site in 65 dB noise contour) *180 dwelling units/acre = 2,385 dwelling units, rounded to 2,300.
2 A small, approximately 0.3-acre portion of the Specific Plan area is designated under the General Plan and zoned as Parks and Recreation; this is a linear strip that runs in a southwest-northeast direction, corresponding with an historic rail easement.
3 City of South San Francisco, 2021. Shape SSF Preferred Alternative. Available: https://shapessf.com/ preferredalternative/. Accessed: September 7, 2021.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
considered for its potential to reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions during operation (Impact AQ-2b), operational health risks at sensitive receptors (Impact AQ-3), and hazardous conditions at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection (Impact TR-3d), while allowing for a similar overall scale of development throughout the Specific Plan area. The Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D) would also reduce and potentially avoid the project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to those topics (Impacts C-AQ-2, C-AQ-3, C-NOI-1, and C-TR-3d).

While the Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D) would result in fewer mobile source emissions and fewer operational sources of TACs, this alternative would introduce more sensitive receptors in proximity to construction activities during future phases. It would also introduce more sensitive receptors in proximity to operational sources of TACs in the future phase areas. Thus, while some significant impacts could be reduced or avoided, other impacts would be increased in severity.

Furthermore, as stated above under the Residential Alternative, the Specific Plan area is not designated or zoned for residential use, and generally is not well suited for residential development.

The Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D) would not develop an integrated commercial campus, and as such, would not meet the underlying purpose of the project to create a state-of-the-art, transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D (including life science) uses, and supporting amenities (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations. The Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D) also would not fully meet the following objectives of the project: create a commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Specific Plan area; establish a commercial campus development with sophisticated, unified architectural and landscape design and site planning, resulting in a distinctive campus identity and strong sense of place; and redevelop underutilized parcels within the Specific Plan area to realize the highest and best use of the land by increasing the intensity of the land uses. Therefore, this alternative was rejected based on its infeasibility and inability to meet the basic project objectives.

5.3.6 Alternative Project Location
An alternative that would construct the proposed project at a different location in the City was considered based on its potential to reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts related to health risks at sensitive receptors (Impact AQ-3), construction noise at sensitive receptors (Impact NOI-1a), and hazardous conditions at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection (Impact TR-3d). An alternative project location could also potentially reduce or avoid the project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts with respect to those topics (Impacts CAQ-3, C-NOI-1, and C-TR-3d).

The Specific Plan area is uniquely and ideally situated with respect to public transit; it is directly adjacent to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and the co-located SamTrans Transit Center, approximately 0.75 mile from the San Bruno Caltrain station, and approximately 1.5 miles from the South San Francisco Caltrain station. The underlying purpose of the proposed project is to create a state-of-the-art, transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D (including life science) uses, and supporting amenities (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations. Several of the project objectives are tied to the Specific Plan Area’s location with respect to the BART station (e.g., promote the City’s ongoing development of its transit-accessible corridors with high-quality development; promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by emphasizing public transit linkages, City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
transportation demand management (TDM), and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings; and create convenient and safe pedestrian and bike access from the Specific Plan area to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail). To implement these objectives, the project includes pedestrian circulation improvements along Huntington Avenue and along the Centennial Way Trail to improve pedestrian access to the BART station. Thus, proximity to public transit is key to meeting the fundamental objectives of the project. Additionally, creating a unified commercial campus requires the acquisition of a sufficient amount of land, most likely consisting of multiple contiguous properties.

No other sites that are comparable in size and proximity to public transit are available for new development in the City. There are no suitable sites in close proximity to the South San Francisco Caltrain station as there is currently extensive and ongoing redevelopment occurring by other developers in the vicinity of the station that would preclude a large development, such as the proposed project, from being constructed due to space constraints. Similarly, there are no suitable sites near the South San Francisco BART station due to ongoing development, as well as the location of public uses and quasi-public uses, such as El Camino High School, in close proximity to the station. In addition, the areas surrounding the South San Francisco BART station do not permit office and R&D development, and development of a large office/R&D area would not be consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and vision for the area. Therefore, this alternative was rejected due to its infeasibility.

5.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Review
In selecting alternatives for analysis in this chapter, the City considered: the project objectives and significant impacts identified above; the potential feasibility of alternatives based on factors in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1); and whether the alternative would substantially reduce or eliminate environmental impacts of the projects, with a particular emphasis on significant and unavoidable impacts. Based on these considerations, and CEQA’s requirement that No Project Alternative be evaluated, this chapter evaluates the following alternatives:
⚫ Alternative A—No Project Alternative
⚫ Alternative B—No Intersection Alternative
⚫ Alternative C—Reduced Project Alternative
Under Alternative A—No Project Alternative, there would be no change to existing land uses and conditions at the project site. Under Alternative B—No Intersection Alternative, the new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue would not be constructed; all other features of the project would remain the same. Alternative C—Reduced Project Alternative would involve constructing the same office and R&D campus as the proposed project, but at a reduced maximum height of 80 feet/four stories (compared to the project’s maximum height of 115 feet/seven stories) and a reduced floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.5 (compared to the project’s FAR of 2.4).

Table 5-1, p. 5-15, compares the main features of the proposed project to the three alternatives evaluated in this chapter, each of which is further described below. In order to assist comparison of the impacts of the project and the evaluated alternatives, Table 5-4, p. 5-43, at the end of this chapter, indicates for each significant impact, whether the impacts of the project alternatives are equal to, less than, or more severe than those of the project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 5-1. Comparison of Proposed Project Features to the Alternatives Proposed Projecta
Alternative A –
No Project
Alternative B –
No Intersectiona
Alternative C –
Reduced Project
Total Building Area
(Office, R&D, and
Amenity) (sf)b
2,800,000 Same as
existing
2,800,000 1,404,880
Number of New
Buildings
Nine buildings, one
above-grade
parking structure
(Parking Structure
C)
None (existing
buildings to
remain)
Nine buildings, one
above-grade
parking structure
(Parking Structure
C)
Nine buildings, one
above-grade parking
structure (Parking
Structure C)
Building Heights Four stories (60
feet above grade) to
seven stories (115
feet above grade)
Same as
existing
Four stories (60 feet
above grade)
to seven stories
(115 feet above
grade)
Four stories (80 feet
above grade)
Total Building
Footprint (sf) and
Building Lot
Coverage
543,315 (49
percent)
Same as
existing
543,315 (49
percent)
543,315 (49 percent)
Total Impervious
Surface Area
Including Buildings
and Hardscape (sf)
897,691 Same as
existing
897,691 897,691
Total Area of Ground
Disturbance (sf)
1,435,737 None 1,359,837 1,435,737
Total Excavation
volume (cy)c
688,400 None 682,800 189,800
Maximum Depth of
Excavation (feet
below grade surface)
31 None 31 18
Building Area to be
Demolished (sf)
343,800 (all
existing buildings in
Specific Plan area)
None 343,800 (all existing
buildings in Specific
Plan area)
343,800 (all existing
buildings in Specific
Plan area)
Trees to be Removed 162 (all existing
trees in Specific
Plan area)d
None 162 (all existing
trees in Specific
Plan area)d
162 (all existing trees
in Specific Plan area)d
Trees to be Planted 581e None 581e 581e
a Where feature differs between the Office Scenario and Life Sciences Scenario, the greater or more impactful value is presented. Refer to Table 3-2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR for additional detail. b sf = square feet
c cy = cubic yards; volumes are inclusive of off-site improvement areas. d For the proposed project and Alternative C, up to 19 additional tree removals in the off-site improvement areas (within both the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno) may be required; such removals would be required to comply with any applicable local regulations. For Alternative B, no tree removals in San Bruno would be required. e For the proposed project and Alternative C, additional trees may be planted in the off-site improvement areas, subject to each city’s tree replacement requirements (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 13.30, San Bruno Municipal Code Chapters 8.24 and 8.25). For Alternative B, additional trees may be planted in the off-site improvement areas in South San Francisco, but no trees would be planted in San Bruno.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.5 Alternative A – No Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires evaluation of a “no project” alternative, stating “The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that the no project alternative analysis “discuss the existing conditions...as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and policies and consistent with the available infrastructure and community services.” As noted in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, an EIR for “a development project on identifiable property” typically analyzes a no project alternative, i.e., “the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Such a discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects that would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this ‘no project’ consequence should be discussed.” In this case, the City determined that a “no build” scenario is the most likely outcome of not approving the project because no predictable actions by others, such as proposal of another reasonably foreseeable project, have been identified that could result from disapproval of the project. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) states that the lead agency is not required to speculate, or create and analyze a set of artificial assumptions about what would occur in the future, if it cannot reasonably be known.

5.5.1 Description
Under Alternative A—No Project Alternative, the Specific Plan would not be adopted. No new construction would occur in the Specific Plan area or in the off-site improvement areas. Existing land uses would remain unchanged and in their current physical state. No demolition of existing uses would occur, and no new R&D or office uses would be built, nor would any subterranean parking garages. No new streetscape or open space would be constructed. Southline Avenue would not be constructed, nor would any of the off-site improvements associated with the project, including the the new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and the pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation improvements along Huntington Avenue. Phase 1 would not be built. Existing General Plan land use designations and zoning districts would be maintained in the Specific Plan area. Alternative A would not preclude potential future development of the project site with a range of land uses that are permitted under existing land use designation and zoning at the Specific Plan area. Permitted uses under the existing land use designation and zoning include office and R&D uses, and heavier industrial uses to a certain extent, which are limited to essential infrastructure, general services, warehousing, and related uses in order to maintain the economic viability of the area and to provide a range of employment opportunities. Industrial uses that use or produce substantial amounts of hazardous materials or generate noise, odor, or other pollutants are not permitted.

5.5.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Under Alternative A—No Project Alternative, the physical environment of the project site would remain unchanged. Therefore, Alternative A would fail to meet all of the project objectives. Refer to Table 5-5, p. 5-47, for an evaluation of the ability of this alternative to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.5.3 Impacts
The impact analysis below evaluates the potential environmental impacts of Alternative A and compares them to the impacts of the proposed project for each of the topics evaluated in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. This analysis includes project impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, less than significant with mitigation, and (for informational purposes) less than significant with no mitigation required. This analysis does not evaluate topics for which the project was found to have no impact, as discussed in Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR. Cumulative impacts are discussed for the cumulative impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable for the project or Phase 1 (i.e., Impacts CAQ-2, C-AQ-3, C-NOI-1, and C-TR-3d). Phase 1 impacts are discussed for the Phase 1 impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable (Impact AQ-2b and Impact NOI-1a).

5.5.3.1 Air Quality
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site, and no new operational sources of air pollutants would be introduced to the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. Therefore, Alternative A would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative air quality impacts. Alternative A would also avoid Phase 1’s significant project-level air quality impacts. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project.

5.5.3.2 Biological Resources
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site. No tree or vegetation removal would occur, and no new lighting or surfaces that could misdirect or confuse migratory birds would be introduced to the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.3 Cultural Resources
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site. There would be no potential to affect historic resources or encounter previously unknown archaeological resources or human remains. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.4 Energy
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site, and no temporary demand for energy use during construction would result. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.5 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities at the project site. There would be no potential to encounter previously unknown paleontological resources. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site, and no new operational sources of GHG emissions would be introduced to the project site. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site, and no new hazards or hazardous materials would be introduced to the project site during construction operation. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities at the project site. There would be no potential to alter drainage patterns on the project site or affect water quality. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.9 Land Use and Planning
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities at the project site. No new land uses would be introduced, and the project site would remain in its current condition. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant.

5.5.3.10 Noise and Vibration
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site, and no new sources of noise would be introduced to the project site during City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
construction or operation. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. Therefore, Alternative A would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative noise impacts.

Alternative A would also avoid Phase 1’s significant project-level noise impacts. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project.

5.5.3.11 Population and Housing
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities at the project site. No new land uses that could generate employment and indirect population would be introduced, and the project site would remain in its current condition. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant.

5.5.3.12 Public Services
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities at the project site. No new land uses that could generate employment and indirect population and a resulting increase in the demand for public services would be introduced, and the project site would remain in its current condition. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant.

5.5.3.13 Recreation
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities at the project site. No new land uses that could generate employment and indirect population and a resulting increase in the demand for parks and recreational facilities would be introduced, and the project site would remain in its current condition. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant.

5.5.3.14 Transportation and Circulation
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities on the project site, and no new traffic sources would be introduced to the project site during construction or operation. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. Therefore, Alternative A would avoid the project’s significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts related to hazardous conditions leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project.

5.5.3.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition, grading, excavation, or construction activities at the project site. There would be no potential to encounter previously unknown tribal cultural resources. The project site would remain in its current condition. The mitigation measures required for the project would not be required for this alternative. No new impact would occur relative to City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.5.3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Under Alternative A, there would be no demolition or construction activities at the project site. No new land uses would be introduced that could generate employment and indirect population and a resulting increase in the demand for utilities and service systems, and the project site would remain in its current condition. No new impact would occur relative to baseline conditions, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed project, which would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.6 Alternative B – No Intersection Alternative

5.6.1 Description
Alternative B—No Intersection Alternative would not include the street connection between Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue, and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue; instead, the new Southline Avenue would terminate at Maple Avenue. Alternative B would not include the new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue depicted in Figure 3-21 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR. Under this alternative, Huntington Avenue would not be realigned with Maple Avenue, nor would Sneath Lane be realigned with Southline Avenue. In addition, Alternative B would not include the pedestrian and bicycle improvements to enhance access to BART and SamTrans facilities and extend the Centennial Way Trail along Huntington Avenue. Alternative B was selected for evaluation based on its potential to reduce impacts related to construction air quality, construction TACs, and construction noise, and to address comments raised by the City of San Bruno during the scoping process regarding the relative impacts of constructing, or not constructing, the intersection improvements. Figure 5-1, p. 5-21, provides a conceptual site plan of Alternative B at Phase 1 buildout. Figure 5-2, p. 5-22, provides a conceptual site plan of Alternative B at full project buildout.

Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

Feet
0 100 200
Graphics … 00082.20 (8/2/21) AB
Figure 5-1
No Intersection Alternative—Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

Feet
0 100 200
Graphics … 00082.20 (8/2/21) AB
Figure 5-2
No Intersection Alternative Conceptual Site Plan
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Within the Specific Plan area, Alternative B would construct the same land use program for both Phase 1 and the proposed project. The same Specific Plan and zoning designations would apply to this alternative, which allow for development at a FAR of up to 2.5 within the Specific Plan area with incorporation of Transportation Demand Management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards. In addition, the building design under Alternative B would be the same in height, square footage, bulk, architecture, and materials as the proposed project and would similarly be designed to achieve a minimum LEED version 4 silver rating.

Alternative B would include the same design features that support VMT reduction as the proposed project, including the TDM plan, shuttle service to the Caltrain stations, carpooling and vanpooling services, and the installation of electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking within the project site. Alternative B would implement the same sustainability features, such as water-efficient devices, water-efficient landscaping, energy-efficient HVAC systems and equipment, all-electric energy sources to the extent feasible, and on-site recycling and composting facilities. Alternative B would provide the same open spaces and pedestrian connections within the Specific Plan area as the project.

Utility improvements associated with Alternative B would be similar to those described for the proposed project. The project site is serviced by existing potable water, stormwater, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electric, and trash recycling services. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services through the installation of new, localized connections. Expansions or an increase in capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers. With the exception of the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection and related storm drain improvements, and the Huntington Avenue pedestrian and bicycle improvements, Alternative B would construct the same off-site improvements as the proposed project, including the circulation and utility improvements in Tanforan Avenue; the circulation, intersection, and utility improvements at Southline Avenue/South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue; and the circulation and utility improvements along Maple Avenue.

Overall, construction activities for Alternative B would be similar to the proposed project but slightly reduced in terms of timeline and total activity since no construction activity would occur along Huntington Avenue. As shown in Table 5-1, p. 5-15, Alternative B would require less ground disturbance and slightly less excavation than the proposed project. Construction and demolition activities within the Specific Plan area would be the same as the proposed project.

With regard to anticipated approvals, like the proposed project, Alternative B would require Specific Plan adoption, general plan amendments, zoning map and text amendments, TDM program approval, design review, development agreement, and precise plan(s) approval. Alternative B would also require standard City engineering, building, fire, and protected tree removal permits. Since Alternative B would not include any construction within San Bruno or BART jurisdictions, approvals from those agencies would not be required.

5.6.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative B—No Intersection Alternative would generally meet the underlying purpose of the project to create a state-of-the-art, transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D (including life science) uses, and supporting amenities (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations. However, it would only partially meet the project objective to “promote the City’s ongoing development of transit-accessible corridors with high quality development” because it would not maximize pedestrian and vehicular circulation City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
connections between the Specific Plan area and adjacent public transit facilities. For the same reason, Alternative B would only partially meet the project objective to “promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by emphasizing linkages, transportation demand management (TDM), pedestrian access, and ease of movement between buildings.” Similarly, Alternative B would only partially meet the project objective to “design roadways within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area to ensure that all police, fire, and emergency medical service vehicles can safely and efficiently navigate” since the benefits to emergency access that would be achieved by extending and connecting Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue would not be achieved under this alternative.

Alternative B would not meet the project objective to “construct a new east-west public street through the Specific Plan area to improve site access and regional roadway circulation, in furtherance of City General Plan policies” because it would not construct the new intersection of Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Avenue to connect to the new Southline Avenue. In addition, Alternative B would not meet the project objective to “create convenient and safe pedestrian and bike access from the Specific Plan area to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail” because it would not include the BART station access and Centennial Way Trail improvements along Huntington Avenue that are proposed under the project. For the same reason, Alternative B also would not meet the project objective to “enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access in the area surrounding the Specific Plan area.” Alternative B also would not meet the project objective to “work cooperatively with relevant agencies to implement off-site improvements with planned regional circulation and safety improvements.” Therefore, Alternative B would meet some but not all of the project objectives. Refer to Table 5-5, p. 5-47, for a summary of the ability of this alternative to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

5.6.3 Impacts
The impact analysis below evaluates the potential environmental impacts of Alternative B and compares them to the impacts of the proposed project for each of the topics evaluated in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. This analysis includes project impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, less than significant with mitigation, and (for informational purposes) less than significant with no mitigation required. This analysis does not evaluate topics for which the project was found to have no impact, as discussed in Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR. Cumulative impacts are discussed for the cumulative impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable for the project or Phase 1 (i.e., Impacts CAQ-2, C-AQ-3, C-NOI-1, and C-TR-3d). Phase 1 impacts are discussed for the Phase 1 impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable (Impact AQ-2b and Impact NOI-1a).

5.6.3.1 Air Quality
The same project goals, policies, and development standards identified in 2017 Clean Air Plan would apply to Alternative B. Alternative B would develop the same land use program as the proposed project and would include the same sustainability features. As such, Alternative B would support the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with its implementation. This impact would be the same as that of the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. Similar to the project, Alternative B would not result in any odor-generating land uses and would not violate BAAQMD Regulation 7. Accordingly, odor impacts under Alternative B would be the same as under the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Alternative B would not include a new signalized intersection at the project entrance, Huntington Avenue would not be realigned with Maple Avenue, Sneath Lane would not be realigned with Southline Avenue, and pedestrian and bicycle routes would not be improved to connect with the BART station and Centennial Way Trail. Accordingly, reduced construction activity would be required within these off-site improvement areas, which would reduce construction emissions.

Given the extent of the reduction (i.e., reduced ground disturbance of approximately 79,500 square feet and reduced excavation volume of approximately 5,600 cubic yards), this would reduce construction-related emissions impacts but not substantially enough to eliminate the significant impacts. Thus, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 would continue to apply to Alternative B.

Project-level and cumulative-level impacts associated with construction criteria air pollutant emissions (Impact AQ-2a and Impact C-AQ-2) were conservatively assumed to remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative, although reduced compared to the proposed project based on the reduced scale of construction activity.

During operations, the building energy sources of emissions under Alternative B would be the same as the proposed project, including in Phase 1. Alternative B would generate more VMT than the proposed project because there would be no VMT reduction associated with the Southline Avenue expansion (see Section 5.5.3.14, Transportation and Circulation), although VMT impacts would remain less than significant. Consequently, Alternative B would generate more operational mobile source emissions, and Mitigation Measure AQ-7 would continue to apply to Alternative B. Phase 1 generator testing would also be the same under this alternative, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-8. Overall, project-level and cumulative-level impacts associated with operations criteria air pollutant emissions (Impact AQ-2b and Impact C-AQ-2) would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative, as with the project, and slightly increased compared to the proposed project due to an increase in mobile source emissions.

Construction and operation of Alternative B would generate toxic air contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), particulate matter (PM2.5), and reactive organic gasses (ROG) from solvents and chemicals specific to research labs that could be developed in the R&D buildings under the Life Sciences Scenario. Because slightly reduced construction activity would be required within the off-site improvement areas, Alternative B would generate less TACs during construction, but would not eliminate the project’s significant impacts. Alternative B would generate the same amount of TACs during operation. These TACs would be within the same proximity from the same sensitive receptors that would be affected by the proposed project. Thus, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through AQ-9 would continue to apply to Alternative B. Project-level and cumulativelevel impacts associated with health risks (Impact AQ-3 and Impact C-AQ-3) would remain significant and unavoidable under this alternative, although slightly reduced compared to the proposed project due to the reduced extent of construction.

5.6.3.2 Biological Resources
Alternative B would be located on the same project site as the proposed project, would require the same amount of demolition and tree removals, and would occupy the same building footprints.

Therefore, there would be no impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; state or federally protected wetlands; the movement of fish species, the use wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites for fish and terrestrial, non-avian species; or provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, similar to the proposed project. No mitigation would be required.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Additionally, impacts on movement of terrestrial, non-avian species would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant for Alternative B.

Under Alternative B, tree removal and structure demolition would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on peregrine falcon, roosting special-status bat species, and resident and migratory nesting birds protected under state and federal laws, and impacts on native wildlife nursery sites for birds and bats would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation for Alternative B. Thus, Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b would continue to apply to Alternative B. Additionally, Alternative B would comply with the South San Francisco Municipal Code and San Bruno Municipal Code when conducting tree removal; therefore, impacts on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant for Alternative B.

Under Alternative B, building size, building surfaces, and operational lighting of buildings would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on the movement of migratory birds and the use of the site as a bird migratory corridor would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation for Alternative B. Thus, Mitigation Measures BIO-2a and BIO-2b would continue to apply to Alternative B. Overall, biological resource impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative B, and similar to those of the proposed project.

5.6.3.3 Cultural Resources
Alternative B would be located on the same project site as the proposed project and would require the same amount of demolition. Ground disturbance would be slightly reduced compared to the project due to the reduced scale of off-site improvements, because the amount of off-site improvements would decrease; however, excavation activities associated with the parking structures would still occur resulting in potential impacts to cultural resources. Potential impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains that would occur under the proposed project would also occur under Alternative B; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, Interpretive Signage Plan; CR-2a, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program; CR-2b, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation For Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and CR-3, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission, would continue to apply to this alternative. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, as with the project, but slightly reduced compared to the project due to the reduced extent of ground disturbance.

5.6.3.4 Energy
Alternative B would not include a new signalized intersection at the project entrance, Huntington Avenue would not be realigned with Maple Avenue, Sneath Lane would not be realigned with Southline Avenue, and pedestrian and bicycle routes would not be improved to connect with the BART station and Centennial Way Trail. Accordingly, reduced construction activity would be required within the off-site improvement areas, which would likely reduce the amount of energy consumed during construction-related activities, but would not eliminate the energy impact, and Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would still apply. Alternative B would consume less energy, and would have a lesser impact than the proposed project’s project-level and cumulative-level less-thansignificant-with mitigation energy impacts.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Operation of Alternative B would result in similar operations-related energy usage and consumption compared to the proposed project. Alternative B would generate slightly more VMT, and thus consume more energy in the form of fuel, than the proposed project because there would be no VMT reduction associated with the Southline Avenue expansion (see Section 5.5.3.14, Transportation and Circulation). However, as with the project, Alternative B would be designed to meet LEED version 4 Silver rating, water efficient devices and landscaping, passive heating and cooling design strategies, on-site recycling and composting facilities, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and TDM measures. Consequently, project-level and cumulative-level operational energy impacts under Alternative B would be greater than the impacts of the proposed project, but still less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

5.6.3.5 Geology and Soils
Alternative B involves construction of one less intersection than the proposed project. Otherwise, Alternative B involves the same proposed project implementation as the proposed project. The same structures, utility improvements, and road improvements—other than the intersection at Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and the Huntington Avenue pedestrian and bicycle improvements—would be constructed during project construction and used during project operation. Furthermore, Alternative B would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the proposed project.

Because Alternative B would be constructed at the same location as the proposed project, distance to seismic sources and underlying sediments would be the same as for the proposed project.

Therefore, impacts related to surface fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction and landslide, would be the same as the proposed project. In addition, because Alternative B would be constructed on the same underlying sediments as the proposed project, impacts related to expansive soils would be the same as the proposed project.

Because Alternative B would be constructed at the same location and involve the same maximum depths of excavation as the proposed project, it would encounter groundwater at the same location and require the same extent of temporary dewatering and shoring during construction. This would result in the same impacts related to unstable soils as a result of high groundwater and subsidence as a result of dewatering. In addition, because Alternative B would be constructed on the same underlying sediments as the proposed project, impacts related to static settlement would also be the same.

Alternative B, like the proposed project, would connect to South San Francisco’s sewer and stormwater collection and treatment system and would not involve use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system. The impact relating to soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater systems would be the same as under the proposed project.

Alternative B would involve excavation to the same maximum depths as the proposed project as well as being constructed at the same location. The same mitigation to reduce impacts on paleontological resources would be required under Alternative B as under the proposed project.

Therefore, impacts on paleontological resources would be the same as under the proposed project.

Cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity as well as impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation as with the project, and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project due to the reduced extent of off-site construction.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.6.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative B would not include a new signalized intersection at the project entrance, Huntington Avenue would not be realigned with Maple Avenue, Sneath Lane would not be realigned with Southline Avenue, and pedestrian and bicycle routes would not be improved to connect with the BART station and Centennial Way Trail. Accordingly, reduced construction activity would be required within the off-site improvement areas. This would slightly reduce the construction-related GHG emissions, but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would continue to apply to Alternative B. Alternative B would have less-than-significant project-level and cumulative GHG impacts as with the project, and slightly reduced compared to the proposed project.

Alternative B would generate more vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be no VMT reduction associated with the Southline Avenue expansion (see Section 5.5.3.14, Transportation and Circulation). However, Alternative B would still be presumed to have a less-thansignificant impact under SB 743 (see Section 5.5.3.14, Transportation and Circulation).

Consequently, project-level and cumulative-level operations GHG impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant, but greater than those of the proposed project due to the increase in VMT.

No mitigation would be required.

5.6.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Construction activities for Alternative B would be similar to the proposed project, however, Alternative B involves construction of one less intersection. Alternative B would be implemented within the same general footprint as the proposed project and therefore, the potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during ground disturbance and hazardous building materials during demolition also exists. As such, future development associated with Alternative B would be required to implement recommendations included in various site-specific investigations conducted (previously) within the project footprint (described in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR). Furthermore, as there is a potential for exposure to contaminated soil, contaminated groundwater and hazardous building materials, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a through HAZ-2c and HWQ-1 would still be required under Alternative B. Similar to the proposed project, future development as part of Alternative B would also be required to adhere to deed restrictions and DTSC oversight as part of 160 South Linden Avenue.

Impacts associated with foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials and the Alternative B being located on a Cortese List site would be less than significant.

Alternative B would require less ground disturbance at the project site compared to the proposed project but would still require the routine handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, the handling of hazardous materials would still be subject to applicable regulations for both construction and operational phases. Furthermore, operational use of hazardous materials under the Life Sciences Scenario would be similar to the proposed project. R&D tenants under the Life Sciences Scenario would still be required adhere to all applicable federal, state and local regulations for qualifying hazardous materials, seek consultation with the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, and apply for applicable permits for regulated substances (due to the potentially toxic, flammable, or explosive characteristics of these materials). Impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As Alternative B would be implemented in the same general footprint as the proposed project, development under the alternative would be subject to the same ALUCP compatibility criteria, including noise and height restrictions as described under Impact HAZ-5 in Section 4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. Impacts associated with aviation hazards and excessive noise as a result of being near an airport would be less than significant.

As construction activities would be similar in nature to the proposed project, construction under Alternative B would still require compliance with City requirements regarding circulation and access and would also require a final inspection by the South San Francisco Fire Department to ensure emergency evacuation plans are adequate. R&D tenants under the Life Sciences Scenario under Alternative B would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations (as described under Impact HAZ-6 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR). Adherence to applicable regulations and plans would ensure proper emergency response and evacuation if a release of hazardous materials would occur. Impacts associated with impairment or interference of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

Alternative B would be constructed highly developed industrial area, with no wildlands nearby and would not be susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact involving wildland fires would occur.

Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same under Alternative B as under the proposed project.

Overall, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant under Alternative B with mitigation, and slightly reduced compared to the impacts of the proposed project due to the reduced extent of ground disturbance.

5.6.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative B involves construction of one less intersection than the proposed project. Otherwise, infrastructure improvements associated with Alternative B would be similar to those described for the proposed project. The project site is serviced by existing stormwater services. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services through the installation of new, localized connections.

The same structures, utility improvements, and road improvements—other than the intersection at Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue and the utilities that would be realigned in that area—would be constructed during project construction and used during project operation.

Because Alternative B would be constructed at the same location as the proposed project, surface water features, water quality conditions, the underlying groundwater basin and conditions, and flood hazards would be the same as for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to water quality, alterations in drainage patterns, flooding, or release of pollutants due to project inundation would be the same as the proposed project, as the areas that would not be included in the offsite improvements under Alternative B are already developed with largely impervious surface areas, so the resulting drainage patterns would be similar to those that would result under the proposed project. The same mitigation to reduce impacts on groundwater quality during construction dewatering would be required under Alternative B as under the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on water quality would be the same as under the proposed project. In addition, because Alternative B would be subject to the same hydrology and water quality regulatory requirements as City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the proposed project, impacts related to conflicting or obstructing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be the same as the proposed project.

Because Alternative B would be constructed at the same location and involve the same depths of excavation as the proposed project, it would encounter groundwater at the same location and require the same extent of temporary dewatering during construction. This would result in the same impacts related to groundwater supply. In addition, because infrastructure improvements associated with Alternative B would be similar to those described for the proposed project, impacts related to changes in impervious cover, groundwater recharge, peak storm drain flow, and flood hazards would also be the same. Alternative B, like the proposed project, would connect to South San Francisco’s stormwater collection and treatment system. The impact relating to alterations in drainage patterns resulting in erosion or flooding or exceeding the drainage system capacity would be the same as under the proposed project.

Cumulative impacts related to surface water hydrology, water quality, groundwater resources, and flood hazards would be the same under Alternative B as under the proposed project.

Overall, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative B, and slightly reduced compared to the impacts of the proposed project due to the reduced extent of ground disturbance.

5.6.3.9 Land Use and Planning
Overall, Alternative B would have similar land use and planning impacts, though without providing some of the connectivity and pedestrian benefits, as the proposed project. While Alternative B would not include the street connection between Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue and Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue, it would still involve the same land use program for both Phase 1 and the proposed project as currently proposed under the Specific Plan. Without the offsite roadway improvement, Alternative B would be expected to require the same project approvals by the City of South San Francisco, and require fewer approvals from the City of San Bruno. Under Alternative B, Southline Avenue would continue to terminate at Maple Avenue per the existing conditions. Because the existing conditions would remain the same, Alternative B would not result in a new impact related to the physical division of a community. However, with the existing conditions remaining the same, Alternative B would also not offer the circulation and connectivity benefits of improvements provided by the proposed project related to pedestrian and bicycle improvements associated with the new intersection (including associated BART station access and Centennial Way Trail or crosswalks).

Alternative B would not carry out certain improvements that support City of South San Francisco General Plan policies aimed at improving BART access, such as 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) or 3.2-1-14 (Provide new street extensions in Lindenville) as outlined in Chapter 4: Transportation. These improvements include a new interchange at South Airport Boulevard/U.S. 101, extension of Victory Avenue to the interchange, extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station, extension of Mission Street to South Maple Avenue, and Shaw Avenue extension north to Produce Avenue). With respect to the City of San Bruno, while the General Plan does not address this intersection connectivity expressly, it does include policies aimed at improving multi-modal access improvements that would not be fulfilled to same degree as the proposed project. Alternative B City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
would thus fail to further specific City of San Bruno General Plan policies aimed at improving multimodal access improvements along Huntington, such as policies T-47, T-70, or HS-17, or its Walk ‘n Bike Plan (refer to Section 4.10.3.4 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR for a full description of land use policies). While this alternative does not further these policies by leaving these roadways intact per their existing condition, it would not preclude future improvement.

Therefore, and consistent with the EIR findings, Alternative B would not result in an environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Alternative B impacts related to land use would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable; however, impacts would be greater than those of the project due to the alternative’s failure to implement specific City of South San Francisco and City of San Bruno General Plan policies related to transportation and transit connections.

5.6.3.10 Noise and Vibration
Alternative B would not include the project’s proposed new signalized intersection at the project entrance, Huntington Avenue would not be realigned with Maple Avenue, Sneath Lane would not be realigned with Southline Avenue, and pedestrian and bicycle routes would not be improved to connect with the BART station and Centennial Way Trail. Accordingly, construction for all project components may take slightly less time (e.g., the overall construction schedule may be slightly reduced) than would be required for the proposed project. However, overall construction activities near off-site sensitive land uses (e.g., near residences south of Tanforan Avenue) would be similar under Alternative B, including during Phase 1. In addition, the types of equipment required and the intensity of construction activity near off-site noise-sensitive uses would also be similar. As is the case with the proposed project, construction that occurs during the “daytime hours” defined by the City of San Bruno and the City of South San Francisco would comply with local standards and would result in less-than-significant noise impacts for Alternative B.

Since construction outside of defined “daytime hours” for San Bruno and South San Francisco would be expected for Alternative B during Phase 1 (as is the case with the proposed project), construction noise from Specific Plan and for Phase 1 during nighttime hours may be in excess of the applicable criteria for both jurisdictions. As is the case for the proposed project, nighttime construction noise impacts would be considered significant for Alternative B during Phase 1 and for the project as a whole. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which includes measures to reduce noise from construction activity during non-standard construction hours, would reduce construction noise levels, but not to a less-than-significant level for the reasons stated in the project analysis in Section 4.11, Noise, of this EIR. Therefore, Alternative B would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts associated with construction noise for Phase 1 and the project (Impact NOI-1a and Impact C-NOI-1).

With regard to construction haul truck noise, Alternative B would result in similar, or slightly fewer, haul truck trips than the proposed project. In addition, the project haul truck analysis assumed 100 percent of all trucks would use each of the potential haul routes to provide for a conservative analysis. Since the project analysis assumed 100 percent of all trucks would use all routes, and because this alternative would use the same haul routes as the project (with the exception of the routes requiring the use of the Sneath Lane/Huntington Avenue intersection), impacts along Alternative B haul routes would be slightly reduced (since fewer truck trips would occur) as compared to those described for the project. Therefore, as is the case with the proposed project, City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
temporary noise impacts related to haul truck use for the project and for Phase 1 would be less than significant.

Table 5-2, p. 5-21, shows traffic noise levels under the project and Alternative B. As shown in Table 5-2, Project-related traffic noise increases would be greater along most roadway segments than Alternative B-related traffic noise increases in the project vicinity with the exception of four roadway segments where increases associated with Alternative B would be greater. However, Alternative B would also result in some roadway segments having lower traffic-noise levels than would occur with project implementation. Overall, the rerouting of traffic under this alternative from certain intersections would result in higher traffic volumes at other intersections. As with the proposed project, however, all traffic noise increases associated with Alternative B would be below the applicable allowable increase criterion. For this reason, traffic noise impacts under Alternative B would be less than significant, but greater than those of the project at certain locations.

Under Alternative B, the types and amount of rooftop heating and cooling equipment would be the same. Therefore, as with the proposed project, noise from heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment at the project site may exceed the daytime and nighttime thresholds outlined in the Municipal Codes of the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno and at nearby buildings. Implementation of project Mitigation Measure NOI-1b would reduce this impact to less than significant levels for Alternative B.

With regard to emergency generator testing, Alternative B would be expected to include the same number and similar sizes of on-site emergency generators. As is the case with the proposed project, even though the testing of emergency generators would be short term (i.e., 30 minutes each time) and intermittent (i.e., approximately once per month), noise from the testing of emergency generators under the Specific Plan and Phase 1 would result in noise levels in excess of applicable municipal code criteria in both San Bruno and South San Francisco. Noise impacts from emergency generator testing would be significant, and mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1c would reduce this potentially significant impact related to emergency generator testing noise to a less-than-significant level in both jurisdictions for Alternative B. In addition, with regard to loading docks, Alternative B would result in a similar number of loading activities as the proposed project. Therefore, as with the proposed project, temporary and shortterm increases in noise from project loading activity would not be considered substantial. Impacts related to loading dock noise from the Specific Plan and from Phase 1 would be less than significant. Similarly, noise from parking garages and outdoor gathering spaces would be less than significant and the same as the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-21September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 5-2. Modeled Alternative B Traffic Noise Impacts
Roadway Segment
2040 Without
Project
(dB Ldn)
2040 With
Project
(dB Ldn)
2040 With
Alternative B
(dB Ldn)
Project-Related
Increase
(dB)
Alternative Brelated increase
(dB)
Larger Increase
under
Alternative B?
Applicable
Compatibility
Standard
Exceeds
Standard?
Allowable
Increase
Exceeds
Allowable
Increase?
Sneath Lane Between I-280 and Cherry Avenue 67.3 67.7 67.6 0.4 0.3 No 65a Yes 3 No Sneath Lane Between Cherry Avenue and El Camino Real 70.0 70.7 70.4 0.7 0.4 No 70a Yes 3 No El Camino Real Between Sneath Lane and I-380 71.9 72.2 72.1 0.3 0.2 No 70a Yes 3 No El Camino Real Between I-380 on-/off-ramps 72.3 72.6 72.5 0.3 0.1 No Na NA NA NA Sneath Lane Between El Camino Real and Huntington Avenue 65.4 67.1 66.6 1.7 1.2 No 70a No 5 No Huntington Avenue Between San Bruno Ave and Forest Lane 64.7 65.1 64.8 0.5 0.1 No 60a Yes 3 No Huntington Avenue Between Forest Lane/Herman Street and Sneath Lane 64.4 64.8 67.0 0.4 2.6 Yes 60a Yes 3 No San Mateo Avenue Between South Linden and South Airport Boulevard 67.9 68.7 68.9 0.8 1.0 Yes 70b No 5 No South Linden Avenue Between Grand Avenue and San Mateo Avenue 67.6 69.1 66.0 1.5 -1.6 No 65b Yes 3 No South Linden Avenue Between Dollar Avenue and San Mateo Avenue 61.8 64.7 56.7 2.9 -5.1 No 70b No 5 No Tanforan Avenue Huntington Avenue and Dollar Avenue 59.8 55.4 61.1 -4.5 1.2 Yes 60a Yes 3 No South Maple Avenue Tanforan Avenue and Victory Avenue 61.7 64.6 64.4 3.0 2.7 No 70a,b No 5 No Dollar Avenue/Herman Street Between Tanforan Avenue and Scott Street 62.1 62.3 63.9 0.2 1.8 Yes 60a Yes 3 No Source: Traffic volumes provided by Fehr & Peers. Modeling conducted using a spreadsheet that was based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model, version 2.5, at a fixed distance of 33 feet from the roadway centerline. a Located in the city of San Bruno (San Bruno Compatibility Criteria for the most sensitive nearby land use is applied) b Located in the city of South San Francisco (South San Francisco Compatibility Criteria for the most sensitive nearby land use is applied) City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
With regard to damage and annoyance-related vibration impacts, since the proximity of construction activities to nearby residences would be similar under this alternative (e.g. along the western terminus of Tanforan Avenue and the southern perimeter of the project site), vibration impacts would also be similar. Specifically, nighttime construction activities would all occur at least 100 feet from the nearest residences and would generate vibration levels well below the “barely perceptible” level. Daytime construction activities would generally occur at the same approximate distances from off-site residential or commercial/office and industrial buildings. Therefore, as with the proposed project, construction activities for Alternative B would result in vibration levels below the applicable damage criteria for nearby buildings. Annoyance and damage-related vibration impacts would be less than significant for Alternative B.

Overall, construction noise impacts under Alternative B would remain significant and unavoidable similar to the proposed project, but would be slightly reduced compared to the project due to the reduced extent of construction activity. Alternative B would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts associated with construction noise for Phase 1 and the project (Impact NOI-1a and Impact C-NOI-1). Additionally, operational noise levels would be somewhat greater than those of the project due to increased local traffic congestion but would remain less than significant.

5.6.3.11 Population and Housing
Alternative B would have the same population and housing impacts as the proposed project. Under Alternative B, building size (2,800,00 sf) would be the same as the proposed project; therefore, Alternative B would be expected to generate the same number of direct and indirect employees, households, and residents as the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative B impacts related to population and housing would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable.

5.6.3.12 Public Services
Alternative B would have the same public services impacts as the proposed project. Under Alternative B, building size would be the same as the proposed project, and approximately 2.8 million sf would be developed. Therefore, Alternative B would be expected to generate the same number of direct and indirect employees, households, and residents as the proposed project that would be added to the city’s police, fire, school, childcare, and library service populations. Therefore, Alternative B impacts related to public services would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable.

5.6.3.13 Recreation
Alternative B would have the same recreation impacts as the proposed project. Under Alternative B, building size would be the same as the proposed project and would offer the same amenities and open spaces such as the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, and Southline Commons. Therefore, impacts related to recreation would be less than significant under Alternative B, the same as under the proposed project.

Cumulative impacts related to recreation would also be the same under Alternative B as under the proposed project for the same reasons stated above. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant for Alternative B, the same as under the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.6.3.14 Transportation and Circulation
The transportation and circulation impacts of Alternative B are evaluated in Section 6 of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project by Fehr & Peers in June 2021 (Appendix 4.15-1 of this EIR). The following discussion summarizes that analysis.

As documented in Section 6 of the TIA, Alternative B would not change the project site’s proximity to transit and the presumption of less-than-significant impacts to VMT pursuant to SB 743 and the related implementing regulations. Alternative B would not realize the slight decrease in VMT associated with more direct trips between San Bruno and the Lindenville District in South San Francisco, although Alternative B would have a less-than-significant impact on VMT and no mitigation is required.

Alternative B would not provide access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station under Phase 1 or full buildout, but would provide onsite circulation changes consistent with design standards set forth under the Specific Plan. Therefore, Alternative B would have a less-than-significant impact on design hazards, and no mitigation is required.

As documented in Section 6 of the TIA, Alternative B would not cause vehicle trips associated with Phase 1 to exceed ramp storage capacities at any ramps studied; however, queues would exceed ramp storage capacity due to project-related travel at one study location (I-280 Northbound OffRamp at San Bruno Avenue) under buildout conditions (refer to Table 6-4 in the TIA); this impact is studied for project conditions as Impact TR-3b under the Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation. As such, Alternative B would have a significant freeway queuing impact at this location under project, but not Phase 1 conditions in a manner that would not otherwise occur under the proposed project. Construction of the intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue proposed by the project would mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. However, without the direct implementation of the intersection by the project applicant, no plan or funding mechanism exists to implement this mitigation since it is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of South San Francisco or City of San Bruno where the mitigation would be jointly located. Therefore, while the proposed mitigation could reduce Alternative B’s impact to a less-than-significant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact (Impact TR-3b) would be significant and unavoidable for Alternative B. There are no other feasible mitigation measures to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. This significant and unavoidable impact would not occur under the proposed project.

Alternative B would result in increased traffic volumes at the realigned at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue under Phase 1 and buildout conditions. However, project-related crossing improvements would limit the risk of collisions associated with increased traffic, consistent with the Phase 1 and project site plans. Therefore, Alternative B would have a less-than-significant impact on the South Linden Avenue at-grade rail crossing under Phase 1 and buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required.

Alternative B would result in an increase in vehicle traffic across the at-grade rail crossing at Scott Street, but would not increase vehicle queues beyond available storage under Phase 1 or buildout conditions. As a result, the Alternative would have a less-than-significant impact on the Scott Street at-grade rail crossing under Phase 1 and buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required.

None of the project’s five unsignalized driveways meet peak hour signal warrants under Phase 1 or buildout conditions with Alternative B. Alternative B would provide appropriate pedestrian crossing City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
treatments at these unsignalized crossings. As a result, Alternative B would have a less-thansignificant impact on traffic signal warrants under Phase 1 and buildout conditions, and no mitigation is required.

As documented in Section 6 of the TIA included in Appendix 4.15-1 of this EIR, Alternative B would result in a net increase of about 133 PM vehicle trips under Phase 1 conditions and 571 PM peak hour trips under buildout conditions at the intersection of Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue. This intersection meets CA-MUTCD peak hour signal warrant during the PM peak hour under Existing, 2024 No Project, and 2040 No Project conditions; the addition of Phase 1 and buildout traffic under Alternative B would substantially contribute to the need for a signal at this intersection. As such, Alternative B would have a significant impact at this location under both Phase 1 and buildout conditions, (whereas under the project, the impact would only be significant at the project level). Similar to the project, this impact could be mitigated by a fair share contribution towards implementation of a traffic signal. However, a traffic signal at this location is not presently included in a capital improvement of or fee program adopted by the City of San Bruno, therefore, the City of San Bruno does not have a mechanism for funding this mitigation and cannot ensure this mitigation occurs will be implemented. Therefore, while the installation of a traffic signal could reduce the impact on this intersection to a less-than-significant level, because a plan or funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would be remain significant and unavoidable. Therefore, Alternative B would not avoid, and would in fact increase the severity of, the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts related to design hazards at the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Avenue intersection (Impact TR-3d and C-TR-3d).

Furthermore, under Alternative B, this impact would also be significant and unavoidable at the project and cumulative levels for Phase 1. This is not the case with the proposed project, which would result in less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable impacts for Phase 1 under Impact TR-3d and C-TR-3d, respectively.

Alternative B would not include design elements that would hinder emergency access, and all roadways and facilities will be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles. Therefore, Alternative B would have a less than significant impact on emergency vehicle access under Phase 1 and buildout conditions, as with the project, and no mitigation is required.

Alternative B would fail to implement the connection of Sneath Lane and Southline Avenue, the extension of the Centennial Way Trail, and access improvements to the San Bruno BART Station consistent with adopted plans and policies by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, C/CAG, BART and MTC as discussed in Section 5.6.3.9 Land Use above. However, Alternative B would not necessarily preclude these changes in the future, and therefore Alternative B would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs and would have a less than significant impact, as with the project, and no mitigation is required.

Alternative B would not substantially affect transit operations or contribute to transit overcrowding as Alternative B would be expected to generate the same number of direct and indirect employees as the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative B would have a less than significant impact on transit performance under Phase 1 and buildout conditions, as with the project, and no mitigation is required.

As documented in Section 6 of the TIA included in Appendix 4.15-1 of this EIR, Alternative B would result in substantial crowding to pedestrian and bicycle facilities near the San Bruno BART Station entrance that would not otherwise occur under the proposed project, as Alternative B would not City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
include pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements to increase capacity that would otherwise be included in the proposed project. See Figure 5-3, p. 5-27. While existing facilities could accommodate Phase 1 pedestrian volumes, existing sidewalk, crosswalk, and signal facilities are insufficient to accommodate buildout pedestrian volumes under Alternative B, and may pose a hazardous condition due to crowding. Therefore, Alternative B would have a less than significant impact under Phase 1 conditions, while the alternative would have a significant impact under buildout conditions with respect to pedestrian and bicycle crowding that would not occur under the proposed project. Implementation of pedestrian improvements at the San Bruno BART Station entrance as included in the proposed project would alleviate this potentially significant impact under Alternative B buildout conditions. Pedestrian improvements would include adding a bulbout, curb ramps, and marked high-visibility crosswalk on the southern leg of the intersection, a highvisibility crosswalk on the northern leg of the intersection, and retiming the signal to include pedestrian recall. However, without the direct implementation by the project applicant, no plan or funding mechanism exists to implement this mitigation since it is not presently included in a capital improvement or fee program adopted by the City of South San Francisco or City of San Bruno where the mitigation is jointly located. Therefore, while implementation of the Huntington Avenue pedestrian and bicycle circulation improvements could reduce Alternative B’s impact to a less-thansignificant level, because a funding mechanism does not exist, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There are no other feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact to a lessthan-significant level. This significant and unavoidable impact (Impact TR-5B) would not occur under the proposed project.

Source: Fehr and Peers, 2021.

Color Scheme
Areas (Pedestrian Grid Cells)
Attribute: Experienced density (Avg.Min) [ped/ft2]
Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter movements Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conicts
Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conicts
Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restricted Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower pedestrians Speed severely restricted, frequent contact with other users Unde
ned
Pacic Ave
Huntington Ave
Huntington Ave E
Pacic Ave
Huntington Ave
Huntington Ave E
Graphics … 00082.20 (8/24/21) AB
Figure 5-3
Pedestrian Space During AM and PM Peak Hours
No Intersection Alternative
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.6.3.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative B would be located on the same project site as the proposed project and would require the same amount of demolition. However, ground disturbance would be slightly reduced compared to the project due to the reduced scale of off-site improvements. Therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources and human remains that would occur under the proposed project would also occur under Alternative B but would be reduced. Such resources have the potential to be considered tribal cultural resources; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program; CR-2b, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation For Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and CR-3, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission, would continue to apply to this alternative. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, as with the project, but slightly reduced compared to the project due to the reduced extent of ground disturbance.

5.6.3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative B would have the same utilities and service systems impacts as the proposed project.

Under Alternative B, building size would be the same as the proposed project, and approximately 2.8 million sf would be developed. The off-site improvements, which would be reduced under Alternative B, would not generate a demand for utilities and service systems. Therefore, Alternative B would be expected to generate the same demand for utilities and service systems as the proposed project.

With the exception of the proposed storm drain improvements at the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection, Alternative B would construct the same utility improvements as the proposed project. Therefore, with construction of the proposed improvements, additional construction or relocation of utility infrastructure would not be required to serve Alternative B. Refer to Section 5.6.3.8, p. 5-29, for a discussion of Alternative B’s hydrology and water quality impacts.

Overall, Alternative B’s impact related to utilities and service systems would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation and less than cumulatively considerable with mitigation.

5.7 Alternative C – Reduced Project Alternative

5.7.1 Description
Alternative C—Reduced Project Alternative would reduce maximum building heights to 80 feet or four to five stories in accordance with the 80-foot maximum building height per the City’s General Plan Special Area Height Limitations (General Plan Figure 2-3) and BPO zoning district development standards, in comparison to the maximum heights that would be allowed under the proposed project of approximately 120 feet (depending on the specific site elevations across the Specific Plan area), as governed by maximum height allowances under FAA Part 77 regulations and San Francisco International Airport ALUCP. The amount of net new development would be reduced to approximately 1,404,880 square feet compared to 2,800,000 square feet under the proposed City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project. Alternative C was selected for evaluation based on its potential to reduce impacts related to construction air quality, construction TACs, construction noise, and signal warrants.

Alternative C would not change the permitted uses that would be allowed to occur under the project or the footprint of proposed buildings, however, it would change the intensity at which they would occur due to the reduced height limit of 80 feet or four to five stories. Phase 1 would still include the construction of Buildings 1 and 7, and the amenities building (Building 2). However, Phase 1, under Alternative C, would involve approximately 449,760 square feet of new R&D or office uses, instead of 700,915 square feet of new uses as proposed under the project. Under Alternative C, Phase 1 would include the same amount of amenity building parking spaces proposed under the project, but would only have one level of below-grade parking under the three buildings on the Phase 1 site instead of two levels of below-grade parking under the proposed project. Furthermore, under Alternative C, the above-ground parking garage would be constructed in future phases of the project, rather than Phase 1. Phase 1 under Alternative C would provide approximately 669 total parking spaces in comparison to 1,379 total parking spaces that would be provided in Phase 1 under the proposed project.

Under Alternative C, future phases of the project would be allowed to develop up to approximately 955,120 square feet of new office or R&D uses, in comparison to the up to 2,800,000 square feet of uses that would be developed under the proposed project (Office Scenario). In addition, unlike the proposed project, Alternative C would not include any below-grade parking levels in any of the future phases. As explained above, the parking garage would be constructed in future phases of Alternative C, and also would not include any below-grade parking levels. Overall, even though reduced amounts of development would occur under Alternative C, the total lot coverage, and amount of pervious and impervious surfaces would be the same as under the proposed project.

Table 5-3 provides estimates of the amount of new development that could be constructed at buildout under Alternative C.

Table 5-3. Projected 2030 Development under the Reduced Project Alternative Square footage (sf)
Existing Building Area Total 343,800
Industrial/Warehouse 339,349
Office 4,451
Existing to be Removed
Phase 1 (2024) 343,800
Remaining Specific Plan Buildout 0
Total to be Removed 343,800
Total Existing to Remain 0
Proposed New Construction
Phase 1 (2024) 449,760
Remaining Specific Plan Buildout 955,120
Total New Construction Proposed 1,404,880
All other features of Alternative C would be the same as, or substantially similar to, those of the proposed project, including the potential office or R&D use, the proposed circulation and City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
infrastructure improvements, the pedestrian realm and open space improvements, building design, TDM program, and sustainability features.

The construction activities for Alternative C would be similar to the proposed project, however, there would be a few key differences. The construction schedule for Alternative C may be substantially shorter than the proposed project, and construction of the parking garage would be included in future phases of project buildout rather than Phase 1. In addition, Alternative C would require substantially less ground disturbance overall compared to the proposed project since subterranean parking would not be provided in any of the future phases. Furthermore, parking provided in Phase 1 under Alternative C would only include one level of below-grade parking, instead of two levels of below-grade parking as proposed with the project. Overall, Alternative C would result in a substantially reduced construction program.

As for the anticipated approvals, Alternative C would still require Specific Plan adoption, general plan amendments, zoning map and text amendments, TDM plan approval, design review, development agreement, and precise plan(s) approval. Alternative B would also require standard City engineering, building, fire, protected tree removal permits, along with other agency approvals (e.g., City of San Bruno, BART, Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, BAAQMD, City/County Association of Governments Airport Land Use Commission, and Federal Aviation Administration).

5.7.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives
Alternative C—Reduced Project Alternative would generally meet the underlying purpose of the project to create a state-of-the-art, transit-oriented commercial campus, including professional offices, R&D (including life science) uses, and supporting amenities (e.g., retail, fitness, restaurants, etc.) in proximity to BART and Caltrain stations. However, it would only partially meet the project objective to “create a commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Specific Plan area” because it would not maximize allowable uses under the existing General Plan land use designation of Office, which applies to virtually the entire Specific Plan area.

Alternative C would involve constructing buildings with the same ratio of office/R&D uses as the proposed project, but with a reduced building height, resulting in approximately 50 percent less square footage. Similarly, Alternative C would only partially meet the project objective to “promote the City’s ongoing development of transit-accessible corridors with high-quality development” because it would not maximize the site’s potential uses to the same extent as the project. Alternative C would only partially meet the project objective to “allow for well-designed, flexible buildings and floor plates that can accommodate a variety of commercial building uses over time to ensure that the Specific Plan is responsive to market conditions and demands” because it would not maximize the allowable land uses on the project site. For the same reason, Alternative C would only partially meet the project objective to “establish flexibility to build the proposed project in phases that respond to market conditions.” Alternative C would only partially meet the project objective to “redevelop underutilized parcels within the Specific Plan area to realize the highest and best use of land by increasing the intensity of land uses” because it would not maximize office and R&D uses at the site compared to the proposed project. Alternative C would only partially meet the project objectives to “provide a positive fiscal impact on the local economy through the creation of jobs, enhancement of property values, and generation of property tax and other development fees” because it would be less viable, generate fewer jobs, enhance the property value to a lesser extent, and generate fewer taxes and fees compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative C would City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
meet some but not all of the project objectives. Refer to Table 5-5, p. 5-40, for a summary of the ability of this alternative to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

5.7.3 Impacts
The impact analysis below evaluates the potential environmental impacts of Alternative C and compares them to the impacts of the proposed project for each of the topics evaluated in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. This analysis includes project impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable, less than significant with mitigation, and (for informational purposes) less than significant with no mitigation required. This analysis does not evaluate topics for which the project was found to have no impact, as discussed in Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR. Cumulative impacts are discussed for the cumulative impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable for the project or Phase 1 (i.e., Impacts CAQ-2, C-AQ-3, C-NOI-1, and C-TR-3d). Phase 1 impacts are discussed for the Phase 1 impacts that were found to be significant and unavoidable (Impact AQ-2b and Impact NOI-1a).

5.7.3.1 Air Quality
The same project goals, policies, and development standards identified in 2017 Clean Air Plan would apply to Alternative C. Alternative C would develop the same land use program as the proposed project, albeit at a reduced density, and would include the same sustainability features. As such, Alternative C would support the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would not conflict with its implementation.

This impact would be the same as that of the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required. Similar to the project, Alternative C would not result in any odorgenerating land uses and would not violate BAAQMD Regulation 7. Accordingly, odor impacts under Alternative C would be the same as under the project and would be less than significant. No mitigation would be required.

Under the reduced construction program of Alternative C, construction activities would be reduced due to the reduced scale of development, which would reduce overall construction emissions in terms of quantity and duration. However, this alternative would not eliminate the project’s significant and unavoidable construction impacts, because construction impacts are evaluated based on maximum activity days, which would be expected to be similar under this alternative. Thus, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-6 would continue to apply to Alternative C. Project-level and cumulative-level impacts associated with construction criteria air pollutant emissions (Impact AQ2a and Impact C-AQ-2) would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative, although reduced compared to the proposed project.

During operations, the building energy sources of emissions under Alternative C would be less than the proposed project because the proposed buildings would be smaller. In addition, Alternative C would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be fewer employees at the project site. Consequently, Alternative C would generate fewer operational emissions. This would reduce operation-related emissions impact but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation Measure AQ-7 would continue to apply to Alternative C, but similar to the project, there is no guarantee that sufficient offsets would be available to mitigate impacts to a lessthan-significant level. Alternative C would likely include fewer generators in Phase 1, however, similar to the project, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-8, which limits generator testing to one generator per day, Phase 1 impacts would still be expected to exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Therefore, Project-level City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
and cumulative-level impacts associated with operations criteria air pollutant emissions (Impact AQ-2b and Impact C-AQ-2) would be significant and unavoidable, although reduced compared to the proposed project.

Similar to the proposed project, construction and operation of Alternative C would generate toxic air contaminants (TACs), including diesel particulate matter (DPM), particulate matter (PM2.5), and reactive organic gasses (ROG) from solvents and chemicals specific to research labs that could be developed in the smaller R&D buildings under the Life Sciences Scenario. Consequently, Alternative C would generate fewer TACs. This would reduce construction and operation-related health risks from DPM, PM2.5, and ROG, but would not eliminate the impacts. These TACs would be within the same proximity from the same sensitive receptors that would be affected by the proposed project.

Thus, Mitigation Measure AQ-1 through AQ-9 would continue to apply to Alternative C. Project-level and cumulative-level impacts associated with health risks (Impact AQ-3 and Impact C-AQ-3) would be significant and unavoidable under this alternative, although reduced compared to the proposed project.

5.7.3.2 Biological Resources
Alternative C would be located on the same project site as the proposed project, would require the same amount of demolition and tree removals, and would occupy the same building footprints.

Therefore, there would be no impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; state or federally protected wetlands; the movement of fish species, the use wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites for fish and terrestrial, non-avian species; or provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan similar to the proposed project. No mitigation would be required.

Additionally, impacts on movement of terrestrial, non-avian species would be the same as the proposed project and would be less than significant for Alternative C.

Under Alternative C, tree removal and structure demolition would be the same as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on peregrine falcon, roosting special-status bat species, and resident and migratory nesting birds protected under state and federal laws, and impacts on native wildlife nursery sites for birds and bats would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation for Alternative C. Thus, Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b would continue to apply to Alternative C. Additionally, Alternative C would comply with the South San Francisco Municipal Code and San Bruno Municipal Code when conducting tree removal; therefore, impacts on local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would be the same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant for Alternative C.

Under Alternative C, building height and square footage would be less than the proposed project, but operation would be the same and include the use of new lighting and construction of buildings with potentially reflective surfaces. Although impacts on the movement of migratory birds and the use of the site as a bird migratory corridor would be reduced Under Alternative C due to the reduced building size, the impacts would not be eliminated. Therefore, impacts would be that same as that of the proposed project and would be less than significant with mitigation for Alternative C. Thus, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a and BIO-2b would continue to apply to Alternative C. Overall, biological resource impacts would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative C, and similar to those of the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.7.3.3 Cultural Resources
Alternative C – Reduced Project Alternative, includes similar demolition and construction activities as the proposed project. However, the depth of ground disturbance associated with Alternative C is substantially less than the proposed project. Only one level of subterranean parking would be included in Phase 1 of this Alternative, compared to two levels included under the proposed project.

Additionally, Alternative C does not include any subterranean parking in future development.

Although, the depth of ground disturbance would be significantly less, the overall footprint of the project and associated construction remains similar to that of the proposed project, therefore, potential impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains that would occur under the proposed project would also occur under Alternative C; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, Interpretive Signage Plan; CR-2a, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program; CR-2b, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation For Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and CR-3, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission, would continue to apply to this alternative. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and less than those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.4 Energy
Under the reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction activities would be required for the reduced building footprint. This would reduce the amount of energy consumed during construction, but would not eliminate the impact. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would continue to apply to Alternative C. Alternative C would have a lesser impact than the proposed project’s project-level and cumulative-level less-than-significant-with mitigation energy impacts.

Operation of Alternative C would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be fewer employees at the project site, and thus would consume less energy in form of fuel. In addition, due to the reduced sizes of the proposed buildings, less energy would be consumed by the land uses in the form of emergency generators, natural gas combustion, and landscaping activities and indirect energy consumption associated with waste and wastewater generation. In addition, as with the project, Alternative C would be designed to meet LEED version 4 Silver rating, water efficient devices and landscaping, passive heating and cooling design strategies, on-site recycling and composting facilities, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and TDM measures.

Operation of Alternative C would result in reduced amounts of energy consumption compared to the proposed project. Accordingly, project-level and cumulative-level operations energy impacts under Alternative C would be less than significant and less than those of the proposed project. No mitigation would be required.

5.7.3.5 Geology and Soils
Under Alternative C, but excavation would be shallower and less extensive, involving only one level of subterranean parking under the three buildings instead of two levels across the proposed project site. In addition, the proposed maximum building height would be 80 feet rather than 120 feet.

Otherwise, Alternative C would have the same footprint as well as the same utility improvements and roads as the proposed project. In addition, Alternative C would be constructed at the same location as the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative C would be subject to the same regulatory requirements as the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Because Alternative C would be constructed at the same location as the proposed project, distance to seismic sources and underlying sediments would be the same as for the proposed project.

Therefore, impacts related to surface fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction and landslide, would be the same as the proposed project. In addition, because Alternative C would be constructed on the same underlying sediments as the proposed project, impacts related to expansive soils would be the same as the proposed project.

Because Alternative C would be constructed at the same location and groundwater is close to ground surface, even though Alternative C would involve more shallow excavation than the proposed project, it would nevertheless encounter groundwater and require temporary dewatering and shoring during construction. The extent of dewatering and shoring may be less under Alternative C than under the proposed project. Because Alternative C would be constructed on the same underlying sediments as the proposed project, there would be impacts related to static settlement. However, because the project structure would weigh less under Alternative C because of its shorter height than under the proposed project, overall static settlement may be less.

Alternative C, like the proposed project, would connect to South San Francisco’s sewer and stormwater collection and treatment system and would not involve use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system. The impact relating to soils incapable of supporting alternative wastewater systems would be the same as under the proposed project.

Alternative C would involve excavation to a shallower maximum depth than the proposed project, although it would be constructed at the same location. Because the sensitive Colma Formation extends to a shallow depth, Alternative C has potential to disturb paleontological resources. Because Alternative C would involve shallower excavation than the proposed project, it has correspondingly less likelihood of encountering these resources. The same mitigation to reduce impacts on paleontological resources would be required under Alternative C as under the proposed project.

Cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity as well as impacts on paleontological resources would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative C, and reduced compared to those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under the reduced construction program of Alternative C, less construction activities would be required for the reduced building footprint. This would reduce the construction-related GHG emissions, but would not eliminate the impacts. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would continue to apply to Alternative C. Alternative C would have a lesser impact than the proposed project’s project-level and cumulative-level less-than-significant-with mitigation GHG impacts.

During operation, Alternative C would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be fewer employees at the project site. In addition, direct emissions generated by emergency generators, natural gas combustion, and landscaping activities and indirect emissions associated with waste and wastewater generation, and water use would be reduced compared to the proposed project because the proposed building would be smaller. Operation of Alternative C would result in reduced operation-related GHG emissions compared to the proposed project. Accordingly, project-level and cumulative-level operations GHG impacts under Alternative C would be less than significant and less than those of the proposed project. No mitigation would be required.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.7.3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative C would have the same footprint as well as the same utility and road improvements and ultimate land use options as the proposed project, however, excavation under Alternative C would be shallower and less extensive, involving only one level of subterranean parking under the three buildings instead of two levels across the proposed project site. Although Alternative C would require less ground disturbance, it would still require the routine handling of hazardous materials.

As such, handling of hazardous materials would still be subject to applicable regulations for both construction and operation. Furthermore, operational use of hazardous materials under the Life Sciences Scenario would be similar to the proposed project. R&D tenants would still be required adhere to all applicable federal, state and local regulations and apply for applicable permits for regulated substances. Impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Although excavation would be shallower and less extensive, Alternative C would be constructed within the same footprint as the proposed project and therefore, the potential to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater during ground disturbance and hazardous building materials during demolition would still exist. As with the proposed project, future development associated with Alternative C would be required to implement recommendations included in various site-specific investigations conducted within the project footprint (prior investigations are detailed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR). As there is a potential for exposure to contaminated soil, contaminated groundwater and hazardous building materials under Alternative C, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a through HAZ-2c and HWQ-1 would still be required. Development would also be required to adhere to deed restrictions and DTSC oversight as part of 160 South Linden Avenue. Impacts associated with foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials and Alternative C being located on a Cortese List site would be less than significant.

Alternative C would be implemented in the same footprint as the proposed project; thus, development would be subject to the same ALUCP compatibility criteria, including noise and height restrictions described under Impact HAZ-5 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR. Impacts associated with aviation hazards and excessive noise as a result of Alternative C being located near an airport would be less than significant.

Construction activities would be similar in nature to the proposed project, and thus, construction under Alternative C would still require compliance with City requirements regarding circulation and access and would also require a final inspection by the South San Francisco Fire Department prior to use of the buildings. Similar to the proposed project, R&D tenants under the Life Sciences Scenario under Alternative B would be required to adhere to all applicable regulations (as described under Impact HAZ-6 in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR). Adherence to applicable regulations and plans would ensure proper emergency response and evacuation if a release of hazardous materials would occur. Moreover, off-site improvements as part of Alternative C – consisting of roadways, sidewalks, and utility easements along roadways surrounding the project site – would improve roadway circulation and adjacent intersections, resulting in improved access to the project site and the surrounding area. Therefore, impacts associated with impairment or interference of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Alternative C would be developed within the same footprint as the proposed project. Thus, Alternative C would be constructed highly developed industrial area, with no wildlands nearby and would not be susceptible to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact involving wildland fires would occur.

Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be the same under Alternative C as under the proposed project.

Overall, impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant under Alternative C, and reduced compared to the impacts of the proposed project due to the reduced extent of ground disturbance.

5.7.3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative C, excavation would be shallower and less extensive, involving only one level of subterranean parking under the three buildings instead of two levels across the proposed project site. Otherwise, Alternative C would have the same footprint as well as the same utility improvements and roads as the proposed project. In addition, Alternative C would be constructed at the same location as the proposed project. Furthermore, Alternative C would be subject to the same hydrology and water quality regulatory requirements as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to conflicting or obstructing a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be the same as the proposed project.

Because Alternative C would be constructed at the same location as the proposed project, surface water features, water quality conditions, the underlying groundwater basin and conditions, and flood hazards would be the same as for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to water quality, alterations in drainage patterns, flooding, or release of pollutants due to project inundation would be the same as the proposed project.

Although Alternative C would involve more shallow excavation than the proposed project, Alternative C would be constructed at the same location and groundwater is close to ground surface.

Groundwater would be encountered and require temporary dewatering during construction. The extent of dewatering may be less under Alternative C than under the proposed project. The same mitigation to reduce impacts on groundwater quality during construction dewatering would be required under Alternative B as under the proposed project. Therefore, impacts on water quality would be less than significant with mitigation and reduced compared to the proposed project.

In addition, because infrastructure improvements associated with Alternative C would be similar to those described for the proposed project, impacts related to changes in impervious cover, groundwater recharge, peak storm drain flow, and flood hazards would also be the same. Alternative C, like the proposed project, would connect to South San Francisco’s stormwater collection and treatment system. The impact relating to alterations in drainage patterns resulting in erosion or flooding or exceeding the drainage system capacity would be the same as under the proposed project.

Cumulative impacts related to surface water hydrology, water quality, groundwater resources would be the same under Alternative C as under the proposed project.

Overall, impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant with mitigation under Alternative C, and reduced compared to the impacts of the proposed project due to the reduced extent of ground disturbance and excavation.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

5.7.3.9 Land Use and Planning
Overall, Alternative C would have the same land use impacts, though without providing some of the density benefits, as the proposed project. While Alternative C would change the density at which the program would occur due to the reduced height limit of 80 feet or four stories, it would still involve the same land use program/permitted uses for both Phase 1 and the proposed project as currently proposed under the Specific Plan. Under this alternative, because project layout would remain the same it would not result in a new impact related to the physical division of a community. With a reduced permitted program buildout, this alternative would not further certain City of South San Francisco General Plan policies aimed at maximizing land use, such as policies 2-G-2, 2-G-3 or 2-G-8 (refer to Section 4.10.3.4 in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR for a full description of land use policies). While this alternative does not further these policies by maximizing the land use on the project site, it would not conflict with them. Therefore, and consistent with the EIR findings, Alternative C would not result in an environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Alternative C impacts related to the land use would be less than significant and less the cumulatively considerable, and similar to those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.10 Noise and Vibration
Alternative C would involve buildout at reduced height and density in comparison to the proposed project. The amount of net new development would be reduced to approximately 1,404,880 square feet compared to 2,800,000 square feet under the proposed project. Accordingly, the construction schedule for the project may be slightly reduced. However, since the footprint of the proposed structures would not change, overall construction activities near off-site sensitive land uses (e.g., near residences south of Tanforan Avenue) would be similar under Alternative C. In addition, the types of equipment required and the intensity of construction activity near off-site noise-sensitive uses would also be similar. As is the case with the proposed project, construction that occurs during the “daytime hours” defined by the City of San Bruno and the City of South San Francisco would comply with local standards and would result in less-than-significant noise impacts for Alternative C.

Since construction outside of defined “daytime hours” for San Bruno and South San Francisco would be expected for Alternative C (as is the case with the proposed project), construction noise from Specific Plan and for Phase 1 during nighttime hours may be in excess of the applicable criteria for both jurisdictions. As is the case for the proposed project, nighttime construction noise impacts would be considered significant for Alternative C during Phase 1 and for the project as a whole.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, which includes measures to reduce construction noise levels, but not to a less-than-significant level for the reasons stated in the project analysis in Section 4.11, Noise, of this EIR. Therefore, Alternative C would reduce but would not avoid the significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts associated with construction noise for Phase 1 and the project (Impact NOI-1a and Impact C-NOI-1).

With regard to construction haul truck noise, Alternative C would result in similar, or slightly fewer, haul truck trips than the proposed project, and would use the same haul routes as the project.

Therefore, as is the case with the proposed project, temporary noise impacts related to haul truck use for the Specific Plan and for Phase 1 would be less than significant.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
During operations, Alternative C would generate fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project because there would be fewer employees at the project site. Therefore, traffic noise impacts from Alternative C would be reduced as compared to project-related impacts. As project-related traffic noise impacts were determined to be less than significant, traffic noise impacts from Alternative C would also be less than significant.

Under Alternative C, the types and amount of rooftop heating and cooling equipment would be similar. However, it is possible that equipment would be located closer to adjacent sensitive land uses because the height of the buildings where the equipment is located would be lower. It is therefore possible that noise from this equipment would be slightly greater under Alternative C than under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, noise from heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment at the project site may exceed the daytime and nighttime thresholds outlined in the Municipal Codes of the City of South San Francisco and the City of San Bruno and at nearby buildings. Implementation of project Mitigation Measure NOI-1b would reduce this impact to less than significant levels for Alternative C.

With regard to emergency generator testing, Alternative C would be expected to include a similar number and similar sizes of on-site emergency generators. As with the proposed project, even though the testing of emergency generators would be short term (i.e., 30 minutes each time) and intermittent (i.e., approximately once per month), noise from the testing of emergency generators under the Specific Plan and Phase 1 would result in noise levels in excess of applicable municipal code criteria in both San Bruno and South San Francisco. Noise impacts from emergency generator testing would be significant, and mitigation would be required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1c would reduce this potentially significant impact related to emergency generator testing noise to a less-than-significant level in both jurisdictions for Alternative C. Similarly, noise from outdoor gathering spaces would be less than significant and the same as the proposed project, while noise associated with parking garages would remain less than significant but reduced compared to the project due to reduced traffic levels.

In addition, with regard to loading docks, Alternative C would result in a similar number (or possibly a slightly lower number) of loading activities as the proposed project. Therefore, as with the proposed project, 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 and from Phase 1 would be less than significant.

With regard to damage and annoyance-related vibration impacts, since the proximity of construction activities to nearby residences would be similar under this alternative (e.g. along the western terminus of Tanforan Avenue and the southern perimeter of the project site), vibration impacts would also be similar. Specifically, nighttime construction activities would all occur at least 100 feet from the nearest residences and would generate vibration levels well below the “barely perceptible” level. Daytime construction activities would generally occur at the same approximate distances from off-site residential or commercial/office and industrial buildings. Therefore, as is the case with the proposed project, construction activities for Alternative C would result in vibration levels below the applicable damage criteria for nearby buildings. Annoyance and damage-related vibration impacts would be less than significant for Alternative C.

Overall, noise impacts under Alternative C would remain significant and unavoidable, but would be slightly reduced compared to the project due to the reduced extent of construction. Alternative C would not reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulative impacts City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
associated with construction noise for Phase 1 and the project (Impact NOI-1a and Impact C-NOI-1).

Additionally, traffic-related noise under Alternative C would be less than that of the project, and noise from rooftop equipment could be greater due to reduced building heights.

5.7.3.11 Population and Housing
Alternative C would reduce the proposed square footage of new development from 2,800,000 square feet to 1,404,880 square feet. Applying the same generation rates as the proposed project, Alternative C would therefore be expected to generate approximately half the number of employees as the proposed project. Similarly, Alternative C would generate less employee-related population and housing growth than the project. Impacts to population and housing would less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable, and less than those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.12 Public Services
Alternative C would reduce the proposed square footage of new development from 2,800,000 square feet to 1,404,880 square feet. Applying the same generation rates as the proposed project, Alternative C would therefore be expected to generate approximately half the number of employees as the proposed project. Similarly, Alternative C would generate less employee-related population and housing growth than the project, and less demand for public services. Impacts to public services would less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable, and less than those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.13 Recreation
Alternative C would reduce the proposed square footage of new development from 2,800,000 square feet to 1,404,880 square feet. Applying the same generation rates as the proposed project, Alternative C would therefore be expected to generate approximately half the number of employees as the proposed project. Similarly, Alternative C would generate less employee-related population and housing growth than the project, and less demand for parks and recreational facilities. Impacts to recreation would less than significant and less than cumulatively considerable, and less than those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.14 Transportation and Circulation
Alternative C would include the same types of land uses as the proposed project, although at a reduced density. Alternative C would also include the same transportation and circulation improvements as the proposed project. Therefore, like the project, Alternative C would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicyclist, and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant.

Given its proximity to transit and location on an infill site, Alternative C would qualify for a presumption of less-than-significant impacts to VMT. Total VMT impacts would be less than significant and reduced compared to those of the proposed project, although VMT per capita would be similar since project employees would likely drive similar distances to/from the project.

Similarly, Alternative C would generate fewer vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle trips, and would result in reduced impacts to freeway queuing, hazards at at-grade rail crossings, and transit and pedestrian crowding, all of which would be less than significant under the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Alternative C would have the same access plan as the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to design hazards and emergency access would be less than significant as with the project.

With regard to the project’s significant impact related to design hazards leading to the unsignalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane meeting signal warrants, the proportion of traffic volumes at intersection this would increase as the project gets larger and drivers seek alternative routes to the freeway; under the project, one percent of Phase 1 trips and ten percent of project buildout trips travel through that intersection. With Alternative C, projectrelated trips through the intersection would be somewhere in between Phase 1 and buildout conditions - about 85 to 90 peak hour trips. This would increase traffic volumes by about five percent at an intersection that already meets the peak hour signal warrant; therefore, Impact TR-3d and Impact C-TR-3d would remain significant and unavoidable under Alternative C, but would be reduced compared to the project at buildout.

5.7.3.15 Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative C includes similar construction activities as the proposed project. However, the depth of ground disturbance associated with Alternative C is substantially less than the proposed project.

Only one level of subterranean parking would be included in Phase 1 of this Alternative, compared to two levels included under the proposed project. Additionally, Alternative C does not include any subterranean parking in future development. Although the depth of ground disturbance would be significantly less, the overall footprint of the project and associated construction remains similar to that of the proposed project, therefore, potential impacts to archaeological resources and human remains that would occur under the proposed project would also occur under Alternative C. These resources can also be considered tribal cultural resources; thus, implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2a, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program; CR-2b, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation For Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources; and CR-3, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission, would continue to apply to this alternative. Overall, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and less than those of the proposed project.

5.7.3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative C would reduce the proposed square footage of new development from 2,800,000 square feet to 1,404,880 square feet. Applying the same generation rates as the proposed project, Alternative C would therefore be expected to generate approximately half the number of employees as the proposed project. Due to the reduced square footage and reduced employee population, Alternative B’s demand for utilities and service systems would be less than that of the project.

Impacts to wastewater infrastructure, wastewater treatment capacity, solid waste disposal, and electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities would less than the impacts of the project, which are less-than-significant. Impacts to storm drainage infrastructure are discussed in Section

5.7.3.8, p. 5-36.

With regard to water supply, as discussed in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR, Cal Water’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the South San Francisco District forecasts significant water supply shortages (up to 53 percent) during single dry and multiple dry year conditions if the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is implemented. Alternative C’s water demand would exacerbate already-projected deficiencies, though not to the same extent as the project. For City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the reasons stated in in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL-1 and UTIL-2 would reduce Alternative C’s impact on water supply to a less-thansignificant level.

Alternative C would construct the same utility improvements as the proposed project. Therefore, with construction of the proposed improvements, additional construction or relocation of utility infrastructure would not be required to serve Alternative C.

Overall, impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative C would be less than significant with mitigation, less than cumulatively contributable with mitigation, and less than those of the project.

5.8 Comparison of Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires a comparison of the alternatives to the project (presented above), and suggests that a matrix may be used to summarize the comparison.

Table 5-4, p. 5-43, compares the significant and less than significant with mitigation impacts of the proposed project to those of the alternatives. Table 5-5, p. 5-47, compares the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the proposed project.

5.9 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative (i.e., the alternative that has the fewest significant environmental impacts) from among the other alternatives evaluated if the proposed project has significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. If the No Project Alternative (i.e., Alternative A) is found to be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Alternative B, No Intersection Alternative, would not avoid any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project or Phase 1. In fact, Impact AQ-2b, C-AQ-2, TR-3d, and C-TR-3d would be increased in severity under this alternative. Furthermore, the alternative would result in two new significant impacts, Impact TR-3b, Freeway Queueing, and Impact TR-5b, Crowding at Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, that would not occur under the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative B is not the environmentally superior alternative.

As shown in Table 5-4, p. 5-43, Alternative C, Reduced Project Alternative, would reduce, but would not avoid, all of the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. Alternative C also would not result in any new significant and unavoidable impacts. Therefore, Alternative C is the environmentally superior alternative.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-43September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 5-4. Comparison of Proposed Project’s Significant Impacts to Alternatives’ Impacts Potential Environmental Impacts Proposed Project Alternative A — No Project Alternative Alternative B —No Intersection Alternative Alternative C —Reduced Project
Alternative
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
Impact AQ-2a: Construction of future Precise Plans
under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in
criteria pollutants for which the project region is
classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable
federal (ozone) or state (ozone and particulate matter
[PM]) ambient air quality standard during construction.

Significant and Unavoidable No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)
Impact AQ-2b: Project operation, including operation of Phase 1, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project
region is classified as a nonattainment area under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard during operation.

Significant and Unavoidable* No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Greater than Project)*
Significant and Unavoidable (Less than
Project)*
Impact AQ-3: The project and Phase 1 could expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

Significant and Unavoidable No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Similar to Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)
Impact C-AQ-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.

Significant and Unavoidable* No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Construction: Less than Project; Operations: Greater than Project)*
Significant and Unavoidable (Less than
Project)*
Impact C-AQ-3: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with cumulative project identified, could
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations.

Significant and Unavoidable No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)
Impact NOI-1a: Project construction would generate a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies.

Significant and Unavoidable* No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)* Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)*
Impact C-NOI-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified would
not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies.

Significant and Unavoidable* No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)* Significant and Unavoidable (Less than Project)*
Impact TR-3d: The project would contribute to existing
hazardous conditions due to project-related traffic,
leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal
warrants.

Significant and Unavoidable No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Greater than Project)*
Significant and Unavoidable (Less than
Project)
Impact C-TR-3D: The project, together with the
cumulative projects identified would contribute to
existing hazardous conditions due to project-related
Significant and Unavoidable No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Greater than Project)*
Significant and Unavoidable (Less than
Project)
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-44September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts Proposed Project Alternative A — No Project Alternative Alternative B —No Intersection Alternative Alternative C —Reduced Project
Alternative
traffic, leading to unsignalized intersections meeting
signal warrants.

Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to a Less-Than-Significant Level Impact BIO-1:* The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW or
USFWS.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar to Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(Similar to Project)
Impact BIO-4:* The project would not interfere
substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar to Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(Similar to Project)
Impact C-BIO-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 biological resources.

Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation
No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation (Similar to Project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation (Similar to Project)
Impact CR-1:* The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
Impact CR-2:* The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation
No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation (Less than Project)
Impact EN-1a:* The project would not result in
potentially significant environmental impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources during project construction.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Construction: Less than Project; Operations:

Greater than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
Impact GEO-6:* The project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation
No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation (Less than Project)
Impact GHG-1a:* The project would not generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment during
construction.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Construction: Less than Project; Operations:

Greater than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-45September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts Proposed Project Alternative A — No Project Alternative Alternative B —No Intersection Alternative Alternative C —Reduced Project
Alternative
Impact GHG-2:* The project would not conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs during
construction and operation.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Construction: Less than Project; Operations:

Greater than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
Impact HAZ-2:* The project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
Impact HAZ-4:* The project would not be located on a
site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar to Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(Similar to Project)
Impact HWQ-1:* The project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(Surface Water: Similar to Project;
Groundwater: Less than Project)
Impact C-HWQ-1:* The Project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified would
not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on hydrology and water
quality.

Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation
No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation
(Surface Water: Similar to Project;
Groundwater: Less than Project)
Impact NOI-1b:* Project operation would not generate
a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other
agencies.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant (Greater than Project) Less than Significant (Mobile Noise: Less than Project; Stationary Noise: Greater than
Project)
Impact TR-3b: The project would not substantially
increase hazards due to freeway ramp queuing.a
Less than Significant No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Greater than Project)
Less than Significant (Similar to Project)
Impact TR-5b: The project would not have a
detrimental impact on bicycle or pedestrian facilities. a
Less than Significant No Impact (Less than Project) Significant and Unavoidable (Greater than Project)
Less than Significant (Similar to Project)
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.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
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 Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation
No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Cumulatively Considerable with Mitigation (Less than Project)
Less than Cumulatively Considerable with
Mitigation (Less than Project)
City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-46September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts Proposed Project Alternative A — No Project Alternative Alternative B —No Intersection Alternative Alternative C —Reduced Project
Alternative
significant cumulative impacts on tribal cultural
resources.

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.

Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact (Less than Project) Less than Significant with Mitigation (Similar to Project)
Less than Significant with Mitigation (Less
than Project)
* = Impact is also significant for Phase 1.
a
As discussed in Section 5.6, Impact TR-3b, Freeway Queueing, and Impact TR-5b, Crowding at Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, would be significant and unavoidable for Alternative B. These impacts would not occur under the proposed project.

City of South San Francisco Alternatives
Southline Specific Plan EIR 5-47September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 5-5. Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives Project Objective Alternative A — No Project Alternative Alternative B —No Intersection Alternative Alternative C — Reduced Project
Alternative
⚫ Create a commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Specific Plan area.

No Yes Yes, but reduced compared to project
Promote the City’s ongoing development of its transit-accessible corridors with highquality development.No Yes, but reduced compared to project Yes, but reduced compared to project Establish a commercial campus development with sophisticated, unified architectural and landscape design and site planning, resulting in a distinctive campus identity and strong sense of place.

No Yes Yes, but reduced compared to project
Allow for well-designed, flexible buildings and floor plates that can accommodate a variety of commercial building uses over time to ensure that the Specific Plan is responsive to market conditions and demands.

No Yes Yes, but reduced compared to project
Establish flexibility to build the proposed project in phases that respond to market conditions.

No Yes Yes, but reduced compared to project
Redevelop underutilized parcels within the Specific Plan area to realize the highest and best use of the land by increasing the intensity of land uses.

No Yes No
Provide a positive fiscal impact on the local economy through the creation of jobs, enhancement of property values, and generation of property tax and other development fees.

No Yes Yes, but reduced compared to project
Provide well-designed retail and publicly available open spaces to increase local participation and usage of the Specific Plan area.

No Yes Yes
Create new publicly accessible open spaces, including plazas, courtyards, and green spaces within the Specific Plan area.

No Yes Yes
Provide an extensive pedestrian network that links buildings and outdoor recreational spaces through paving, wayfinding signage, street furniture, and lighting.

No Yes Yes
Promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives by emphasizing public transit linkages, TDM, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings.

No Yes, but reduced compared to project Yes
Create convenient and safe pedestrian and bike access from the Specific Plan area to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail.

No No Yes
Construct a new east-west public street through the Specific Plan area to improve site access and regional roadway circulation, in furtherance of City General Plan policies.

No No Yes
Enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access in the area surrounding the Specific Plan area.

No No Yes
Work cooperatively with relevant agencies to implement off-site improvements with planned regional circulation and safety improvements.

No Yes, but reduced compared to project Yes
Design roadways within and adjacent to the Specific Plan area to ensure that all police, fire, and emergency medical service vehicles can safely and efficiently navigate.

No Yes, but reduced compared to project Yes
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.

No Yes Yes
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-1
September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Chapter 6
Other CEQA Considerations
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, this chapter discusses significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided as identified in this environmental impact report (EIR); significant irreversible environmental changes, including those related to energy and the consumption of nonrenewable resources; and growth-inducing impacts. For a complete summary of the potential environmental impacts that could occur from implementation of the project, refer to Chapter 2, Executive Summary. For an evaluation of alternatives that could reduce or avoid the project’s significant environmental effects of the project, refer to Chapter 5, Alternatives.

6.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be
Avoided
In accordance with CEQA Section 21067 and with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(b) and 15126.2(b), the purpose of this section is to identify significant environmental impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to less than significant levels by implementation of mitigation measures included in the proposed project or identified in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation. The findings of significant impacts are subject to final determination by the City of South San Francisco (City) City Council as part of the certification process for this EIR.

Based on the analysis provided in Chapter 4 of this EIR, the following significant and unavoidable impacts were identified for the proposed project and/or Phase 1:

Air Quality
⚫ Impact AQ-2a: Construction of future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal (ozone) or state (ozone and particulate matter [PM]) ambient air quality standard during construction. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Project: Construction associated with the new developments that would be permitted under future Precise Plans approved under the proposed Specific Plan (not including Phase 1, which was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact) would result in the temporary generation of criteria pollutants (ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5) that could exceed BAAQMD’s daily project-level pollutant thresholds. While impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, emissions of criteria pollutants may not be reduced to levels below BAAQMD’s thresholds. In cases where emissions continue to exceed applicable threshold levels after implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would be required, which requires applicants of future Precise Plans (not including Phase 1) to track all land use development construction activities occurring under the Specific Plan, assess and determine total emissions for all concurrent construction activities (subject to City of South San Francisco [City] review and approval), and coordinate with a third-party or governmental entity to determine the mitigation fees for each development City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project’s applicant to pay on a pro rata basis to offset pollutant emissions, thereby ensuring that BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds would not be exceeded. Based on recent experience regarding the offsets feasibly available for other large projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is reasonable to assume that offset programs will be available in the future and that emissions associated with development under future Precise Plans can be reduced to levels below threshold levels. Should offset programs be available for this future development, then project impacts on air quality related to construction would be less than significant with mitigation.

However, because it cannot be concluded that offset programs would always be available in the future at the time and in the amount needed for any given future development, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, the construction air quality impacts of future Precise Plans, including health impacts from construction emissions, are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
⚫ Impact AQ-2b: Operation of the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard during operation. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1:

Significant and Unavoidable)
Project: The Specific Plan includes numerous sustainability design features and objectives to reduce operational emissions, operation of projects developed under the Specific Plan would generate criteria pollutant emissions from area, energy, mobile, and stationary sources that could exceed BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-7, applicants of Precise Plans proposing development that exceeds BAAQMD screening criteria would be required to estimate total emissions for operational activities and pay mitigation fees for any operational emissions that exceed BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds.

Offsetting emissions to a level below BAAQMD’s threshold levels would ensure that development under the Specific Plan would not contribute a significant level of air pollution such that regional air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) would be degraded. Based on recent precedent regarding the offsets feasibly available for other large projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is reasonable to assume that offset programs will be available in the future and that emissions can be reduced to levels below threshold levels.

However, because it cannot be concluded that offset programs would always be available in the future at the time and in the amount needed for any given future development under the Specific Plan, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, operational air quality impacts for the project, including health impacts from operational emissions, are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 1: Operation of Phase 1 would generate ROG and/or NOx emissions in excess of BAAQMD thresholds during days on which emergency generator testing would occur. Mitigation Measure AQ-8 limits generator testing to one generator per day. However, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-8, operation of Phase 1 would still result in criteria pollutant emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-7, the Phase 1 applicant would pay mitigation fees to offset pollutant emissions, thereby ensuring that BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds would not be exceeded. Offsetting emissions to a level below BAAQMD’s threshold levels would ensure that future emissions from City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Phase 1 would not contribute a significant level of air pollution such that regional air quality within the SFBAAB would be degraded. Based on recent precedent regarding the offsets feasibly available for other large projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, it is reasonable to assume that offset programs will be available in the future, and that Phase 1 emissions can be reduced to levels below threshold levels. However, because it cannot be concluded that offset programs would always be available in the future at the time and in the amount needed to mitigate Phase 1’s annual emissions, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, operational air quality impacts of Phase 1 are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. ⚫ Impact AQ-3: Operation of future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project: The project would generate localized criteria pollutants of fugitive dust and CO. During grading and excavation activities associated with construction, localized fugitive dust would be generated. Because BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be implemented, per Mitigation Measure AQ-1, construction-related fugitive dust emissions would be less than significant with mitigation and would not expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or risks.

CO impacts were analyzed at the intersection of San Bruno Avenue/El Camino Real, with project CO concentrations summed with background CO levels and compared against the CAAQS and NAAQS. CO concentrations are not expected to contribute to any new localized violations of the 1-hour or 8-hour ambient state or federal air quality standards. Accordingly, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of CO. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for the project.

The project would generate toxic air contaminants (TACs) during construction and operation.

Specifically, construction activities would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 that could expose adjacent sensitive receptors to health risks in excess of applicable thresholds.

Depending on the construction schedule and proximity to receptors, there may be instances where DPM emissions could result in cancer or non-cancer health risks that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds, resulting in a significant impact. The potentially significant impact from the exposure of receptors to DPM during project construction activities would be reduced by Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 and AQ-6, which would reduce fugitive dust through construction BMPs, reduce DPM through Tier 4 engines and model year 2010 engines in clean diesel trucks, and offset any remaining emissions to below BAAQMD thresholds through the purchase of mitigation credits. However, emissions generated by construction activities could still expose receptors to cancer and non-cancer risks in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds during construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-9 would be required to provide a project-level evaluation of health risks from future projects.

Similarly, the process could result in ROG emissions of ROG and its constituent gases.

Additionally, diesel-fueled generators could expose receptors to PM2.5 concentrations in excess of BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations. At this time, definitive conclusions regarding localized health risks from future phases cannot be made (Phase 1 was evaluated City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation). Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-9, applicants proposing development of future phases within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD (e.g., residential), are required to prepare site-specific construction and operational health risk assessments (HRAs). However, this mitigation measure does not ensure that the evaluations would find less-than-significant impacts. Therefore, it is possible that mitigation to address future project health risks and pollutant concentrations may be inadequate with respect to reducing impacts to levels below BAAQMD thresholds. This impact would be significant and unavoidable.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
⚫ Impact C-AQ-2: Construction and operation under the Specific Plan, inclusive of Phase 1, together with the cumulative projects identified, could result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable) Project and Phase 1: As discussed under Impact AQ-2a, construction emissions resulting from individual future Precise Plan projects developed under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, could exceed BAAQMD’s regional ROG, NOx, and PM thresholds. Similarly, as discussed under Impact AQ-2b, long-term operation of individual projects developed under the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, could generate emissions in excess of BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds.

According to BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for air pollutants, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Therefore, cumulative operational air quality impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. Both Phase 1 and the project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution.
⚫ Impact C-AQ-3: Construction and operation of future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not including Phase 1, together with cumulative project identified, could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Cumulatively Considerable) Project: As stated in Impact C-AQ-2, a significant cumulative impact to the region’s existing air quality conditions would occur, which could result in adverse health impacts on sensitive receptors. Therefore, cumulative health impacts are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. The project would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution.

Phase 1: Phase 1, which was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with mitigation, would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution.

Noise
⚫ Impact NOI-1a: Project construction would generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable)
City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Project: Project construction activities would generate noise at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e., residential and hotel uses). Most construction activities under the project are expected to occur during standard daytime hours for construction, as defined by the South San Francisco and San Bruno Municipal Codes. However, a limited amount of project construction could be necessary outside these daytime hours. Based on modeled noise levels, construction noise from concrete pours and other noise-generating construction activities that would occur outside of daytime hours during Phase 1 would exceed applicable criteria for both the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno at the residential receptors along Tanforan Avenue. 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 includes installation of a temporary noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue near the project site, would be implemented to reduce the project’s significant impact related to nondaytime construction noise. While these mitigation measures would reduce construction noise effects, it may not be possible to reduce noise levels during all non-daytime construction activities to less-than-significant levels. For example, locating equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive uses and using equipment with mufflers and sound control devices would reduce noise, but may not reduce noise to below significance criteria. Therefore, this impact is significant and unavoidable.

Phase 1: The construction activities that would be closest to sensitive receptors (i.e., the residential uses fronting Tanforan Avenue) would occur during Phase 1. Because construction impact determinations are based on reasonable worst-case construction noise levels at the nearest sensitive uses, Phase 1 construction activities are the focus of the project construction noise and analysis. Therefore, for the reasons stated above in the project analysis summary, construction noise impacts during Phase 1 would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b. ⚫ 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 ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Significant and Unavoidable) Project: As described under Impact NOI-1a, 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 during Phase 1, including concrete pours, as well as early-morning construction, 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. 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. 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 includes installation of a temporary noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue near the project site, would be implemented to reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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.

Transportation & Circulation
⚫ Impact TR-3d: The project 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 Significant) Project: As analyzed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, the Huntington Avenue/Herman Street/Forest Lane intersection meets the peak-hour signal warrant under noproject and with-project conditions during the PM peak hour. Phase 1 of the project would add approximately 11 trips to the intersection during the PM peak hour, which is unlikely to change intersection operations materially or exacerbate the risk of collisions relative to 2024 Baseline conditions. However, the project would add approximately 301 PM peak-hour trips, which would affect intersection operations more substantially. 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. Therefore, the project would result in a 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 project 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. Additionally, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency, does not have authority to require completion of this mitigation in the City of San Bruno. 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, the impact would be significant and unavoidable for the project.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation required.
⚫ Impact C-TR-3d: The project, together with the cumulative projects identified would contribute to existing hazardous conditions due to project-related traffic, leading to City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. (Project: Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant)
Project: As explained in Impact TR-3d above, the project would result in a significant impact due to the addition of approximately 301 PM peak-hour trips to Huntington Avenue/ Herman Street/Forest Avenue intersection, which would contribute to existing hazardous conditions at the intersection. Therefore, this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable, and the project’s contribution would be cumulatively considerable.

Phase 1: Phase 1 was evaluated separately and found to have a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation required. Therefore, Phase 1’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable.

6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
In accordance with CEQA Section 21100(b)(2)(B), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c), an EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from implementation of the proposed project. An EIR is required to consider whether “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or non-use thereafter unlikely” (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[c]). “Nonrenewable resource” refers to the physical features of the natural environment, such as land, waterways, etc. This may include current or future uses of nonrenewable resources and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. According to the CEQA Guidelines, irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that such current consumption is justified.

Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, discusses topics that could be affected by irreversible environmental impacts, such as agricultural and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, hydrology, and population and housing. None of these environmental topics were found to have significant impacts as a result of the proposed project, including Phase 1, as it is a component of the overall project.

No significant irreversible environmental damage related to hazardous materials is anticipated to occur with implementation of the proposed project. Compliance with federal, state, and local regulations related to office/research-and-development (R&D) uses, as well as the mitigation measures identified in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would ensure that the possibility that hazardous substances from the demolition, construction, and operation of the proposed project, including Phase 1, would not cause significant and unavoidable environmental damage.

The proposed project would involve demolition of existing on site buildings, excavation of soils for grading and to accommodate utility trenches, and construction activities to build new structures and subterranean parking garages, installation of the new roadway, infrastructure, and landscaping improvments. Grading would be required for general site preparation, subterrean parking garages, and for proper on-site stormwater flows. However, grading would not be excessive or greater than what is necessary to complete the project and achieve compliance with stormwater requirements.

Construction and implementation of the proposed project would not result in a large commitment of natural resources, require highway improvements to previously inaccessible areas, or cause City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
irreversible damage due to environmental accidents. No other irreversible permanent changes such as those that might result from construction of a large-scale mining project, hydroelectric dam, or other industrial project would result from development of the proposed project, including Phase 1.

6.2.1 Energy and Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Section 21100(b)(3) of CEQA requires that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing any inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Implementation of the proposed project would commit future generations to an irreversible commitment of energy resources in the form of usage of nonrenewable fossil fuels due to vehicle and equipment use during demolition, construction, and operation of the proposed project. See Section 4.5, Energy, of this EIR, for a discussion of the project’s impacts related to electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel demand. Consumption of nonrenewable resources, other than through energy consumption, may include conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses, and loss of access to mineral reserves. As discussed in Section

4.18.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources, the project site is located in a developed, urban area of the city. No existing agricultural lands would be converted to non-agricultural uses. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.18.3, Mineral Resources, the project site does not contain known mineral deposits and is not a locally important mineral resource recovery site; thus, development of the proposed project would not result in the loss of access to mining reserves.

Resources consumed during demolition, construction, and operation would include lumber, concrete, gravel, asphalt, masonry, metals, and water. Similar to the existing uses on the project site, the proposed project would irreversibly use water and solid waste landfill resources, as described in more detail in section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. However, the proposed project would not involve a large commitment of resources relative to existing conditions or relative to supply, nor would it consume any of those resources wastefully. Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, describes the water supply and demand aspects of the proposed project. As discussed, with implementation of Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 and UTIL-2, the project would result in a less-thansignificant impact on water supply, with mitigation.

In addition, the project site is serviced by existing water, wastewater, stormwater, natural gas, electric, telecommunications, and waste and recycling services. New on-site facilities would be connected to new services through the installation of new, localized connections. Expansion of or an increase in capacity of off-site infrastructure would occur as required by the utility providers.

Project construction and operation would require the irreversible commitment of limited, slowly renewable, and non-renewable resources. However, consumption of such resources would not be considered substantial or wasteful. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of energy, water, and other non-renewable resources.

Since Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, this discussion of the project’s impact on energy and consumption of non-renewable resources accounts for Phase1.

6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must consider the ways in which the proposed project could directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Growth-inducing impacts can result from the elimination of obstacles to growth; through increased stimulation of economic activity that would, in turn, generate increased employment or demand for housing and public services; or from the implementation of policies or measures that do not effectively minimize premature or unplanned growth.

This section of the EIR discusses the manner in which the project could affect growth in the City and the larger Bay Area. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(e), this discussion of growth inducement is not intended to characterize the project as necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. This growth inducement discussion is provided for informational purposes so that the public and local decision-makers have an understanding of the potential long-term growth implications of the project. Although CEQA requires disclosure of growth inducement effects, an EIR is not required to anticipate and mitigate the effects of a particular project on growth in other areas.

Growth-inducing impacts such as those associated with job increases that might affect housing and retail demand in other areas over an extended time period are difficult to assess with precision, since future economic and population trends may be influenced by unforeseeable events and business development cycles. Moreover, long-term changes in economic and population growth are often regional in scope; they are not influenced solely by changes in policies or specific development projects. Business trends are influenced by economic conditions throughout the state and country as well as around the world.

Another consideration is that the creation of growth-inducing potential does not automatically lead to growth. Growth occurs through capital investment in new economic opportunities by the private and/or public sector. Investment patterns reflect, in turn, the desires of investors to mobilize and allocate their resources to development in particular localities and regions. A combination of these and other pressures serve to fashion local land use and development policy. The regulatory authority of local governments serves to mediate the growth-inducing potential or pressure created by a project or plan. In South San Francisco, growth is heavily influenced by the biotechnology and R&D industries, and business decisions to pursue new development within the City are generally guided by non-CEQA factors such as proximity to existing infrastructure (e.g., public transportation) and workforce talent. Despite these limitations on the analysis, it is still possible to qualitatively assess the general potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. Because Phase 1 is a component of the overall project, this discussion of the project’s growth-inducing impacts accounts for Phase 1.

6.3.1 Projected Growth
Development of infrastructure could remove obstacles to population growth if it would allow for development in an area that was not previously considered feasible for development because of infrastructure limitations. 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, as envisioned by the South San Francisco General Plan, and therefore would not induce population growth. Additionally, the project constitutes infill development within an already existing urban environment, and the other required infrastructure improvements would consist of localized City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-10 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
improvements intended to serve project-related demand. Therefore, these improvements would not extend infrastructure into other unserved or underserved areas and, as such, no indirect impacts related to population growth as a result of expansion of infrastructure would occur.

Section 4.12, Population and Housing, discusses population and employment growth as a result of the proposed project. The project would not introduce direct housing or population growth. The project would result in an increase of approximately 10,745 net new employees at the Specific Plan area under development of the Office Scenario (the highest employment-generating buildout scenario). As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, ABAG forecasts that the number of employees working in South San Francisco will increase by 4,635 (10 percent), from 46,365 in 2020 to 51,000 in 2030, and by approximately 3,230 (6.3 percent) between 2030 and 2040. Employees working in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward core-based statistical area (CBSA) 1 are projected to
increase by approximately 168,255 (6.5 percent) between 2020 and 2030, and by approximately 174,265 (6.3 percent) between 2030 and 2040. The 10,745 employees generated by the project under the Office Scenario would substantially exceed ABAG’s employment growth projection for the City by 231.8 percent, but would be well within (6.4 percent) the employment growth projected for the CBSA and the Bay Area2 as a whole (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 exceedance of ABAG’s employment growth projection for the City is not, in and of itself, a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, 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 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 4.11, Noise and Vibration; Section 4.13, Public Services; Section 4.14, Recreation; Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation; and Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. These sections evaluate whether activities associated with the project’s employees would cause significant impacts on the environment.

The net new approximate 10,745 employees generated as a result of the proposed project under the Office Scenario could increase demand for housing and contribute to total overall housing demand citywide. While it is assumed that most of the employees generated by the project would be existing residents in the surrounding region, a portion of the new employees could potentially generate new demand for housing within the City. As discussed in Section 4.12, Population and Housing, the Office Scenario ) is expected to generate 838 employees residing in the City of South San Francisco. These employees would generate approximately 559 households and 1,705 residents in the City when accounting for the household populations of anticipated 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 1 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.
2 The Bay Area is the nine-county region comprising Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.

City of South San Francisco
Other CEQA
Considerations
Southline Specific Plan EIR 6-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
from employment under the Office Scenario would account for approximately 20 percent of the household growth expected in the City from 2020 to 2030. 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. From a regional context, employee-based household and population growth would account for 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, along with 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.

Therefore, while the proposed project would indirectly generate additional residential population and households within the City, CBSA, and Bay Area, based on ABAG projections for household and population growth in the City, CBSA, and Bay Area, population and housing growth indirectly resulting from the proposed project would be within the range of anticipated growth for the City and the region. The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans would be required to pay the Affordable Housing Commerical Linkage Fee, codified in Chapter 8.69 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which would contribute to the development of affordable housing in other locations within the City to address the demand for affordable housing that is created by new commercial development and mitigate impacts that accompany new commercial development.

Furthermore, while the proposed project would result in an increased unfavorable jobs-housing ratio in the City, continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. 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.

The project would be developed within an area with compatible land uses, consistent with the General Plan designation for the Specific Plan area. Due to the project’s close proximity to existing local and regional transportation infrastructure, such as the San Bruno BART station (approximately

0.25 mile), San Bruno Caltrain station (approximately 0.75 mile), South San Francisco Caltrain station (approximately 1.5 miles), multi-use pathways, and other regional transit, in addition to the project’s proposed off-site improvements intended to enhance these multi-modal connections, the project would provide new employment opportunities to existing residents within the region as the project would provide access to a variety of transportation options for reaching the project site from throughout the Bay Area.

Overall, the proposed project would be an appropriate land use for the project site, and the indirect population and housing growth resulting from the proposed project would be within the range of anticipated growth for the City, the CBSA, and the Bay Area based on ABAG projections. The project’s proposed infrastructure improvements would not generate substantial unplanned population growth.

Southline Specific Plan EIR 7-1
September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Chapter 7
List of Report Preparers

7.1 Lead Agency
City of South San Francisco
Community and Economic Development Department
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Adena Friedman, Principal Planner

7.2 Consulting Team
ICF
201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94105
Rich Walter, Project Director
Heidi Mekkelson, Project Manager
Devan Atteberry, Deputy Project Manager
Sandy Lin, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Cory Matsui, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Elliott Wezerek, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Climate Change Specialist Dave Buehler, Noise Specialist
Liz Foley, Noise Specialist
Ross Wilming, Biologist
Gretchen Boyce, Historic Preservation Specialist
Eleanor Cox, Historic Preservation Specialist
Tait Elder, Archaeologist
Lily Arias, Archaeologist
Jennifer Wildt, Senior Archaeologist
Jennifer Andersen, Environmental Planner
Diana Roberts, Environmental Planner
Patrick Maley, Environmental Planner
Jennifer Ostner, Environmental Planner
Mario Barrera, Environmental Planner
Caroline Vurlumis, Environmental Planner
Katrina Sukola, Hydrology and Water Quality Specialist
Jesika Allen, GIS Specialist
Anthony Ha, Publications Specialist
Jesse Cherry, Publications Specialist
John Mathias, Editor and Publications Specialist
City of South San Francisco List of Report Preparers
Southline Specific Plan EIR 7-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Fehr & Peers
332 Pine Street, Fourth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94014
Bob Grandy, Transportation Engineer/Planner
Mike Hawkins, Transportation Engineer/Planner
Daniel Jacobson, Transportation Engineer/Planner
Ashley Hong, Transportation Engineer/Planner

7.3 Project Sponsor Team
Lane Partners
644 Menlo Avenue, Second Floor
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Marcus Gilmour, Principal
DES Architects and Engineers
399 Bradford Street
Redwood City, CA 94063
Dona Shah, Architect
Dawn Jedkins, Architect
Kimley-Horn and Associates
4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Laura Worthington-Forbes
Mike Mowery
Bill Wiseman
Elizabeth Chau
BKF Engineers
1730 North First Street, Suite 600
San Jose, CA 95112
Eric Girod, Civil Engineer
Brock Roby, Civil Engineer
Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP
1 Montgomery Street, Suite 3000
San Francisco, CA 94014
Megan Jennings, Partner
Ashley Weinstein-Carnes, Associate
City of South San Francisco List of Report Preparers
Southline Specific Plan EIR 7-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20

7.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted
City of South San Francisco
Engineering Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Jason Hallare, Senior Engineer
City of South San Francisco
City Attorney’s Office
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Sky Woodruff, City Attorney
Claire Lai, Assistant City Attorney
City of South San Francisco Fire Department
480 North Canal Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Craig Lustenberger, Fire Marshal
City of South San Francisco Police Department
Planning and Crime Prevention
33 Arroyo Drive, Suite C
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Michael Rudis, Master Sergeant
City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
Hae Won Ritchie, P.E., City Engineer
Pamela Wu, Economic and Community Development Director
Marc L. Zafferano, City Attorney
BART
300 Lakeside Drive
Oakland, CA 94612
Gary Anderson, Senior Real Estate Officer (retired)
Paul Voix, Principal Property Development Officer
Caltrain (Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board)
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Lou Tolentino, Engineer III, Third Party Projects
California Water Service, South San Francisco District
1720 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Michael Hurley, Water Resources Manager
City of South San Francisco List of Report Preparers
Southline Specific Plan EIR 7-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
SamTrans
Planning and Development Division
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Alex Lam, Senior Planner, Bus Operations Planning

South San Francisco City CouncilJuly 13, 2022

South San Francisco City Council
July 13, 2022