South San Francisco City Council
July 13, 2022

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

SOUTHLINE SPECIFIC PLAN

CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2020050452
DRAFT EIR PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 2021
DRAFT EIR PUBLIC HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2021
DRAFT EIR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: SEPTEMBER 28–
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
WRITTEN COMMENTS SHOULD BE SENT TO:

City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, California, 94080
Contact: Adena Friedman
(650) 877-8535
[email protected]
State Clearinghouse No. 2020050452
September 2021
ICF. 2021. Southline Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report. Draft.

September. (ICF 00082.20.) San Francisco. Prepared for City of South San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.

Southline Specific Plan EIR i
September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Contents
Tables ..................................................................................................................................................vii Figures ..................................................................................................................................................xii Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................xv Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Summary ....................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR...................................................................................1-2

1.3 Environmental Review Process ..............................................................................................1-3

1.3.1 Notice of Preparation ...................................................................................................1-4

1.3.2 Draft Environmental Impact Report.............................................................................1-5

1.3.3 Final Environmental Impact Report..............................................................................1-6

1.4 Report Organization ...............................................................................................................1-7 Chapter 2 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Summary Description .............................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Southline Specific Plan Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures........................................2-3

2.2.1 Alternatives ................................................................................................................2-58

2.2.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative........................................................................2-61

2.2.3 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved ...........................................2-61 Chapter 3 Project Description......................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Project Applicant ..........................................................................................................3-3

3.1.2 Lead Agency..................................................................................................................3-3

3.2 Project Location......................................................................................................................3-3

3.3 Existing Setting .......................................................................................................................3-4

3.3.1 Regional Setting............................................................................................................3-4

3.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses and Circulation .......................................................................3-4

3.3.3 Site Setting....................................................................................................................3-4

3.4 Intended Uses of the EIR ........................................................................................................3-9

3.4.1 Program-Level Analysis.................................................................................................3-9

3.4.2 Project-Level Analysis.................................................................................................3-11

3.5 Project Objectives.................................................................................................................3-11

3.6 Description of the Proposed Project....................................................................................3-12 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR ii September 2021
ICF 00082.20

3.6.1 Specific Plan Organization ..........................................................................................3-13

3.6.2 Project Characteristics................................................................................................3-13

3.6.3 Phase 1 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................3-38

3.7 Required Governmental Approvals......................................................................................3-44 Chapter 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation .......................................................... 4.1-1

4.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis..................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.1 Introduction to Analysis ............................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.2 Type of CEQA Analysis...............................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.3 Format of the Environmental Analysis......................................................................4.1-4

4.1.4 Applicability of Public Resources Code Section 21099 (SB 743) ...............................4.1-6

4.1.5 Approach to Baseline Setting ....................................................................................4.1-8

4.1.6 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis..................................................................4.1-8

4.2 Air Quality............................................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.2-11

4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.2-19

4.3 Biological Resources............................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.3 Regulatory Framework ..............................................................................................4.3-3

4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.3-12

4.4 Cultural Resources...............................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.4-17

4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.4-21

4.5 Energy..................................................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.3 Regulatory Framework ..............................................................................................4.5-6

4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.5-10

4.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.3 Regulatory Framework ..............................................................................................4.6-8 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR iii September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.6-13

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.3 Regulatory Framework ..............................................................................................4.7-5

4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.7-15

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.8-19

4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.8-26

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality..............................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.2 Environmental Setting...............................................................................................4.9-2

4.9.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.9-13

4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.9-23

4.10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.10-4

4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................4.10-26

4.11 Noise and Vibration...........................................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.3 Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................4.11-11

4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................4.11-18

4.12 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.12-4

4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.12-8

4.13 Public Services...................................................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.13-1

4.13.3 Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................4.13-11

4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................4.13-14

4.14 Recreation .........................................................................................................................4.14-1 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR iv September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.14.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.14-1

4.14.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.14-5

4.14.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.14-6

4.15 Transportation and Circulation .........................................................................................4.15-1

4.15.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.15-1

4.15.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.15-1

4.15.3 Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................4.15-11

4.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................4.15-22

4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources...................................................................................................4.16-1

4.16.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.16-1

4.16.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.16-1

4.16.3 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................4.16-2

4.16.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures...........................................................................4.16-4

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................4.17-1

4.17.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................4.17-1

4.17.2 Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4.17-2

4.17.3 Regulatory Framework ..........................................................................................4.17-19

4.17.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................4.17-29

4.18 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant.................................................................................4.18-1

4.18.1 Aesthetics and Vehicular Parking Analysis..............................................................4.18-1

4.18.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................4.18-2

4.18.3 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................4.18-4

4.18.4 Wildfire....................................................................................................................4.18-5 Chapter 5 Alternatives.................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................5-1

5.1.1 Requirements for Alternatives Analysis.......................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Project Objectives.........................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts...........................................................................5-2

5.2 Significant Impacts that can be Mitigated to Less-than-Significant Levels............................5-8

5.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected....................................................................................5-9

5.3.1 Phase 1-Only Alternative..............................................................................................5-9

5.3.2 Future Phases-Only Alternative..................................................................................5-10

5.3.3 Reconfigured Project Alternative ...............................................................................5-11

5.3.4 Residential Alternative ...............................................................................................5-11

5.3.5 Mixed-Use Alternative (Residential, Office, and R&D)...............................................5-12 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR
v
September 2021
ICF 00082.20

5.3.6 Alternative Project Location.......................................................................................5-13

5.4 Alternatives Selected for Further Review ............................................................................5-14

5.5 Alternative A – No Project Alternative.................................................................................5-16

5.5.1 Description .................................................................................................................5-16

5.5.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives .............................................................................5-16

5.5.3 Impacts.......................................................................................................................5-17

5.6 Alternative B – No Intersection Alternative .........................................................................5-20

5.6.1 Description .................................................................................................................5-20

5.6.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives .............................................................................5-23

5.6.3 Impacts.......................................................................................................................5-24

5.7 Alternative C – Reduced Project Alternative........................................................................5-28

5.7.1 Description .................................................................................................................5-28

5.7.2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives .............................................................................5-30

5.7.3 Impacts.......................................................................................................................5-31

5.8 Comparison of Alternatives..................................................................................................5-41

5.9 Environmentally Superior Alternative..................................................................................5-41 Chapter 6 Other CEQA Considerations............................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot Be Avoided ...................................................6-1

6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.....................................................................6-7

6.2.1 Energy and Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources...............................................6-8

6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts.......................................................................................................6-8

6.3.1 Projected Growth .........................................................................................................6-9 Chapter 7 List of Report Preparers.................................................................................................. 7-1

7.1 Lead Agency............................................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Consulting Team.....................................................................................................................7-1

7.3 Project Sponsor Team ............................................................................................................7-2

7.4 Organizations and Persons Consulted....................................................................................7-3 Appendix 1 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Received on the NOP Appendix 2 Draft Southline Specific Plan
Appendix 4.2-1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Results Appendix 4.3-1 Tree Inventory
Appendix 4.3-2 Biological Database Queries
Appendix 4.4-1 Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR vi September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Appendix 4.4-2 Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District Appendix 4.6-1 Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix 4.8-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Reports
Appendix 4.9-1 Storm Drainage Technical Study
Appendix 4.11-1 Noise Modeling Results
Appendix 4.15-1 Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix 4.16-1 Tribal Outreach Materials
Appendix 4.17-1 Draft Water Supply Assessment
Appendix 4.17-2 Water Infrastructure Technical Study
Appendix 4.17-3 Sanitary Sewer Technical Study
Appendix 4.17-4 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study Appendix 4.17-5 Gas Will-Serve Letter
Appendix 4.18-1 Shadow Study
City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR vii September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Tables
2-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................2-4 3-1 Existing Building Summary ........................................................................................................3-6 3-2 Buildout Scenario Comparison ................................................................................................3-15 3-3 Projected Buildout Summary – Office Scenario ......................................................................3-18 3-4 Projected Buildout Summary – Life Sciences Scenario............................................................3-19 3-5 Summary of Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................3-21 3-6 Allowable Land Uses in the S-C District...................................................................................3-24 3-7 Southline Campus (S-C) Development Standards ...................................................................3-26 3-8 Proposed Bicycle Parking.........................................................................................................3-29 3-9 Proposed Vehicle Parking ........................................................................................................3-32 3-10 Phase 1 Building Summary ......................................................................................................3-39

4.1-1 Specific Plan Buildout Scenario Analyzed for Each Resource Topic (Programmatic Analysis)..................................................................................................................................4.1-2

4.1-2 City of South San Francisco Projects Contributing to Foreseeable Development................4.1-12

4.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Data at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Monitoring Station (2017–2019)............................................................................................................................4.2-6

4.2-2 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for San Mateo County ................4.2-9

4.2-3 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards................................................................4.2-12

4.2-4 BAAQMD Project-Level Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds............................4.2-21

4.2-5 Phase 1 Emergency Generator Technical Specifications and Testing Schedules.................4.2-31

4.2-6 Estimated Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Average Daily Emissions from Construction of Phase 1 (pounds/day).................................................................................4.2-40

4.2-7 Estimated Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Average Daily Emissions from Construction of Phase 1 (pounds/day).......................................................................................................4.2-41

4.2-8 Estimated Average Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions from the Project (pounds/day) ........................................................................................................................4.2-46

4.2-9 Estimated Average Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions from Phase 1 (pounds/day) ........................................................................................................................4.2-48 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR viii September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.2-10 Unmitigated Operational Average Daily Emissions from Phase 1 – Comparison of Generator Testing Scenarios (pounds/day)..........................................................................4.2-49

4.2-11 Mitigated Operational Average Daily Emissions from Phase 1 – Comparison of Generator Testing Scenarios (pounds/day)..........................................................................4.2-50

4.2-12 CO Concentrations at San Bruno Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection at Project Buildout (parts per million) ..................................................................................................4.2-54

4.2-13 CO Concentrations at San Bruno Avenue/El Camino Real Intersection at Phase 1 Operation (parts per million)................................................................................................4.2-57

4.2-14 Phase 1 Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks and PM.5 Concentrations during Construction .........................................................................................................................4.2-59

4.2-15 Phase 1 Cancer and Chronic Hazard Risks and PM.5 Concentrations during Operation..............................................................................................................................4.2-59

4.2-16 Mitigated Cumulative Health Risks from Phase 1 ................................................................4.2-64

4.4-1 Previously Identified Cultural Resources within 0.25 Mile of the Project Site.....................4.4-14

4.4-2 Potential Historic District Contributors within the Specific Plan Area .................................4.4-16

4.5-1 PG&E, PCE, and the State’s Power Mix in 2018......................................................................4.5-4

4.5-2 Electricity and Natural Gas Consumption in the City of South San Francisco, 2010– 2015 ........................................................................................................................................4.5-5

4.5-3 Existing Operational Energy Resource Consumption at the Specific Plan Area .....................4.5-5

4.5-4 Estimated Construction Energy Consumption from Phase 1 (MMBTUs).............................4.5-15

4.5-5 Estimated Operational Net Energy Consumption for the Project........................................4.5-16

4.5-6 Estimated Operational Net Energy Consumption for Phase 1 .............................................4.5-18

4.6-1 Active Regional Faults within 20 Miles of the Specific Plan Area...........................................4.6-3

4.7-1 Lifetimes and Global Warming Potentials of Key Greenhouse Gases....................................4.7-3

4.7-2 Global, National, State, Regional, and Local Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories ...........4.7-4

4.7-3 Phase 1 Emergency Generator Technical Specifications and Testing Schedule...................4.7-24

4.7-4 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions from Phase 1 (metric tons)...................................4.7-25

4.7-5 Estimated Annual Specific Plan Operational GHG Emissions (Office Scenario) (metric tons) .........................................................................................................................4.7-27

4.7-6 Estimated Annual Unmitigated Phase 1 Operational GHG Emissions (metric tons)............4.7-32

4.7-7 Consistency Analysis of Proposed Project with CAP Measures............................................4.7-38 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR ix September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.7-8 Consistency Analysis of Phase 1 with CAP Development Review Checklist.........................4.7-41

4.9-1 Beneficial Uses for Surface Waters of Water Bodies with Potential to Be Affected by the Project..........................................................................................................................4.9-5

4.9-2 Water Quality Impairments within the Project Area..............................................................4.9-6

4.9-3 Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Pervious and Impervious Surface Area within the Specific Plan Area – Project Buildout .............................................................................4.9-30

4.9-4 Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Pervious and Impervious Surface Area within the Specific Plan Area – Phase 1...........................................................................................4.9-33

4.9-5 Peak Storm Drain Flow Within the Specific Plan Area – Project Buildout............................4.9-38

4.9-6 Peak Storm Drain Flow within the Specific Plan Area – Phase 1 ..........................................4.9-40

4.10-1 Comparison of the Project to City of South San Francisco General Plan Goals and Policies................................................................................................................................4.10-44

4.11-1 Definition of Sound Measurements .....................................................................................4.11-2

4.11-2 Typical A-weighted Sound Levels .........................................................................................4.11-3

4.11-3 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ..........................................................4.11-7

4.11-4 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines..............................................................4.11-7

4.11-5 Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines .................................................4.11-7

4.11-6 Modeled Existing Noise Levels in the Specific Plan Vicinity ...............................................4.11-10

4.11-7 Long-Term Noise Measurements from the 410 Noor Avenue Noise Study.......................4.11-11

4.11-8 Short-Term Noise Measurements from the 410 Noor Avenue Noise Study......................4.11-11

4.11-9 General Plan Land Use Criteria for Noise-Affected Areas..................................................4.11-14

4.11-10 City of South San Francisco Receiver Site Noise Level Standards ......................................4.11-15

4.11-11 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments............................................4.11-17

4.11-12 Noise from Equipment Proposed for Project Construction (Leq)........................................4.11-27

4.11-13 Combined Project Construction Noise Levels at Various Distances (Lmax and Leq) .............4.11-29

4.11-14 Noise from Potential Nighttime Concrete Pours (Lmax and Leq) ..........................................4.11-32

4.11-15 Existing and Existing plus Haul Truck Noise Levels along Segments near Residential Uses ....................................................................................................................................4.11-35

4.11-16 Modeled Traffic Noise Impacts on Existing Land Uses.......................................................4.11-38

4.11-17 Estimated Heating, Cooling, and Ventilation Equipment Noise.........................................4.11-40 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR
x
September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.11-18 Modeled Cumulative Traffic Noise Impacts .......................................................................4.11-57

4.12-1 Plan Bay Area Population, Household, and Employment Projections, 2020–2040 .............4.12-2

4.12-2 Employment, Household, and Population Generation — Office Scenario.........................4.12-10

4.12-3 Employment, Household, and Population Generation —Phase 1 .....................................4.12-12

4.12-4 Employment, Household, and Population Generation Compared to Planned Growth — Project Office Scenario......................................................................................4.12-14

4.12-5 Employment, Household, and Population Generation Compared to Planned Growth — Phase 1..............................................................................................................4.12-18

4.12-6 Project (Office Scenario) Share of Planned Cumulative Employment, Household, and Population Growth in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) ........................................................................................................4.12-21

4.12-7 Project (Office Scenario) Share of Planned Cumulative Employment, Household, and Population Growth in the Bay Area.............................................................................4.12-22

4.13-1 South San Francisco Fire Department Calls by Station in 2017............................................4.13-5

4.13-2 South San Francisco Police Department Crime Statistics.....................................................4.13-7

4.13-3 South San Francisco Police Department Response Times and Service Calls........................4.13-8

4.13-4 Enrollment for the South San Francisco Unified School District ..........................................4.13-9

4.13-5 Estimated Students Generated in the South San Francisco Unified School District – Office Scenario....................................................................................................................4.13-19

4.14-1 Parks, Open Spaces, and Recreational Facilities Within One Mile of the Project Site .........4.14-2

4.15-1 BART and SamTrans Service at the San Bruno BART Station ...............................................4.15-5

4.15-2 Person-Trip Generation, Phase 1........................................................................................4.15-30

4.15-3 Vehicle-Trip Generation, Phase 1 .......................................................................................4.15-31

4.15-4 Person-Trip Generation, Project Buildout..........................................................................4.15-32

4.15-5 Vehicle Trip Generation, Project Buildout..........................................................................4.15-33

4.15-6 VMT Effects of Southline Avenue Extension ......................................................................4.15-37

4.15-7 Weekday AM and PM Peak-Hour 95th-Percentile Queues – Project.................................4.15-41

4.15-8 Weekday AM and PM Peak-Hour 95th Percentile Queues – Phase 1................................4.15-42

4.15-9 Queuing at Linden Avenue At-Grade Rail Crossing – 2040 Project Buildout .....................4.15-44

4.15-10 Average ECR Round Trip Travel Times between El Camino Real and the San Bruno BART Station .......................................................................................................................4.15-47 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR xi September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.15-11 Project Buildout Effect on Total Activity at San Bruno BART Station .................................4.15-48

4.15-12 Pedestrian Space Crowding Scale.......................................................................................4.15-50

4.17-1 Historical Water Supply in the Cal Water South San Francisco District ...............................4.17-5

4.17-2 Historical and Projected Water Supplies by Source – Normal Year .....................................4.17-6

4.17-3 Single Dry Year Water Supply and Demand .........................................................................4.17-7

4.17-4 Multiple Dry Year Water Supply and Demand .....................................................................4.17-9

4.17-5 Proposed Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drain Improvements.......................................4.17-32

4.17-6 Anticipated Water Demand for Project Buildout (Life Sciences Scenario), Including Phase 1................................................................................................................................4.17-42

4.17-7 Anticipated Wastewater Generation for Project Buildout (Office Scenario), Including Phase I.................................................................................................................4.17-47

4.17-8 Anticipated Net Increase in Wastewater Generation for Project Buildout (Office Scenario).............................................................................................................................4.17-47

4.17-9 Estimated Solid Waste Generation for the Proposed Project Buildout (Office Scenario), Including Phase 1...............................................................................................4.17-50 5-1 Comparison of Proposed Project Features to the Alternatives...............................................5-15 5-2 Modeled Alternative B Traffic Noise Impacts..........................................................................5-21 5-3 Projected 2030 Development under the Reduced Project Alternative...................................5-29 5-4 Comparison of Proposed Project’s Significant Impacts to Alternatives’ Impacts ...................5-43 5-5 Ability of Alternatives to Meet Project Objectives..................................................................5-47 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR xii September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Figures
3-1 Project Location Map...............................................................................................................3-47 3-2 Aerial Photograph....................................................................................................................3-48 3-3 Existing Site Plan......................................................................................................................3-49 3-4 Existing General Plan Land Use Designation ...........................................................................3-50 3-5 Existing Zoning Designation.....................................................................................................3-51 3-6 Transit Priority Area Map ........................................................................................................3-52 3-7 Conceptual Site Plan – Office Scenario....................................................................................3-53 3-8 Conceptual Site Plan – Life Sciences Scenario.........................................................................3-54 3-9 Conceptual Phasing Plan .........................................................................................................3-55 3-10 Proposed Zoning District .........................................................................................................3-56 3-11 Conceptual Building Heights....................................................................................................3-57 3-12 Conceptual Project Rendering – View from Huntington-Sneath Intersection ........................3-58 3-13 Conceptual Project Rendering – View of Building 3................................................................3-59 3-14 Conceptual Project Rendering – View of Parking Garage .......................................................3-60 3-15 Conceptual Project Rendering – View of Southline Commons ...............................................3-61 3-16 Conceptual On-Site Vehicular Circulation Plan .......................................................................3-62 3-17a Southline Avenue Roadway – Cross-Section A........................................................................3-63 3-18 Conceptual Pedestrian Connectivity Plan................................................................................3-65 3-19 Conceptual Bicycle Connectivity Plan......................................................................................3-66 3-20 Conceptual Off-Site Signal and Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvements....................................3-67 3-21a Conceptual Intersection Improvements at the Southline and Huntington Avenues Intersection – Overview...........................................................................................................3-68 3-22 Tanforan Avenue Improvements.............................................................................................3-70 3-23 Conceptual Subterranean Parking Plan...................................................................................3-71 3-25 Conceptual Landscape and Open Space Plan..........................................................................3-72 3-25 Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan...................................................................................................3-73 3-26 Phase 1 Building Sections........................................................................................................3-74 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR xiii September 2021
ICF 00082.20
3-27 Building 1 Levels 1 and 2 Floor Plans.......................................................................................3-75 3-28 Building 1 Elevations (South and East) ....................................................................................3-76 3-29 Building 7 Levels 1 and 2 Floor Plans.......................................................................................3-77 3-30 Building 7 Elevations (South and East) ....................................................................................3-78 3-31 Building 2 Level 1 Floor Plan....................................................................................................3-79 3-32 Building 2 Level 3 Floor Plan....................................................................................................3-80 3-33 Building 2 Level 4 Floor Plan....................................................................................................3-81 3-34 Building 2 Elevations................................................................................................................3-82 3-35 Phase 1 Conceptual Landscape Plan........................................................................................3-83

4.1-1 Cumulative Projects Within 0.5-mile Radius of the Project Site ..........................................4.1-10

4.2-1 Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors and Emission Sources in the Vicinity of the Maximally Exposed Individual Receptor...............................................................................4.2-10

4.6-1 Regional Fault Map.................................................................................................................4.6-4

4.6-2 Vicinity Geologic Map.............................................................................................................4.6-7

4.8-1 Malaspina Property and Surrounding Properties.................................................................4.8-11

4.9-1 Regional and Local Watersheds within the Project Area .......................................................4.9-4

4.9-2 FEMA Flood Zones Within the Project Area .........................................................................4.9-10

4.10-1 ALUCP Safety Compatibility Zones .....................................................................................4.10-10

4.10-2 ALUCP Critical Aeronautical Surfaces.................................................................................4.10-11

4.10-3 Noise Compatibility Zones..................................................................................................4.10-12

4.13-1 South San Francisco Public Service Providers.......................................................................4.13-2

4.14-1 Parks and Recreation Areas Within 1 Mile of the Project Site .............................................4.14-4

4.15-1 Project Location Map............................................................................................................4.15-3

4.15-2 Existing Transit Services........................................................................................................4.15-4

4.15-3 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities................................................................................4.15-8

4.15-4 Existing Pedestrian Circulation Barriers..............................................................................4.15-10

4.15-5 South San Francisco General Plan – Proposed Streets.......................................................4.15-17

4.15-6 Project Improvement Locations .........................................................................................4.15-38

4.15-7 Pedestrian Spacing – AM and PM Peak Hours ...................................................................4.15-51 City of South San Francisco Contents
Southline Specific Plan EIR xiv September 2021
ICF 00082.20

4.17-1 Existing and Proposed Water Infrastructure ......................................................................4.17-12

4.17-2 Existing and Proposed Wastewater Infrastructure ............................................................4.17-14

4.17-3 Existing and Proposed Storm Drain Infrastructure.............................................................4.17-17 5-1 No Intersection Alternative Phase 1 Site Plan.........................................................................5-21 5-2 No Intersection Alternative Site Plan ......................................................................................5-22 5-3 Pedestrian Space during AM and PM Peak Hours, No Intersection Alternative .....................5-27 City of South San Francisco Acronyms and Abbreviations
Southline Specific Plan EIR
xv
September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Acronyms and Abbreviations
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
ALUCs Airport Land Use Commissions
AMS alternate mode share
amsl above mean sea level
APNs Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BC Business Commercial
BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission bgs below ground surface
BMPs best management practices
BTU British thermal unit
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFÉ standards Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards cal BP calibrated years before present
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAMUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CAP Climate Action Plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCAs Community Choice Aggregators
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCR Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
City of South San Francisco Acronyms and Abbreviations
Southline Specific Plan EIR xvi September 2021
ICF 00082.20
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPPA California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CWA Clean Water Act
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
dBC C-weighted decibel
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESPs energy service providers
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR floor area ratio
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GSAs Groundwater Sustainability Agencies
GSPD Gateway Specific Plan District
GSPs Groundwater Sustainability Plans
GWP global warming potential
HBW home-based work
HFCs hydroflourocarbons
HI hazard index
HRA health risk assessment
City of South San Francisco Acronyms and Abbreviations
Southline Specific Plan EIR xvii September 2021
ICF 00082.20
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Hz hertz
IOUs investor-owned utilities
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IRP 2018 Integrated Resource Plan
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
kBTU thousand BTU
kW kilowatt
kWh kilowatt hour
Ldn day-night level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
LID Low-Impact Development
Lmax maximum sound level
Lmin minimum sound level
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MRP Municipal Regional Permit
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCP National Contingency Plan
NDCs Nationally Determined Contributions
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOC Notice of Completion
NOD Notice of Determination
non-VHFHSZ Non-Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWPR Navigable Waters Protection Rule
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OPR Office of Planning and Research
City of South San Francisco Acronyms and Abbreviations
Southline Specific Plan EIR xviii September 2021
ICF 00082.20
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PCE Peninsula Clean Energy
PCWQCA Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
PPV peak particle velocity
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PM particulate matter
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
R&D research and development
RECs Recognized Environmental Conditions
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS root mean square
ROGs reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RTPs Regional Transportation Plans
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient
SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
SFO San Francisco International Airport
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLCP short-lived climate pollutant
SMCEHD San Mateo County Environmental Health Department SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program SO2 sulfur dioxide
SRAs State Responsibility Areas
SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department
SSFPD South San Francisco Police Department
SSFUSD South San Francisco Unified School District
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TACs Toxic Air Contaminants
TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone
City of South San Francisco Acronyms and Abbreviations
Southline Specific Plan EIR xix September 2021
ICF 00082.20
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TPAs Transit Priority Areas
U.S. 101 U.S. Route 101
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USC United States Code
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VHFHSZs Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WDRs Waste Discharge Requirements
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
WETA Water Emergency Transportation Authority
WSA Water Supply Assessment
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-1
September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Chapter 1
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the proposed project, which comprises buildout allowed under the proposed Southline Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and associated off-site improvements; outlines the purpose of this environmental impact report (EIR); summarizes the environmental review process; and describes the organization of the EIR.

1.1 Project Summary
The project applicant, Lane Partners, proposes to redevelop an approximately 26.5-acre, irregularly shaped site within the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) Lindenville Planning Subarea (Specific Plan area) with a transit-oriented research-and-development (R&D)/office campus.

The Specific Plan area is at the intersection of South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue, adjacent to the City of San Bruno. The Specific Plan area is bounded by commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities to the north and east, single-family residences to the south, and the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, The Shops at Tanforan, and San Bruno Towne Center to the west. In addition, the Centennial Way Trail, a Class I multi-use path, runs generally parallel and west of the Specific Plan area. The approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area encompasses seven parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 014-250-090, 014-250-080, 014-250-050, 014-241-030, 014-241-040, 014-232-030, and 014-232-050) and currently consists of a variety of office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities that were largely constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. The existing structures total nearly 344,000 square feet and include approximately 380 surface parking spaces.

The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses within the Specific Plan area and construct a transit-oriented office/R&D campus with a maximum anticipated building area of approximately 2,800,000 square feet. New development would include commercial office/R&D buildings, a four-story supportive amenities building (Building 2) totaling approximately 88,200 square feet, approximately 3,064 underground parking spaces at various locations throughout the Specific Plan area, a nine-story parking structure with approximately 2,705 spaces (Parking Structure C), a new east–west connection road (Southline Avenue; provisionally named for the purpose of the Specific Plan and California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] review), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and up to 341,800 square feet (7.8 acres), of open space.

Commercial building heights would range from four to seven stories, subject to maximum building height limits in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) requirements.

Off-site improvements would be constructed to support development within the Specific Plan area. These include the following improvements within the City of South San Francisco:
reconfiguration of the South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue intersection; reconfiguration of the existing at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue; roadway widening of and street front improvements on South Maple Avenue; and signalization of intersections at the main Southline campus entry point at Southline Avenue, mid-block at Southline Avenue, and at Southline Avenue and Dollar/Linden avenues. The off-site improvements also include the following improvements City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
located outside of the City and within the jurisdiction of the City of San Bruno and/or BART, which are subject to separate application, review, and approval requirements: a new signalized intersection, reconfiguring Huntington Avenue connecting it to the new Southline Avenue, and providing for improved adjacent bicycle and pedestrian facilities; reconfiguration of Tanforan Avenue to create a cul-de-sac limiting through traffic; and a new dedicated, signalized northbound left turn lane on Huntington Avenue providing a new entrance into the transit center for SamTrans buses . The proposed project would also remove, install, or relocate certain facilities including: dry and wet utilities (aboveground and underground), sidewalks, curbs, and streetscape improvements located both within the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and within BART jurisdiction.

Development associated with the proposed project would be implemented under the proposed Specific Plan, which would establish new land use development standards and design guidelines for the future development within the Specific Plan area. The proposed project evaluated in this EIR consists of (1) buildout under the Specific Plan and (2) the proposed off-site transportation and circulation improvements that would support development within the Specific Plan area – collectively referred to as the proposed project. This EIR provides a program-level analysis of the potential effects on the environment that could occur from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, this EIR provides a project-level analysis of the initial development phase of the Specific Plan (Phase 1), which is a component of the proposed project. Phase 1 would include construction of the new Southline Avenue east–west connection road and the following development, generally located south of the new road: two new office buildings (Buildings 1 and 7), with a total building area of up to approximately 612,715 square feet; the four-story, approximately 88,200-square foot amenities building (Building 2); landscaping and open space amenities; and approximately up to 2,664 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and the eastern portion of the nine-story parking structure located north of the new Southline Avenue (Parking Structure C). The total usable parking proposed for Phase 1 is up to 1,379 parking spaces (approximately 2.2 parking spaces per 1,000 SF), a significant portion of which would be utilized for on-site construction parking and use by future phases. Phase 1 also includes all of the proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure, roadway, and pedestrian improvements within the off-site improvement areas except for the roadway widening, streetfront improvements and sewer main upgrades in Maple Avenue.

1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of the EIR
This EIR has been prepared by the Planning Division of the City of South San Francisco, the Lead Agency for the proposed project, in compliance with the provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.; CEQA Guidelines). The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.

As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15121(a), an EIR is an informational document intended to inform public agency decision-makers and the public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identifying possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. The degree of specificity required in an EIR should “correspond to the degree of specificity involved in the underlying activity which is described in the EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15146). This EIR assesses potentially significant impacts as defined in CEQA City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Guidelines Section 15382 as substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse changes in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic significance.

The purpose of this EIR is to assess and disclose the potential environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the proposed project, as described above, and determine corresponding mitigation measures as necessary. This EIR is intended to provide programmatic CEQA clearance for adoption and implementation of the Specific Plan; the City will rely on the EIR for the processing of related concurrent or subsequent approvals, including Precise Plans, that are consistent with the Specific Plan, and approvals required for the off-site improvements located within the City’s jurisdiction intended to implement the Specific Plan, subject to the requirements of CEQA. The purpose of this EIR is also to provide project-level CEQA clearance for implementation of the Phase 1 development, including the related off-site improvements, as further described below.

This EIR is also intended to provide CEQA clearance for review and/or approvals or actions by other agencies or entities, including approvals by the City of San Bruno for off-site improvements within its jurisdiction and approvals by BART for improvements located within its jurisdiction.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15161 and 15168, this a combined program-level and projectlevel EIR. This EIR serves as a single CEQA document that will provide environmental clearance for the adoption of the Specific Plan, as described above, and approval of Phase 1, including off-site improvements included in Phase 1. As such, this EIR will provide the environmental review needed under CEQA to support full entitlement of Phase 1, while also serving as a program-level document that can be used for streamlined environmental review for future Precise Plans within the Specific Plan area.

Before any discretionary project approvals may be granted for the proposed project, the South San Francisco City Council must certify that the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR, and that the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis, and make any other findings required by law.

EIR adequacy is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, which states “[a]n EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” CEQA requires that public agencies approve projects only after all feasible means available have been employed to substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. City decision-makers will use the certified EIR, along with other information and public processes, to determine whether to approve, modify, or disapprove the proposed project, and to require any feasible mitigation measures as conditions of project approval.

1.3 Environmental Review Process
The environmental review process for the proposed project includes a number of steps: publication and circulation of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for public comment, publication of a draft EIR for public review and comment, preparation and publication of responses to public and agency comments on the draft EIR, and certification of the final EIR by the Lead Agency (City of South San Francisco). These steps are described below.

City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20

1.3.1 Notice of Preparation
The Planning Division issued an NOP of an EIR for the proposed project on May 22, 2020, in compliance with Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations. The NOP review period commenced on May 22, 2020 and concluded on July 6, 2020. A scoping meeting was held on June 11, 2020. One commenter submitted questions at the meeting.

The Planning Division received nine comment letters from interested parties during the public review and comment period and one letter from the State Clearinghouse. The Planning Division has considered the comments made by the public in preparation of the EIR for the proposed project. The NOP, and comments received on the NOP, are provided in Appendix 1 of this EIR.

Comments on the NOP raised several issues listed under respective categories, as summarized below:

Aesthetics
⚫ Project contributions of shadows on surrounding areas.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
⚫ Project design considerations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ⚫ Recommended air quality thresholds.
⚫ Identification of sensitive receptors.

Biological Resources
⚫ Description of vegetation and trees to be removed and introduction of light and glare. ⚫ Mitigation measures for nesting birds and roosting bats.

Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
⚫ Compliance with Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
⚫ Plans for dust control or hazardous materials, if any are used.

Hydrology and Water Quality
⚫ Project-related discharge rates and proposed drainage features to address the project site’s location within the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone.
⚫ Compliance of stormwater treatment facilities with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
⚫ Ensuring proper water pollution control best management practice (BMP) devices are installed and maintained.

Land Use and Planning
⚫ Consistency with BART’s Station Access Policy.

City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Noise and Vibration
⚫ Plans to limit construction noise.
⚫ Noise and vibration impacts to nearby residential homes and businesses. ⚫ Impacts quantified using short- and long-term measurements.

Population and Housing
⚫ Project’s jobs/housing balance analysis.

Project Description
⚫ Project-related approvals, agreements, and permits.

Transportation and Circulation
⚫ Project’s parking and vehicle trip analysis.
⚫ Travel demand, vehicle trip reduction, multimodal, bicycle, pedestrian planning, and construction-related impact methodology.
⚫ Transportation impact fees.
⚫ Impacts on vertical circulation; queuing at BART ticket machines, fare gates, elevators, and escalators; and train crowding.
⚫ Increase in BART ridership to San Bruno Station.
⚫ Impacts on roadway and trail users, particularly at major roadway intersections and the ends of BART stations.
⚫ Impacts of additional parking provided by project on local circulation.

Utilities and Service Systems
⚫ Confirmation of project-related impacts on Pacific Gas and Electric infrastructure on-site or within the nearby vicinity.
⚫ Project’s contribution to City of San Bruno’s utilities and service systems.

1.3.2 Draft Environmental Impact Report
This draft EIR has been prepared on behalf of the City of South San Francisco, the lead agency, in accordance with CEQA. It provides an analysis of the physical environmental impacts of construction and operation of the proposed project as well as the project’s cumulatively considerable contribution to environmental impacts from foreseeable cumulative development in the project vicinity and the City as a whole. It considers all environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and takes into consideration NOP comments.

Hard copies of the draft EIR, all documents referenced in this draft EIR, and the distribution list for the draft EIR are available at the Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, at the Main Library at 804 W. Orange Avenue, the Grand Avenue Library at306 Walnut Avenue, and the City Clerk’s Office at 400 Grand Avenue.

City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The draft EIR is available for viewing or downloading at http://www.ssf.net/ceqadocuments under Southline Specific Plan.

How to Comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report The City, on September 28, 2021, filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Clearinghouse, indicating that this draft EIR has been completed and is available for review and comment. This draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a review period of at least 45 days, as required by California law. Reviewers should focus on the document’s adequacy in identifying and analyzing the proposed project’s significant effects on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the proposed project might be avoided or mitigated (California Code of Regulations Section 15024[a]).

The 45-day review period for the draft EIR is from September 28, 2021 to November 12, 2021.

Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to:

Via email: [email protected]
For comments sent via email, please include “EIR Comments: Southline Specific Plan Project” in the subject line and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the email.

Via mail:

Adena Friedman, Principal Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Comments may also be sent via email to: [email protected] All comments on environmental issues received during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the final EIR.

There will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission during the 45-day public review and comment period for this draft EIR to solicit oral comments on the adequacy and accuracy of information presented in this draft EIR. The public hearing on this draft EIR has been scheduled before the Planning Commission for November 4, 2021.

1.3.3 Final Environmental Impact Report
Following the close of the draft EIR public review and comment period, the City will prepare responses to comments, which will contain a summary of comments submitted during the public hearing and a copy of all written comments received on the draft EIR as well as the City’s responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process and any necessary changes to the text. Responses to comments will be prepared and published in a final EIR. The final EIR will be available to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to the certification hearing, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The South San Francisco City Council, as the decision-making body for this project, following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission, will review the final EIR documents and will determine whether or not the final EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of the project and its alternatives.

City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The City Council will review the final EIR for adequacy and certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it reflects the City’s independent judgment pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15090. The City will consider certification of the final EIR and then consider the approvals required for implementation of the project separately for approval or denial. Findings on the feasibility of avoiding or reducing the project’s significant environmental effects will be made and, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared, balancing the benefits achieved by the proposed project against unavoidable environmental impacts, should the City choose to approve the project with remaining significant impacts that cannot be avoided.

A Notice of Determination (NOD) will be prepared and filed with the State Clearinghouse if the City approves the proposed project.1 The NOD will include a description of the project, the date of approval, and an indication of whether Findings and Statements of Overriding Considerations were prepared. The NOD will also provide the address where the EIR and record of project approval are available for review.

1.4 Report Organization
This EIR is organized into the following chapters.
⚫ Chapter 1, Introduction, summarizes the purpose and organization of the EIR and the environmental review process.
⚫ Chapter 2, Executive Summary, summarizes the proposed project and environmental consequences that would result from the implementation of the project (including significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant, impacts reduced to a level of less than significant through mitigation, and impacts determined not to be significant), the alternatives to the proposed project that were analyzed, and a summary table of the project impacts and mitigation measures.
⚫ Chapter 3, Project Description, describes the existing setting, the project applicant objectives, the proposed project, and required approvals and actions, including those of the agencies involved in the actions.
⚫ Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, begins with Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, which presents the methodology for environmental analysis, including a list of baseline projects and cumulative projects. Sections 4.2 through 4.17 are each devoted to a particular environmental topic. Each section describes the environmental setting and regulatory framework, provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project (i.e., Specific Plan buildout under either the Office Scenario or Life Sciences Scenario, and the offsite improvements) and Phase 1, including the related offsite improvements; cumulative impacts of the Specific Plan buildout and the off-site improvements; and identifies feasible mitigation measures (if necessary) to reduce significant impacts. The following topics are analyzed:
 Air Quality (Section 4.2)
1 As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, certain portions of the off-site improvements included under the proposed project are located within the jurisdictions of other agencies (i.e., City of San Bruno and BART), and would be subject to separate approval by these jurisdictions.

City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
 Biological Resource (Section 4.3)
 Cultural Resources (Section 4.4)
 Energy (Section 4.5)
 Geology and Soils (Section 4.6)
 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 4.7)
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Section 4.8)
 Hydrology and Water Quality (Section 4.9)
 Land Use and Planning (Section 4.10)
 Noise and Vibration (Section 4.11)
 Population and Housing (Section 4.12)
 Public Services (Section 4.13)
 Recreation (Section 4.14)
 Transportation and Circulation (Section 4.15)
 Tribal Cultural Resources (Section 4.16)
 Utilities and Service Systems (Section 4.17)
Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, summarizes the environmental topics for which the project would have no impact. The following topics are discussed in Section 4.18:
 Aesthetics
 Agricultural and Forest Resources
 Mineral Resources
 Wildfire
⚫ Chapter 5, Alternatives, summarizes three alternatives to the proposed project as well as the comparative environmental consequences and benefits of each alternative. The No-Project Alternative and two additional alternatives are analyzed, including the Reduced Project Alternative and the No Intersection Alternative. This chapter also identifies the environmentally superior alternative and discusses any alternatives that were considered for analysis in the EIR but rejected, then gives the reasons for their rejection. ⚫ Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, contains the discussion of mandatory findings of significance (including cumulative impacts), growth-inducing impacts, significant impacts that cannot be avoided, significant irreversible environmental changes, and areas of known controversy, and project-related issues that have not be resolved. ⚫ Chapter 7, Report Preparers, identifies the lead agency, organizations, and individuals consulted during preparation of this EIR. In addition, the project sponsor team and the consultants working on the EIR are identified.

City of South San Francisco Introduction
Southline Specific Plan EIR 1-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Appendices to this EIR are as follows:
⚫ Appendix 1 Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Received on the NOP ⚫ Appendix 2 Draft Southline Specific Plan
⚫ Appendix 4.2-1 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Energy Modeling Results ⚫ Appendix 4.3-1 Tree Inventory
⚫ Appendix 4.3-2 Biological Database Queries
⚫ Appendix 4.4-1 Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms ⚫ Appendix 4.4-2 Preliminary Assessment of Potential Historic District ⚫ Appendix 4.6-1 Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation ⚫ Appendix 4.8-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Reports ⚫ Appendix 4.9-1 Storm Drainage Technical Study
⚫ Appendix 4.11-1 Noise Modeling Results
⚫ Appendix 4.15-1 Transportation Impact Analysis
⚫ Appendix 4.16-1 Tribal Outreach Materials
⚫ Appendix 4.17-1 Draft Water Supply Assessment
⚫ Appendix 4.17-2 Water Infrastructure Technical Study
⚫ Appendix 4.17-3 Sanitary Sewer Technical Study
⚫ Appendix 4.17-4 Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Electric/Dry Utility Planning Study ⚫ Appendix 4.17-5 Gas Will-Serve Letter
⚫ Appendix 4.18-1 Shadow Study
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-1
September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Chapter 2
Executive Summary
This environmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed Southline Specific Plan Project (proposed project), including the first phase of development (Phase 1) in the City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County, California (City). As required by Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, this summary chapter is intended to highlight major areas of importance in the environmental analysis. Following the summary description of the proposed project, Table 2-1, p. 2-4, presents a summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and feasible mitigation measures identified to reduce significant impacts. Following the summary table is a description of the alternatives to the proposed project that are addressed in this EIR, including a description of the environmentally superior alternative. The final subsection in this chapter is a summary of environmental issues to be resolved and areas of known controversy.

2.1 Summary Description
This EIR analyzes the potential environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project, which comprises buildout allowed under the proposed Southline Specific Plan (Specific Plan) in addition to proposed off-site transportation and circulation improvements, some of which would be located within the City of San Bruno (collectively, referred to as the proposed project). The project applicant is Lane Partners. The City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency for the proposed project under CEQA. The EIR provides a program-level analysis of the potential effects on the environment that could occur from implementation of the proposed project. In addition, the EIR provides a project-level analysis of the initial development phase of the Specific Plan (Phase 1), which is a component of the proposed project.

The proposed project would redevelop a 26.5-acre1 industrial site (Specific Plan area) within the City of South San Francisco’s (City’s) Lindenville Planning Sub-area, located in proximity to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station, with a transit-oriented research and development (R&D)/office campus. The proposed project would also construct off-site transportation, circulation, and infrastructure improvements at several locations outside the Specific Plan area, some of which are located within the City of San Bruno (off-site improvement areas), totaling approximately 6.4 acres. Together, the Specific Plan area and the off-site improvements are referred to as the proposed project, and these combined areas compose the project site, totaling approximately 33 acres (project site). The Specific Plan area is located at the intersection of South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue adjacent to the City of San Bruno. The Specific Plan area is bounded by commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities to the north and east, single-family residences to the south, and the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Station, The Shops at Tanforan, and San Bruno Towne Center to the west. In addition, the Centennial Way Trail, a Class-I multi-use path, runs generally parallel and west of the Specific Plan area. The approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area encompasses seven parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 014-250-090, 014-250-080, 014-250-050, 014-241-030, 014-241-040, 014-232-030, and 014-232-050), and currently consists of a variety of 1 Except as otherwise noted, all references to acreage, square footage, and other measurements are approximate.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities that were largely constructed in the 1940s and 1950s. The existing structures total nearly 344,000 square feet and include approximately 380 surface parking spaces.

The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses within the Specific Plan area and construct a transit-oriented R&D/office campus with a maximum anticipated building area of approximately 2.8 million square feet, including 3,064 underground parking spaces at various locations throughout the Specific Plan area, a nine-story parking structure with approximately 2,705 spaces (referred to as Parking Structure C), a new east-west connection road (Southline Avenue; provisionally named for the purpose of the Specific Plan and CEQA review), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and up to 341,800 square feet (approximately 7.8 acres) of open space.

Development would include commercial office/R&D buildings envisioned to accommodate office and R&D tenants and supporting amenity uses, ranging in height from four to seven stories, subject to maximum building height limits in accordance with FAA and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) requirements for San Francisco International Airport.

Off-site improvements would include the following improvements within the City of South San Francisco:
⚫ reconfiguration of the South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue intersection; ⚫ reconfiguration of the existing at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue; ⚫ roadway widening of, and street front improvements on South Maple Avenue; and ⚫ signalization of intersections at the main Southline campus entry point at Southline Avenue, and Dollar Avenue and Southline Avenue.

The off-site improvements also include the following improvements located outside of the City and within the jurisdiction of the City of San Bruno and/or BART, which are subject to separate application, review, and approval requirements from the City of San Bruno and/or BART for facilities within its jurisdiction:
⚫ a new signalized intersection, reconfiguring Huntington Avenue, connecting it to the new Southline Avenue and providing for improved adjacent bicycle and pedestrian facilities; ⚫ reconfiguration of Tanforan Avenue to create a cul-de-sac limiting through traffic; and ⚫ a new dedicated, signalized northbound left turn lane on Huntington Avenue providing a new entrance into the transit center for SamTrans buses.

The proposed project would also remove, install, or relocate several utilities (aboveground and underground), sidewalks, curbs, and streetscape improvements within the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and within BART jurisdiction.

Phase 1, generally located in the southwest corner of the project site, would include the construction of Building 2 (an approximately 88,200 square foot amenities building), Building 1, Building 7, all located south of the new Southline Avenue, and the eastern portion of Parking Structure C, located north of the new Southline Avenue. In total, Phase 1 development would include approximately 700,915 square feet of building area and up to approximately 2,754 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and the eastern portion of Parking Structure C. In addition, under Phase 1, vehicle and pedestrian circulation would be improved through the new public Southline Avenue roadway that would provide connectivity through the project area, as well as new internal private City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
roadways, walkways, and bicycle paths that would provide access to parking, loading, and building areas. The majority of the off-site improvements, with the exception of the South Maple Avenue roadway and street front improvements, would occur as part of Phase 1. Phase 1 construction would occur on approximately 11.93 acres within the Specific Plan area and 5.03 acres within the off-site improvement areas, totaling 16.96 acres (Phase 1 site).

The proposed project would require approval of certain entitlements from the City and other agencies to enable its development, including, but not limited to: Specific Plan adoption and related general plan, zoning map, and zoning text amendments to reflect adoption of the Specific Plan; Design Review, Vesting Tentative Map approval; Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan approval; Precise Plan approval for Phase 1 and subsequent phases; and a Development Agreement.

Approvals from the City of San Bruno and/or BART would also be required to construct the off-site improvements in their jurisdictions. If the requested entitlements are approved by the City, construction of the proposed project would be implemented over time and in a phased approach, with full project buildout anticipated in 2030. Two to three phases are anticipated, with Phase 1 construction anticipated to commence in 2022 and occur over approximately 30 months, with an anticipated completion date in 2024.

Refer to Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR for a detailed description of the project components and required governmental approval.

2.2 Southline Specific Plan Project Impacts and
Mitigation Measures
Table 2-1, p. 2-4, provides an overview of the following, with respect to both the proposed project as a whole and specific to Phase 1:
⚫ Environmental impacts with the potential to occur as a result of the proposed project; ⚫ Level of significance of the environmental impacts before implementation of any applicable mitigation measures, which are described as follows:
 NI: No Impact
 LTS: Less than Significant
 LTSM: Less than Significant with Mitigation
 S: Significant
 SU: Significant and Unavoidable
⚫ Mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts; and ⚫ The level of significance for each impact after the mitigation measures are implemented.

A detailed description of project impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Chapter 4, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 2-1. Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Agriculture and Forest Resources (refer to Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant) 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: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
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: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would not
conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
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
PM) ambient air quality standard during
construction.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Fugitive Dust Best
Management Practices (All Phases)
All applicants proposing development of projects within the project site, including the Phase 1 applicant, shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive dust by implementing
BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas. The following measures are to be required as such contract conditions and are based on BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines:

Project: SU
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
⚫ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
⚫ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
⚫ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet-power vacuum street
sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power
sweeping shall be prohibited.
⚫ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or
driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
⚫ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads
shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
⚫ A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the
lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The phone number of BAAQMD shall also be
visible to ensure compliance.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require at Least Tier 4 Final
Engines on Construction Equipment (All Phases)
All applicants proposing development of projects within the project site, including the Phase 1 applicant, shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment operates with at least EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engines. Exemptions can be made for
specialized equipment when Tier 4 engines are not
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
commercially available within 200 miles of the project site.

The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine.

At least 95 percent of off-road equipment must operate with at least an EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engine.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Use of Diesel Trucks
with 2010-Compliant Model Year Engines (Future Phases
Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines but no less than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year, as set forth in CARB’s EMFAC2017 database. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that it is not feasible to locate such engines following a good-faith effort.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Construction Fleet to
Use Renewable Diesel (Future Phases Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment greater than 50 horsepower operates on renewable diesel (such as high-performance renewable
diesel). Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment that cannot operate with renewable diesel or if renewable diesel is not commercially available. The contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that specialized equipment cannot use renewable diesel and that a good-faith effort to obtain renewable diesel was conducted.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Require Low-VOC Coatings
during Construction (Future Phases Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-VOC coatings with a VOC content of 10 grams/liter or less are used during construction. The applicant shall submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Purchase of Mitigation Credits for Construction Emissions Exceeding BAAQMD’s Daily
Pollutant Thresholds (Future Phases Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall compare their project size with the BAAQMD screening sizes appropriate to their project for construction criteria
pollutants, as found in Table 3-1 in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Guidelines (2017). The screening limit for general office buildings, an office park, or a government office building is 277,000 square feet. The screening limit for general light industrial buildings, including Research and Development uses, is 259,000 square feet. If the project is less than the screening limit for its project type, the applicant shall disclose to the City whether construction-related activities would include any of the following:
⚫ Demolition,
⚫ Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction) or
simultaneous occurrence of construction with other
Specific Plan development,
⚫ Simultaneous construction of more than one land use
type,
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
⚫ Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading,
cut and fill, or earth movement), or
⚫ Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export), requiring a
considerable amount of haul truck activity.

If the project is less than the screening limit for the project type and construction would involve none of the five
conditions above, then no further action shall be required.

Project applicants not excluded by the conditions above shall estimate annual average emissions for each year of
construction and compare the annual average emissions for each year of construction to the BAAQMD thresholds used in the EIR for criteria pollutants. The emissions estimate shall be provided as part of the project’s initial Precise Plan application to the City. The City will review the estimate and confirm whether offsets are required for construction. If the City-confirmed estimate indicates that the proposed
development estimate would not result in construction
emissions exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds, no further action shall be required.

For proposed developments that are estimated to result in exceedances of thresholds, prior to start of construction the applicants shall coordinate with a third-party or
governmental entity to pay for criteria pollutant offsets for every year in which construction emissions are estimated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. If the estimate shows
exceedances of multiple criteria pollutants above the
BAAQMD thresholds, then offsets must be obtained to reduce each pollutant that is above the threshold to below the threshold. Emission reduction projects and fees will be determined in consultation with the applicant and the thirdparty (e.g., Bay Area Clean Air Foundation) or governmental City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
entity and include administrative costs for the offset provider (e.g., five percent of the fee amount). The agreement that specifies fees and the timing of payment shall be provided to the City for review and signed by the applicant and the thirdparty or governmental entity. The emission reductions shall be secured prior to any construction activity which is
estimated to result in an exceedance for the year. The
payment for the emissions can either be on an annual basis or made once upfront prior to construction.

To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific
emissions reduction project(s) must result in emission
reductions in the SFBAAB that are real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements or any other legal requirement.

During construction, construction contractors shall provide annual construction activity monitoring data to estimate actual construction emissions. Applicants shall submit the annual construction activity monitoring data and an estimate of actual annual criteria pollutant emissions to the City and BAAQMD for review by February 1 of each year for the prior construction year. The annual report shall reconcile paid fees for the prior year relative to actual emissions. If more emissions were generated than fees paid, the applicant shall submit payment to the third-party or governmental entity for the deficient amount. If more fees were paid than emissions generated, the third-party or governmental entity shall either issue the applicant a refund for the surplus or issue a credit that can be applied to future fee payments.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-10 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
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: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure AQ-7: Purchase of Mitigation Credits for Operational Emissions Exceeding BAAQMD’s Daily
Pollutant Thresholds (All Phases)
For future Precise Plans not including Phase 1: Applicants proposing development of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall compare their project size with the BAAQMD screening sizes appropriate to their project for operational criteria pollutants, as found in Table 3-1 of BAAQMD’s
current CEQA Guidelines (2017). The screening limit for general office buildings, an office park, or a government office building is 346,000 square feet, 323,000 square feet, and 61,000 square feet, respectively. The screening limits for general light industrial buildings, including Research and Development uses, are any of the following: 541,000 square feet, 72 acres, or 1,249 employees. If the project is less than the screening limit for the project type, then no further action shall be required.

Projects not excluded by the conditions above shall estimate annual average operational emissions for each operational year over the life of the project (30 years) and compare the annual average emissions for each year of operation to the BAAQMD thresholds used in the EIR for criteria pollutants (see Table 4.2-4). The emissions estimate shall be provided as part of the project’s Precise Plan application to the City for the project. The City will review the estimate and confirm whether offsets are required for operation. If so, the
procedure described below shall be followed. Should the City-confirmed estimate indicate that the proposed
development estimate would not result in operational
emissions exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds, no further action shall be required.

For Phase 1 and future Precise Plans that are shown to
exceed BAAQMD’s annual operations emissions
Project: SU
Phase 1: SU
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
thresholds: For proposed developments that are estimated to result in exceedances of thresholds during any year of the project’s life, including Phase 1, the project applicant shall coordinate with a third-party (e.g., Bay Area Clean Air Foundation) or governmental entity to pay criteria pollutant offsets for every year in which operational emissions are estimated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. If the estimate shows exceedances of multiple criteria pollutants above the BAAQMD thresholds, then offsets must be obtained to
address each pollutant above the thresholds. Emission
reduction projects and fees will be determined in
consultation with the applicant and the third-party or
governmental entity and include administrative costs for the offset provider (e.g., five percent of the fee amount). The agreement that specifies fees and the timing of payment shall be provided to the City for review and signed by the applicant and the third-party or governmental entity. The emission reductions shall be secured prior to any operational activity which is estimated to result in an exceedance for the year.

The payment for the emissions can either be on an annual basis or made once up front prior to operation.

To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific
emissions reduction project(s) must result in emission
reductions in the SFBAAB that are real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements or any other legal requirement. During operation, building
managers will provide annual operation activity monitoring data to estimate actual operation emissions. Applicants will submit the annual operation activity monitoring data and an estimate of actual annual criteria pollutant emissions to the City and BAAQMD for review by February 1 of each year for the prior operation year. The annual report will reconcile paid fees for the prior year relative to actual emissions. If City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
more emissions were generated than fees paid, the applicant will submit payment to the third-party or governmental
entity for the deficient amount. If more fees were paid than emissions generated, the third-party or governmental entity will either issue the applicant a refund for the surplus or a credit that can be applied to future fee payments.

Example offset projects include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines; replacing old trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient trucks; and other stationary and mobile source emissions-reducing projects.

Mitigation Measure AQ-8: Limit the Number of Phase 1
Emergency Generators Tested to One Generator Per Day
(Phase 1 Only)
No more than one Phase 1 emergency generator shall be
tested in any 24-hour period. This requirement shall apply to routine testing events anticipated to occur every month and full load testing events anticipated to occur every 36 months (3 years).

Impact AQ-3: Future phases of the project, not
including Phase 1, could expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, and
Mitigation Measure AQ-6, above, as applicable to each
Precise Plan.

Mitigation Measure AQ-9: Require Future Projects within 1,000 Feet of Sensitive Receptors to Perform a Health
Risk Assessment (Future Phases Only)
All applicants proposing development of projects, other than Phase 1, within 1,000 feet of existing sensitive receptors, as defined by BAAQMD (e.g., residential), shall prepare a sitespecific construction and operational HRA. The HRA shall include all reasonably foreseeable sources of TAC, consistent with BAAQMD guidelines. If the HRA demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the City, that the health risk exposures or Project: SU
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
PM2.5 concentrations for adjacent receptors would be less than BAAQMD project-level thresholds, then additional
mitigation would be unnecessary. However, if the HRA
demonstrates that health risks or PM2.5 concentrations
would exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds, additional feasible on- and off-site mitigation would be analyzed by the applicant to help reduce risks to the greatest extent
practicable. Mitigation may include installation of indoor air filters (MERV 13 or higher) at sensitive receptor locations and planting of vegetation and trees as pollution buffers.

Impact AQ-4: The project would not result in
other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
that would adversely affect a substantial number
of people.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-AQ-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
would not conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
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: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-8,
above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: SU
Phase 1: SU
Impact C-AQ-3: Construction and operation of
future Precise Plans under the Specific Plan, not
including Phase 1, together with the cumulative
projects identified, could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-7, and
AQ-9, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: SU
Phase 1: LTSM
Impact C-AQ-4: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in other emissions (such as those
Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
leading to odors) that would adversely affect a
substantial number of people.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
indirectly 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.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Preconstuction Nesting Bird
Surveys and Buffer Areas (All Phases)
The Phase 1 applicant, and applicants of future Precise Plans, shall implement the following measures prior to the commencement of any demolition or construction activities on the project site that meet the criteria set forth below:
a. To the extent feasible, conduct initial activities,
including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, tree removal, ground disturbance, building or parking lot
demolition, site grading, and other construction
activities which may compromise breeding birds or
the success of their nests outside the nesting season
(February 15–September 15).
b. If construction occurs during the bird nesting season, a qualified wildlife biologist2 shall conduct a nesting bird preconstruction survey within 14 days prior to
the start of construction or demolition at areas within the project site where construction or demolition
activities have not previously occurred, or after any
pause in construction or demolition activities of 14
days or more in areas where construction or
demolition activities have not previously occurred.

The survey shall be performed within the following
radii of the applicable construction area in order to
locate any active nests: 100 feet for passerine species, Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
2 The experience requirements for a “qualified biologist” shall include a minimum of 4 years of academic training and professional experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities, and a minimum of 2 years of experience conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the project site.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
300 feet for raptor (birds of prey) species, and 500
feet for peregrine falcon; and shall be of those areas
that constitute suitable habitat for these species.
c. If active nests are located during the preconstruction nesting bird survey, a qualified biologist shall
determine if the schedule of construction activities
could affect the active nests; if so, the following
measures would apply:

1. If the qualified biologist determines that
construction is not likely to affect an active nest,
construction may proceed without restriction;
however, a qualified biologist shall regularly
monitor the nest at a frequency determined
appropriate for the surrounding construction
activity to confirm there is no adverse effect.

Spot-check monitoring frequency would be
determined on a nest-by-nest basis, considering
the particular construction activity, duration,
proximity to the nest, and physical barriers that
may screen activity from the nest.

2. If it is determined that construction may cause
abandonment of an active nest, the qualified
biologist shall establish a no-disturbance buffer
around the nest(s), and all project work shall halt
within the buffer to avoid disturbance or
destruction until a qualified biologist determines
that the nest is no longer active. Typically, buffer
distances are a minimum of 100 feet for
passerines and 300 feet for raptors; however, the
buffers may be decreased if an obstruction, such
as a building, is within line-of-sight between the
nest and construction.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation

3. Modifying nest buffer distances, allowing certain
construction activities within the buffer, and/or
modifying construction methods in proximity to
active nests shall be approved by the qualified
biologist and in coordination with the Planning
Division. To the extent necessary to remove or
relocate an active nest, such removal or relocation
shall be coordinated with the Planning Division,
and the removal or relocation shall be in
compliance with the California Fish and Game
Code and other applicable laws.

4. Any work that must occur within established nodisturbance buffers around active nests shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. If adverse
effects in response to project work within the
buffer are observed and could compromise the
nest, work within the no-disturbance buffer(s)
shall halt until the nest occupants have fledged.

5. Any birds that begin nesting within the project
site and survey buffers amid construction
activities are assumed to be habituated to
construction-related or similar noise and
disturbance levels. Work may proceed around
these active nests subject to Measure c.2 above.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Preconstuction Bat Surveys
and Protection (Phase 1 Only)
Prior to the demolition of the existing buildings and
structures within the Specific Plan area, the Phase 1 applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a habitat assessment and implement protective measures for pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and hoary bat, and other City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
roosting bats, which shall include an initial daytime survey to assess the building for potential bat roosting habitat, and to look for bats and signs of bats. It is recommended that the habitat assessment be conducted by a qualified biologist at least two months and no more than six months prior to
demolition activities. Qualified biologists shall have
knowledge of the natural history of the species that could occur and sufficient experience determining bat occupancy and bat survey techniques. The qualified biologist shall examine both the inside and outside of the buildings and structures for potential roosting habitat, as well as routes of entry to the buildings and structures. Locations of any roosting bats, signs of bat use, and entry and exit points shall be noted and mapped on a drawing of the buildings and
structures. Roost sites shall also be photographed as feasible.

The methods and results of the habitat assessment and the future steps to be taken shall be submitted to CDFW.

Recommendations received from CDFW shall be considered
by the City and incorporated into future steps to be taken unless the City determines them to be infeasible. The City shall make good faith efforts to coordinate with CDFW to discuss revisions to any CDFW recommendations the City
considers to be infeasible. Depending on the results of the habitat assessment, the following steps will be taken as described below.
⚫ If the buildings and structures can be adequately
assessed (i.e., sufficient areas of the buildings and
structures can be examined) and no habitat or limited
habitat for roosting bats is present, and no signs of bat use are present, a preconstruction survey of the
interior and exterior of the buildings and structures by a qualified biologist shall be conducted within 24 hours of demolition.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
⚫ If moderate or high potential habitat is present but
there are no signs of bat use, the Phase 1 applicant shall implement feasible measures under the guidance of a
qualified biologist to exclude and/or discourage bats
from using the buildings and structures as a roost site, such as sealing off entry points. Feasible measures shall be determined based on the condition of the buildings
and structures. Prior to installing exclusion measures, a qualified biologist shall re-survey the buildings and
structures to ensure that no bats are present. In
addition, a preconstruction survey of the interior and
exterior of the buildings and structures shall be
conducted within 24 hours of demolition to confirm
that no bats are present.
⚫ If moderate or high potential habitat is present and
bats or signs of bats are observed, or if exclusion
measures are not installed as described above, or the
buildings or structures provide suitable habitat but
could not be adequately assessed, the Phase 1 applicant shall implement the following protective measures.
 Follow-up surveys shall be conducted to determine
if bats are present prior to commencement of
demolition. The Phase 1 applicant shall submit a
survey plan (number, timing, and type of surveys)
to the City and CDFW; recommendations received
from CDFW shall be considered and incorporated
into the plan unless the City determines them to be
infeasible. If CDFW requests that the bats be
identified to species, the follow-up survey(s) shall
include use of night vision goggles and active
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
acoustic monitoring using full spectrum bat
detectors.
 Based on the timing of demolition, the extent of bat
signs and/or occupied habitat, and the species
present (if determined), as determined by the
qualified biologist, the biologist shall develop a bat
exclusion plan to discourage or exclude bat use
prior to demolition. The Phase 1 applicant shall
submit the bat exclusion plan to the City and CDFW
for review and approval, pursuant to Section 4150
of the Fish and Game Code. Reasonable methods to
discourage or exclude bat use may include
installing exclusion measures such as one-way
doors or using light or other means to deter bats
from using the buildings and structures to roost,
such as sealing large holes or gaps void of bats
using the installation of plywood and/or metal
sheeting, and/or sealing small holes or gaps void of
bats using installation of expandable foam or steel
wool.
 A preconstruction survey of the interior and
exterior of the buildings and structures shall be
conducted within 24 hours of demolition.

Depending on the species of bats present, the size of the bat roost, and timing of the demolition, additional protective measures may be recommended by the qualified biologist or CDFW, and may include measures listed below, which shall be undertaken by the Phase 1 applicant.
 To avoid impacts on maternity colonies or
hibernating bats, the buildings and structures shall
not be demolished while bats are confirmed to be
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
present, generally between April 1 and September
15 (maternity season) and from November 1 to
March 1 (hibernation).
 Removal of occupied roosting habitat shall only
occur following the maternity season and prior to
hibernation, generally between September 15 and
October 31, unless exclusionary devices are first
installed (as described above). Other measures,
such as using lights to deter bat roosting, may be
used if developed in compliance with applicable
law and coordination with and approval by CDFW.
 Installation of exclusion devices shall occur before
maternity colonies establish or after they disperse,
generally from March 1–30 or September 15–
October 31 to preclude bats from occupying a roost
site during demolition to the extent feasible.

Exclusionary devices shall only be installed by or
under the supervision of a qualified biologist.

The Phase 1 applicant shall implement the following
measures prior to any tree removal on the project site:
⚫ A qualified biologist shall examine trees to be removed for suitable bat roosting habitat (e.g., large tree cavities, basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, larger snags, palm trees with intact thatch) before tree removal. Trees
providing suitable or potential bat habitat shall be
marked with flagging and identified as potential
habitat. Because of the limited timeframe for tree
removal for trees containing bat habitat (i.e.,
September 15-October 31), the tree habitat assessment
should be conducted early enough in the calendar year
to provide information to the applicant and City to
inform tree removal planning. The protective measures
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
listed below shall be implemented for trees containing
potential roosting habitat.
o Removal or disturbance of trees providing bat
roosting habitat shall be avoided between April 1
and September 15 (the maternity period) to avoid
effects on pregnant females and active maternity
roosts (whether colonial or solitary).
o Removal of trees providing bat roosting habitat
shall be conducted between September 15 and
October 31, which corresponds to a time period
when bats have not yet entered torpor or would be
caring for nonvolant young.
o If a maternity roost is found, whether solitary or
colonial, that roost shall remain undisturbed until
September 15 or until a qualified biologist has
determined the roost is no longer active. The
qualified biologist will determine appropriate nowork buffers around roost and/or hibernaculum sites. Buffer distances may vary depending on the
species and activities being conducted.
⚫ Removal of trees (between September 15 and October
31) providing suitable roosting habitat shall be
monitored by qualified biologists. Trees that provide
suitable habitat for bats shall be removed in a twophase removal process conducted over two consecutive days. In the afternoon on the first day,
limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter
using chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and only branches
or limbs without those features shall be removed. On
the second day, the remainder of the tree shall be
removed. A qualified biologist shall search downed
vegetation for dead and injured bats. After tree
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
removal and monitoring completion, the biologist shall
prepare a biological monitoring report, which shall be
provided to the City and to CDFW. The presence of
dead or injured bats that are species of special concern resulting from downed trees shall be included in the
monitoring report.

Loss of occupied roosting habitat shall be mitigated by constructing and/or installing suitable replacement habitat on-site or near the project site which shall be undertaken by the Phase 1 applicant. The roosting habitat shall be
monitored by a qualified biologist to ensure it functions as intended, as set forth under a roosting habitat design and monitoring plan developed in coordination with CDFW.

Impact BIO-2: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
CDFW or USFWS.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Impact BIO-3: The project would not have a
substantial adverse effect on state or federally
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
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.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and BIO-1b, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Lighting Measures to Reduce
Impacts on Birds (All Phases)
During design, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future phases shall ensure that a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues shall identify lighting-related recommended measures to minimize Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
the effects of the building’s lighting on birds to. The applicant shall incorporate such measures into the building’s design and operation to the extent feasible, subject to design review and approval by the City, which may include the following and/or other measures.
a. Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for obstruction lighting. Use flashing
white lights rather than continuous light, red light, or rotating beams.
b. Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light towards the ground.
c. Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not required for public safety as
determined by the City.
d. When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the buildings shall examine and adopt
feasible alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide
lighting, which may include installing motion-sensitive lighting, using desk lamps and task lighting,
reprogramming timers, or using lower-intensity
lighting.
e. Windows or window treatments that reduce
transmission of light out of the building shall be
implemented to the extent feasible.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Building Design Measures to
Minimize Bird Strike Risk (All Phases)
During design, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future phases shall ensure that a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues shall identify recommended measures related to the external appearance of City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
the building to minimize the risk of bird strikes. The applicant shall incorporate such measures into the building’s design to the extent feasible, subject to design review and approval by the City, which may include the following and/or other
measures:
a. Minimize the extent of glazing.
b. Use low-reflective glass and/or patterned or fritted glass.
c. Use window films, mullions, blinds, or other internal or external features to “break up” reflective surfaces
rather than having large, uninterrupted areas of
surfaces that reflect, and thus to a bird may not appear noticeably different from, vegetation or the sky.

Impact BIO-5: The project would not conflict with
any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact BIO-6: The project would not conflict with
the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation
plan, natural community conservation plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
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.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1b, BIO-2a,
and BIO-2b, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Interpretive Signage Program
(Phase 1 Only)
The Phase 1 applicant shall prepare an interpretive signage Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
plan document setting forth the process for design and
installation of interpretive signage within the Specific Plan area. The interpretive signage plan shall be developed in coordination with professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in
History or Architectural History.

The interpretive signage plan shall include details regarding the proposed locations for the signage and the design of the visual components of the interpretive historic district signage program. The interpretive signage plan does not need to include cost analysis or specifications for the fabrication or installation of the signage program.

The interpretive signage plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of South San Francisco prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the proposed project.

No further discretionary review or approvals are
anticipated to be required by the City to implement the interpretive historic district signage program.

Implementation of the interpretive signage program shall include the following elements:

1. Temporary Signage: The temporary historic district
interpretive signage program shall include at least
one temporary marker or sign regarding South San
Francisco’s industrial heritage to display within or at the perimeter of the Specific Plan area for the
duration of the construction process. The temporary
signage shall be installed at a location that is visible from a public right-of-way and shall include a
written narrative accompanied by historic images
where feasible. As needed due to construction
activity, the temporary signage may be relocated to
another location that meets these criteria.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation

2. Permanent Signage: The permanent interpretive
signage program shall include a minimum of two and
a maximum of four permanent interpretive markers
or signs that interpret South San Francisco’s
industrial heritage and include a history of the land
uses previously located within the Specific Plan area.

The signs shall describe the industries that operated
within the Specific Plan area, such as Colorado Fuel
and Iron, Poetsch & Peterson Tannery, and E. I. du
Pont de Nemours, and provide a written or visual
narrative that places these companies within the
context of the City’s industrial development. The
permanent signage shall use relevant historic
photos, historic maps, and company archival
materials (such as logos), to illustrate the narrative
where feasible given availability and publication
permissions of the images. The signs shall be located
within the Specific Plan area boundary and shall be
visible to both Specific Plan area tenants and the
general public from a public right-of-way. No more
than half of the signs may be located in lobbies,
restaurants, or other public spaces that are inside
buildings. The permanent signs shall be installed
prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for Phase 1, and may be located solely
within the Phase 1 area.

Impact CR-2: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to Section
15064.5.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Cultural Resources Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (All Phases)
The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall ensure that a qualified archaeologist shall conduct Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training for all construction personnel on the project site prior to project-related construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training shall include basic information about Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. This training shall be provided for any additional personnel added to the project, even after the initiation of construction and ground-disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure CR-2b: Halt Construction Activity,
Evaluate Find, and Implement Mitigation for
Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources (All
Phases)
Should a potential archaeological or tribal cultural resource be encountered during project construction activities, the construction contractor shall halt construction within 25 feet of the find and immediately notify the City. A qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, shall 1) evaluate the potential resource to determine if it meets the CEQA definition of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 or a tribal cultural resource pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074 and 2) make recommendations about the treatment of the
resource, as warranted. If the qualified archaeologist
determines the find is not a unique archaeological resource, then proper recordation and identification shall be
completed and construction shall continue without delay.

If the resource meets the CEQA definition of a unique
archaeological resource or tribal cultural resource, it shall be avoided to the extent feasible by project construction activities to allow for preservation in place as described under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(A)-(B). If avoidance is not feasible, and the resource is determined to be a unique archaeological resource, adverse effects to the resource shall be mitigated as specified by Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. This mitigation may include, but is not limited to, a thorough recording of the resource on City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Department of Parks and Recreation Form 523 records, or archaeological data recovery excavation. If data recovery excavation is warranted, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(C), which requires a data recovery plan prior to data recovery excavation, shall be followed. If avoidance is not feasible, and the resource is determined to be a tribal cultural resource, additional coordination with the
appropriate California Native American tribe(s) shall be conducted in accordance with existing laws to determine appropriate mitigation, including consideration of the
measures identified in Public Resources Code Section
21084.3.

Impact CR-3: The project would not disturb any
human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-2a and CR-2b, above.

Mitigation Measure CR-3: Halt Construction Activity,
Evaluate Remains, and Take Appropriate Action in
Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission
(All Phases)
In the event that human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall cease or ensure the ceasing of all such construction activity within a radius of 25 feet of the discovery and shall notify the San Mateo county coroner immediately. No
further construction activity shall occur within this 25-foot radius until the San Mateo county coroner has evaluated the remains and has taken appropriate action in accordance
with Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code. Concurrently, an archaeologist shall be contacted to assess the situation and consult with the appropriate
agencies. If the human remains are of Native American
origin, the coroner shall notify the Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this
identification in accordance with section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and section 7050.5 of the Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
California Health and Safety Code, as applicable. The NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD may
inspect the site of the discovery and shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of notification by the NAHC.

Impact C-CR-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
historical resources.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-CR-2: 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
archaeological resources and human remains.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-2a, CR-2b, and CR-3,
above.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
Energy
Impact EN-1a: The project would not result in a
potentially significant environmental impact due
to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
construction.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measure GHG-1, below, and
Mitigation Measure AQ-4, above, as applicable to each
Precise Plan.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
Impact EN-1b: The project would not result in
potentially significant environmental impacts due
to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources during project
operation.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact EN-2: The project would not conflict with
or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-EN-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in a potentially significant
Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
environmental impact due to the wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources during project construction or
operation.

Impact C-EN-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Geology and Soils
Impact GEO-1: The project would not directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,
strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related
ground failure, including liquefaction, or
landslides.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact GEO-2: The project would not result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact GEO-3: The project would not be located
on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact GEO-4: The project would not be located
on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or property.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact GEO-5: The project would not have soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Halt Construction Activity in Case of Finding Paleontological Resources, Evaluate
Find, and Excavate Find (All Phases)
Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
resource or site or unique geologic feature.

In the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other construction activity, the project applicant or successor shall cease all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery ceases until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional and specific measures can be
implemented to protect these resources in accordance with Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public
Resources Code. If the find is potentially significant, the project applicant or successor shall ensure a qualified paleontologist shall excavate the find in compliance with state law, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the
qualified paleontologist determines the find is not significant then proper recordation and identification shall ensure and the project will continue without delay.

Impact C-GEO-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in a significant cumulative impact
on geology and soils.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-GEO-2: 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
paleontological resources.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above. Project: LTSM Phase 1: LTSM
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Require Implementation of
BAAQMD-recommended Construction BMPs (All Phases)
The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall require their contractors, as a condition in contracts, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing BAAQMD’s recommended BMPs, based on BAAQMD’s CEQA
Guidelines:
⚫ Ensure that alternative-fuel (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15
percent of the fleet,
⚫ Use local building materials (at least 10 percent)
sourced from within 100 miles of the planning area,
and
⚫ Recycle and reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials.

Impact GHG-1b: The project would not generate
GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
would have a significant impact on the
environment during operation.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
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.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures GHG-1 and AQ-4, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: The project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact HAZ-2: The project would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, below. Project: LTSM Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prepare a Soil Management Plan Prior to Issuance of Grading Permit (All Phases)
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall retain the services of a qualified environmental engineering firm to prepare and implement, during site preparation, grading, and excavation activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP). The SMP shall be designed to protect human health of construction workers, the public and the environment during site
preparation, grading, and excavation activities by including protocols, measures, and techniques for the proper handling, management, and disposition of affected soils found on the site and any areas of off-site work during site preparation and grading activities. The SMP shall also ensure the proper characterization, management, and/or disposal of
contaminated environmental media that is above applicable Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) by recommending
additional sampling activities (as necessary), including profile sampling for proper disposal. The SMP shall be
prepared by a commercial environmental engineering firm with demonstrated expertise and experience in the
preparation of SMPs and shall be stamped by an
appropriately licensed professional. The SMP shall be
implemented by the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of
future Precise Plans throughout all ground-disturbing work.

The SMP shall establish protocols and measures for
addressing the discovery of presently unknown
environmental conditions or subsurface structures such as USTs, sumps, or wells. If the environmental engineering firm subsequently identifies the need for further sampling, the project applicant shall implement this and any other
requirements identified in the SMP. The project applicant City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
shall enter into a voluntary agreement with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for
review and approval of the SMP prior to construction
activities. The RWQCB will also have oversight authority pertaining to implementation of the SMP. If directed by the RWQCB, the project applicant shall conduct additional site investigation and characterization prior to construction to ensure that hazardous materials in the soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater do not exceed applicable regulatory thresholds.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Engineering Controls to
Address Vapor Encroachment Conditions (Future Phases
that Include the Property at 325 South Maple Avenue)
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for development within the property at 325 South Maple Avenue, the project applicant shall demonstrate compliance with applicable
requirements imposed by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or San Mateo County Health, Environmental Health Services for soil vapor
sampling and risk evaluation to address vapor intrusion concerns. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, engineering controls designed by a qualified engineer to address vapor encroachment conditions by redirecting and or minimizing VOC concentrations in compliance with San Francisco Bay RWQCB (or San Mateo County Health)
requirements and shall be implemented on the site. Specific engineering controls may include, but will not be limited to:
⚫ Installation of subsurface migration barriers; and/or ⚫ Inclusion of ventilated foundations for any proposed
structures; and/or
⚫ The use and implementation of an alternative method
or structural design that would address soil gas
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
releases and reduce the potential for hazardous
conditions to occur.

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

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2c: Conduct a Hazardous
Building Materials Survey prior to Demolition Activities and Hazardous Building Material Handling (All Phases)
Prior to the issuance of any demolition permit, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall ensure that a Hazardous Building Materials Survey is conducted by a licensed contractor on structures that will be demolished and have not been surveyed previously. The Hazardous Building Materials Survey shall identify the presence of hazardous building materials including: asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paint (LBP), and poly-chlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs). Should this survey determine that lead- City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
based paint and/or asbestos or other hazardous building materials are present, the following actions shall be
implemented by the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of
future Precise Plans:
⚫ A health and safety plan shall be developed by a
certified industrial hygienist for potential lead-based paint, asbestos or other hazardous building materials
risks present during demolition. The health and safety
plan shall then be implemented by a licensed
contractor. The health and safety plan shall comply
with federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and the California Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)
requirements.
⚫ Necessary approvals shall be acquired from the City
and/or County (by the licensed contractor) for
specifications or commencement of abatement
activities. Abatement activities shall be conducted by a licensed contractor.
⚫ Prior to demolition of building materials containing
asbestos, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) shall be notified ten days prior to initiating construction and demolition activities. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that
local agencies not issue demolition or alteration
permits until an applicant has demonstrated
compliance with notification requirements under
applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air
pollutants, including asbestos. In addition:
 Asbestos shall be disposed of at a licensed disposal
facility to be identified by the licensed contractor.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
 The local office of the Cal/OSHA shall be notified of asbestos abatement activities.
 Asbestos abatement contractors shall follow state
regulations contained in 8 CCR 1529 and 8 CCR
341.6 through 341.14 where there is asbestosrelated work involving 100 square feet or more of asbestos containing material.
 Asbestos removal contractors shall be certified as
such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the
State of California. The owner of the property
where abatement is to occur shall have a
Hazardous Waste Generator Number assigned by
and registered with the Office of the California
Department of Health Services in Sacramento.
⚫ The contractor and hauler of hazardous building
materials shall file a Hazardous Waste Manifest that
details the hauling of the material from the site and the disposal of it. Pursuant to California law, the City of South San Francisco shall not issue the required permit until the applicant has complied with the notice
requirements described above.

Impact HAZ-3: The project would not emit
hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within 0.25-mile of an existing proposed school.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Impact HAZ-4: The project would be located on a
site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5, but would not create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a, above. Project: LTSM Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact HAZ-5: The project would not result in a
safety hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact HAZ-6: The project would not impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact HAZ-7: The project would not expose
people or structures, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Impact C-HAZ-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in a significant cumulative impact
on hazards and hazardous materials.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HWQ-1: The project would not violate any
water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: Require Groundwater
Monitoring and Sampling Prior to Dewatering Activity
(All Phases)
Prior to any construction activity proposing or with the potential to require dewatering, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall measure water levels and water quality, prior to and during dewatering activities, with a focus on potential constituents of concern based on permitting requirements and known or suspected water
quality impacts within or near the development site. The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall ensure collection and testing of samples prior to initiating construction activities proposing or with the potential to require dewatering. The location of the sampling locations shall be at an appropriate distance from the proposed
dewatering site, as determined by a geotechnical evaluation of the local groundwater and soil conditions. If contamination Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
is detected, remedial measures to limit and/or contain the spread of contaminated water shall be implemented. Several options can be employed such as conducting on-site
treatment/remediation, disposal in sewer system (with any appropriate pre-treatment) or at a hazardous materials
disposal facility depending on type and levels of
contamination, tanking, or stopping or phasing underground construction. Water shall be treated such that it complies with discharge and reporting requirements of the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and Fuel General Permit (Order
No. R2-2018-0050) and applicable water quality objectives as designated in the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), or hauled off-site for treatment and disposal at a permitted waste treatment
facility. The applicant shall be responsible for demonstrating to the City that the treatment and disposal requirements set forth in this mitigation measure have been met.

Impact HWQ-2: The project would not
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact HWQ-3: The project would not
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would result in substantial erosion or siltation onor off-site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff;
or impede floodflows.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact HWQ-4: The project would not risk release
of pollutants due to project inundation as a result
of being located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones.

Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Impact HWQ-5: The project would not conflict
with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-HWQ-1: The project, inclusive of Phase
1, together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts on
hydrology and water quality.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, above. Project: LTSM Phase 1: LTSM
Impact C-HWQ-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge such that sustainable groundwater
management of the basin would be impeded.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-HWQ-3: The project, inclusive of Phase
1, together with the cumulative projects identified
would not substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the area, in a manner which would
result in erosion or siltation; increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff that would result in
flooding; exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Land Use and Planning
Impact LU-1: The project would not physically
divide an established community.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact LU-2: The project would not result in an
environmental impact due to conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
Project: S
Phase 1: LTS
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-4, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect.

Impact C-LU-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not physically divide an established
community.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-LU-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in an environmental impact due
to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Mineral Resources (refer to Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant) 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: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
Noise and Vibration
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: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: Construction Noise Control
Plan to Reduce Noise Outside Standard Construction
Hours in the City of South San Francisco (All Phases)
The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans and/or the contractor(s) for Phase 1 and future Precise Plans shall obtain a permit to complete work outside the standard construction hours outlined in the South San Francisco
and/or San Bruno Municipal Code for work within each
respective jurisdiction. In addition, the applicant and/or contractor(s) shall develop a construction noise control plan to reduce noise levels and comply with municipal daytime and nighttime noise standards. Specifically, for noise
Project: SU
Phase 1: SU
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-42 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
generated in or experienced by receptors in South San
Francisco, the plan shall demonstrate that noise from
construction activities that occur daily between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. weekdays and on Saturday will comply with the applicable City of South San Francisco noise limit of 65 dBA at the nearest existing commercial land use and 60 dBA at the nearest multi-family residential land use, and construction activities that occur between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. will comply with the applicable City noise limit of 60 dBA at the nearest existing commercial land use and 55 dBA at the
nearest multi-family residential land use. In addition, the plan shall demonstrate that noise generated in or experienced by receptors in San Bruno from construction activities that occur between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall not exceed a noise level of 60 dBA, as measured at 100 feet. Measures to help reduce noise from construction activity during nonstandard construction hours to these levels shall be incorporated into this plan and may include, but are not limited to, the following:
⚫ Plan for the noisiest construction activities to occur during daytime hours in both jurisdictions when the
quantitative standards are less stringent and when
people are less sensitive to noise.
⚫ Require all construction equipment be equipped with
mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake
silencers and noise shrouds) that are in good condition (at least as effective as those originally provided by the manufacturer) and appropriate for the equipment.
⚫ Maintain all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-43 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
⚫ Locate construction equipment as far as feasible from adjacent or nearby noise-sensitive receptors.
⚫ Require all stationary equipment be located to maintain the greatest possible distance to the nearby existing
buildings, where feasible.
⚫ Require stationary noise sources associated with
construction (e.g., generators and compressors) in
proximity to noise-sensitive land uses to be muffled
and/or enclosed within temporary enclosures and
shielded by barriers, which can reduce construction
noise by as much as 5 dB.
⚫ Install noise-reducing sound walls or fencing (e.g.
temporary fencing with sound blankets) around noisegenerating equipment during nighttime/non-standard daytime hours.
⚫ Prohibit the use of impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) during nighttime/non-standard daytime hours.
⚫ Prohibit idling of inactive construction equipment for prolonged periods during nighttime/non-standard hours
(i.e., more than 2 minutes).
⚫ Provide advance notification in the form of
mailings/deliveries of notices to surrounding land uses regarding the construction schedule, including the
various types of activities that would be occurring
throughout the duration of the construction period.
⚫ Provide the name and telephone number of an on-site
construction liaison through on-site signage and on the notices mailed/delivered to surrounding land uses. If
construction noise is found to be intrusive to the
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-44 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
community (i.e., if complaints are received), the
construction liaison shall take reasonable efforts to
investigate the source of the noise and require that
reasonable measures be implemented to correct the
problem.
⚫ Use electric motors rather than gasoline- or dieselpowered engines to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered
tools during nighttime hours. Where the use of
pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust could be used; this muffler can
lower noise levels from the exhaust by about 10 dB.

External jackets on the tools themselves could be used, which could achieve a reduction of 5 dB.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1b: Construction of Temporary
Noise Barrier along Tanforan Avenue (Phase 1 Only)
The Phase 1 contractor(s) shall install a temporary noise barrier along the complete length of Tanforan Avenue that abuts project construction activities, located within the direct line-of-sight path between the noise source and nearby
sensitive receptor(s), in advance of project construction. The barrier shall be constructed of material that has a surface weight of at least 1 pound per square foot and has an
acoustical rating of at least 25 STC (Sound Transmission Class). This can include a temporary barrier constructed with plywood supported on a wood frame, sound curtains
supported on a frame, or other comparable material.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-45 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact NOI-1b: Project operations would not
generate a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance or
applicable standards of other agencies.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure NOI-1c: Mechanical Equipment Noise
Reduction Plan (All Phases)
To reduce potential noise impacts resulting from project heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels of project-specific mechanical equipment based on the selected equipment
models and design features, and create a Noise Reduction Plan to ensure noise levels of equipment, once installed, are below the applicable criteria described below. The Noise Reduction Plan shall include any necessary noise reduction measures required to reduce project-specific mechanical equipment noise to a less-than-significant level. The plan shall also demonstrate that with the inclusion of selected measures, noise from equipment would be below the
significance thresholds. Feasible noise reduction measures to reduce noise below the significance threshold include, but are not limited to, selecting quieter equipment, utilizing silencers and acoustical equipment at vent openings, siting equipment farther from the roofline, and/or enclosing all equipment in a mechanical equipment room designed to
reduce noise. This analysis shall be conducted and the
results and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase.

The noise analysis and Noise Reduction Plan shall be
prepared by persons qualified in acoustical analysis and/or engineering. The Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with reasonable certainty that noise from mechanical
equipment selected for the project, including the
attenuation features incorporated into the project design, will not exceed the City of South San Francisco property plane threshold of 60 dBA during daytime hours or 55 dBA during nighttime hours for nearby multi-family residential Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-46 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
uses, 65 dBA during daytime hours or 60 dBA during
nighttime hours for nearby commercial uses, or the City of San Bruno threshold of 10 dB above the ambient noise level at the property plane.

The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall incorporate all feasible methods to reduce noise
identified above and any other feasible recommendations from the acoustical analysis and Noise Reduction Plan into the building design and operations as necessary to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the
respective noise ordinances at receiving properties.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1d: Emergency Generator Noise
Reduction Plan (All Phases)
Prior to approval of a building permit for any proposed development under the Specific Plan, including Phase 1, the Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall conduct a noise analysis to estimate noise levels from the testing of project-specific emergency generators, and create a Noise Reduction Plan to ensure noise levels of generator testing are below the applicable criteria This analysis and Noise Reduction Plan may be incorporated together with the analysis described in MM-NOI-1c. This analysis shall be conducted and the Noise Reduction Plan shall be created based on the analysis results. The results, methods, and final Noise Reduction Plan shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase. The analysis shall account for proposed noise attenuation features, such as specific acoustical enclosures and mufflers or silences, and the final Noise Reduction Plan shall demonstrate with
reasonable certainty that proposed generator(s) will not exceed the City of South San Francisco property plane
threshold of 60 dBA for residential uses and 65 dBA for commercial uses during daytime hours, or 55 dBA for
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-47 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
residential uses and 60 dBA for commercial uses during
nighttime hours, and the City of San Bruno threshold of 10 dB above the ambient noise level. Acoustical treatments may include, but are not limited to:
⚫ Enclosing generator(s);
⚫ Installing relatively quiet model generator(s);
⚫ Orienting or shielding generator(s) to protect noisesensitive receptors to the greatest extent feasible; ⚫ Installing exhaust mufflers or silencers;
⚫ Increasing the distance between generator(s) and
noise-sensitive receptors; and/or
⚫ Placing barriers around generator(s) to facilitate the attenuation of noise.

In addition, all project generator(s) shall be tested only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

The Phase 1 applicant and applicants of future Precise Plans shall incorporate all recommendations from the acoustical analysis into the building design and operations to ensure that noise sources meet applicable requirements of the noise ordinance.

Impact NOI-2: The project would not generate
excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne
noise levels.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact NOI-3: The project would not expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive
noise levels for a project located within the vicinity
of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use airport.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-NOI-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1, Project: S Implement Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, NOI-1b, and NOI- Project: SU City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-48 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
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 or other
agencies.

Phase 1: S 1c, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan. Phase 1: SU Impact C-NOI-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in the generation of excessive
ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise
levels.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-NOI-3: The project, inclusive of phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Population and Housing
Impact PH-1: The project would not induce
substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly or indirectly.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-PH-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts on
planned population and housing growth.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Public Services
Impact PS-1: The project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered fire and
emergency medical services in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact PS-2: The project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered police
Project: LTS None required. Project: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-49 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
protection services in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.

Phase 1: LTS Phase 1: LTS
Impact PS-3: The project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered schools in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact PS-4: The project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered libraries or
other public facilities in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-PS-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in a significant cumulative impact
on public services.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Recreation
Impact REC-1: The project would not require the
provision of new or physically altered park
facilities in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios or other performance objectives.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact REC-2: The project would not increase the
use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact REC-3: The project would not include
recreational facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-REC-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-50 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts on
recreation.

Transportation and Circulation
Impact TR-1: The project would not conflict with
a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway,
bicyclist, and pedestrian facilities.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-2: The project would not conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b), or include transportation
changes that would result in a net increase in total
VMT.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-3A: The project would not increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible uses.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-3b: The project would not
substantially increase hazards due to freeway
ramp queuing.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-3c: The project would not substantially
increase hazards at at-grade rail crossings.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-3d: The project would contribute to
existing hazardous conditions due to projectrelated traffic, leading to unsignalized intersections meeting signal warrants. Phase 1
would not contribute to existing hazardous
conditions due to project-related traffic, leading to
unsignalized intersections meeting signal
warrants.

Project: S
Phase 1: LTS
No feasible mitigation measures are available. Project: SU Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-4: The project would not have a
detrimental impact on emergency access.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-5a: The project would not result in Project: LTS None required. Project: LTS City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-51 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
substantial delay or overcrowding on transit
vehicles.

Phase 1: LTS Phase 1: LTS
Impact TR-5b: The project would not have a
detrimental impact on bicycle or pedestrian
facilities.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance,
or policy addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-2: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-3a: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
would not substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature or incompatible uses.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-3b: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not substantially increase hazards due to
freeway ramp queuing.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-3c: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not substantially increase hazards at atgrade rail crossings.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-3d: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would contribute to existing hazardous conditions
due to project-related traffic, leading to
unsignalized intersections meeting signal
warrants.

Project: S
Phase 1: LTS
No feasible mitigation measures are available. Project: SU Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-52 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Impact C-TR-4: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not have a detrimental impact on
emergency access.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-5A: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not result in substantial delay or
overcrowding on transit vehicles.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-TR-5B: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified
would not have a detrimental impact on bicycle or
pedestrian facilities.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe and that is listed or eligible
for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of
historical resources, as defined in PRC Section
5020.1(k), or is a resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section
5024.1.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-2a, CR-2b, and CR-3,
above.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
Impact C-TCR-1: The project, inclusive of Phase 1,
together with the cumulative projects identified,
would not result in a cumulatively considerable
contribution to significant cumulative impacts on
tribal cultural resources.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-2a, CR-2b, and CR-3,
above.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-53 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-1: The project would not require or
result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the construction
or relocation of which would cause significant
environmental effects.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact UTIL-2: The project would not have
insufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years.

Project: S
Phase 1: S
Mitigation Measure UTIL-1: Limit Total Water Demand
under the Specific Plan to 527 AFY (Future Phases)
If Cal Water has lawfully adopted a Water Neutral
Development policy that is applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant(s) shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Cal Water that the project complies with said policy. Upon demonstrating compliance with said policy, no further action is required. The
applicant(s) shall provide the City with documentation of Cal Water’s concurrence that the project has complied with said policy.

If a Water Neutral Development policy has not been lawfully adopted or is not applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested, applicants of future Precise Plans shall prepare an estimate of their individual project’s net water demand for the City’s review and
approval prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

The net increase in water demand shall be calculated based on the expected total water use due to the proposed
development and/or expansion, minus the amount of existing water use, onsite credits, alternative onsite sources of water supply, and/or offsite credits.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-54 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
The City shall ensure, through its review of individual projects’ demand estimates, that the individual project’s net increase in demand does not result in total demand within the Specific Plan area that exceeds 527 AFY. When preparing demand estimates for a future phase(s) of development,
applicants shall include Phase 1’s net increase in demand based on actual water usage data for Phase 1, if Phase 1 is fully constructed and operational and such data are readily available. If Phase 1 is not fully constructed and operational, or if actual water demand data are not readily available, the applicant shall prepare an estimate of the Phase 1 demand and include it in the estimate of total demand. If the total estimated demand for all projects within the Specific Plan is found to exceed 527 AFY, the City shall withhold issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for that portion of the project that causes total demand within the Specific Plan area to exceed 527 AFY until the applicant provides evidence that additional water supply is available, or sufficient offsets are provided, to satisfy any additional demand in excess of 527 AFY.

Mitigation Measure UTIL-2: Implement Measures to
Address Projected Dry Year Water Shortages (All Phases) If Cal Water has lawfully adopted a Water Neutral
Development policy that is applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of Occupancy is requested for projects under the Specific Plan, the applicant(s) shall be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of Cal Water that the project complies with said policy. Upon demonstrating compliance with said policy, no further action is required. The
applicant(s) shall provide the City with documentation of Cal Water’s concurrence that the project has complied with said policy.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-55 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
If said policy has not been lawfully adopted or is not
applicable to the project at the time a Certificate of
Occupancy is requested and the 2018 amendment to the
Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment) is not being implemented as adopted due to
pending or concluded litigation, rescission, modification through voluntary agreement(s), or other circumstances, no further action is required.

If said policy has not been lawfully adopted or is not in effect at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is requested and the Bay-Delta Plan Amendment is being implemented, then if a Shortage Level 1 or greater shortage has been established, as defined under the Cal Water 2020 UWMP Water Shortage
Contingency Plan (WSCP) for the South San Francisco District or otherwise applicable WSCP at that time, applicants of projects under the Specific Plan shall comply with applicable requirements under the WSCP. Consistent with the 2020
UWMP-WSCP, coordination with Cal Water District staff will be required to determine the specific range of strategies identified under the WSCP needed to address water shortage levels, including water use restrictions and/or consumption reduction actions applicable to the project (UWMP, Appendix L, Table 5-1). The applicant(s) shall provide the City with documentation of Cal Water’s concurrence that the
applicant(s) have committed to implement an agreed upon strategy to address water shortage levels in compliance with the requirements of the WSCP.

Impact UTIL-3: The project would not result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project
that it has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected wastewater treatment demand
Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-56 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Impact UTIL-4: The project would not generate
solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or
in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals. In addition, the project would not
fail to comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste.

Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
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: S
Phase 1: S
Implement Mitigation Measures UTIL-1 and UTIL-2, above, as applicable to each Precise Plan.

Project: LTSM
Phase 1: LTSM
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: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
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: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
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: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
Impact C-UTIL-5: The project, inclusive of Phase
1, together with past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects, would not result in a
Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
None required. Project: LTS
Phase 1: LTS
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-57 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Potential Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
before
Mitigation Recommended Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
after
Mitigation
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.

Wildfire (refer to Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant) 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 pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of 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: NI
Phase 1: NI
None required. Project: NI
Phase 1: NI
City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-58 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

2.2.1 Alternatives
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires an EIR to evaluate the No Project Alternative and a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would also avoid or substantially reduce any identified significant environmental impacts of the project. As summarized in Table 2-1, p. 2-4, the project would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, noise, and transportation and circulation.

Phase 1 would have significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise.

As described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, three alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
⚫ Alternative A—No Project Alternative
⚫ Alternative B—No Intersection Alternative
⚫ Alternative C—Reduced Project Alternative
As also described in Chapter 5, Alternatives, six other alternatives were considered by the City but ultimately rejected as infeasible during the scoping and environmental review process. The alternatives evaluated in detail in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this EIR are summarized below.

2.2.1.1 Alternative A: No Project Alternative
As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), Chapter 5, Alternatives included evaluation of a “no project” alternative. 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 offsite improvement associated with the project, including 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 on the Specific Plan area.

Alternative A would not preclude potential future development at the project site with a range of land uses that are permitted under existing land use policies 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.

2.2.1.2 Alternative B: No Intersection Alternative
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 the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue as 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 City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-59 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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.

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. 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.

City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-60 September 2021
ICF 0082.20

2.2.1.3 Alternative C: Reduced Project Alternative
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 project. Alternative C was selected for evaluated based on its ability 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.

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 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, City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-61 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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).

2.2.2 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.

As evaluated in Chapter 5, Alternatives, of this EIR, 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.

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.

2.2.3 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved The City of South San Francisco Planning Division of the Economic and Community Development Department (Planning Division), issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Southline Specific Plan project on May 22, 2020, in compliance with Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations. The NOP review period commenced on May 22, 2020, and concluded on July 6, 2020, and a scoping meeting was held on June 11, 2020. One commenter submitted questions at the meeting. The Planning Division received ten comment letters from public agencies and interested parties during the public review and comment period. The Planning Division has considered the comments made by the public in preparation of the EIR for the proposed project. A copy of the NOP and all comments received on the NOP are provided in Appendix 1. Based on the comments received during the scoping process, areas of known controversy and issues to be resolved include:
⚫ Traffic congestion and parking, including effects on intersections in the City of San Bruno; ⚫ Safety impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists, including impacts around the BART station; City of South San Francisco Executive Summary
Southline Specific Plan EIR 2-62 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ Construction impacts on sensitive receptors, including impacts from air emissions, dust, and noise;
⚫ Potential impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats; ⚫ Greenhouse gas emissions;
⚫ Shading impacts on residential uses to the south;3 and ⚫ Public utility capacity, including the project’s contribution to the City of San Bruno’s utilities and service systems.
3 Per Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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 the scoping comment, a shadow study was conducted for the proposed project and is included in Appendix 4.18-1.

Refer to Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, for a discussion of the shadow study.

Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-1
September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Chapter 3
Project Description

3.1 Overview
This chapter describes the location, key characteristics, and objectives of the proposed project, which comprises buildout allowed under the proposed Southline Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and associated off-site improvements. The required approvals for the proposed project and the intended uses of this environmental impact report (EIR) are also described. The proposed project would redevelop a 26.5-acre1 industrial site (Specific Plan area) in the City of South San Francisco (City), located in proximity to the San Bruno Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station. The proposed project would also construct off-site transportation, circulation, and infrastructure improvements at several locations outside the Specific Plan area, some of which are located within the City of San Bruno (offsite improvement areas), totaling approximately 6.4 acres. Together, the Specific Plan area and the off-site improvements are referred to as the proposed project, and these combined areas compose the project site, totaling approximately 33 acres (project site).

Within the 26.5-acre Specific Plan area, the proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct a transit-oriented office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of 2,800,000 square feet. New development would include commercial office/R&D buildings; a four-story supportive amenities building (referred to as Building 22) totaling approximately 88,200 square feet; approximately 3,064 underground parking spaces at various locations throughout the Specific Plan area; a nine-story parking structure with approximately 2,705 spaces (referred to as Parking Structure C); a new east–west connection road referred to as Southline Avenue (provisionally named for the purpose of the Specific Plan and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review); supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and up to 341,800 square feet (7.8 acres) of open space. Commercial building heights would range from four to seven stories, subject to maximum height limits in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) requirements for San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Additionally, off-site improvements would be constructed to support development within the Specific Plan area. These include the following improvements within the City of South San Francisco:
⚫ reconfiguration of the South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue intersection; ⚫ reconfiguration of the existing at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue; ⚫ roadway widening of and street front improvements on South Maple Avenue; and ⚫ signalization of intersections at the main Southline campus entry point at Southline Avenue, mid-block at Southline Avenue, and at Southline Avenue and Dollar/Linden avenues. 1 Except as otherwise noted, all references to acreage, square footage, and other measurements are approximate. 2 Building names and building number references (e.g., Amenities Building, Building 1, Parking Structure C) refer to the conceptual site plans shown in Figure 3-7 and Figure 3-8 in this Chapter 3, Project Description.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-2September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The off-site improvements also include the following improvements located within the City of San Bruno, which are subject to separate application, review, and approval requirements from the City of San Bruno and/or BART, for facilities within its jurisdiction:
⚫ new signalized intersection, reconfiguring Huntington Avenue, connecting it to the new Southline Avenue, and providing for improved adjacent bicycle and pedestrian facilities; ⚫ reconfiguration of Tanforan Avenue to create a cul-de-sac limiting through traffic; and ⚫ a new dedicated, signalized northbound left turn lane on Huntington Avenue providing a new entrance into the transit center for SamTrans buses.

The proposed project would also remove, install, or relocate several utilities (aboveground and underground), sidewalks, curbs, and streetscape improvements within the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and within BART jurisdiction.

Development associated with the proposed project would be implemented under the proposed Specific Plan, which would establish new land use development standards and design guidelines for the future development within the Specific Plan area. This chapter summarizes the policies, development standards, and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan that would regulate development within the Specific Plan area. The information presented and described in this chapter focuses on aspects of the Specific Plan that are pertinent to the evaluation of the proposed project’s potential effects on (i.e., changes to) the physical environment.

Program-Level Analysis: Based on the development standards established in the Specific Plan, this chapter describes two buildout scenarios that represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario. The buildout scenarios are the basis of the program-level environmental impact analysis presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR. For the programlevel analysis, each section in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyzes the buildout scenario – i.e., either the Office Scenario or the Life Sciences Scenario – which is the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed, as further described in Section

4.01, Approach to Environmental Analysis. A phased development process for buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated, which is reflected in both the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario analyses.

Project-Level Analysis: Implementation of the Specific Plan would require project-level proposals to be presented to the City of South San Francisco through a Precise Plan review process established under the Specific Plan; all Precise Plan proposals would be evaluated for consistency with the Specific Plan by the City. The project applicant has submitted a Precise Plan proposal to the City for the first phase of development within the Specific Plan area (Phase 1). Under the Precise Plan proposal, Phase 1 would include construction of the new Southline Avenue east–west connection road and the following development, generally located south of the new road:
⚫ two new office buildings (Buildings 1 and 7), with a total building area of up to 612,715 square feet;
⚫ the four-story, 88,200-square foot amenities building (Building 2); ⚫ up to approximately 2,664 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and the eastern portion of the nine-story parking structure located north of the new Southline Avenue (Parking Structure C);
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-3September 2021
ICF 00082.20
⚫ landscaping and open space amenities; and
⚫ all of the proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure, roadway, and pedestrian improvements within the off-site improvement areas except for the roadway widening, street front improvements, and sewer main upgrades in Maple Avenue.

In total, Phase 1 construction would occur on 11.93 acres within the Specific Plan area and 5.03 acres within the off-site improvements areas, totaling 16.96 acres (Phase 1 site). This chapter provides a detailed description of Phase 1, which is evaluated at a project level in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR.

3.1.1 Project Applicant
The project applicant is Lane Partners. The applicant contact person is:

Marcus Gilmour, Principal
Lane Partners
644 Menlo Park Avenue, Second Floor
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 838-0100
[email protected]

3.1.2 Lead Agency
The CEQA lead agency for the proposed project is the City of South San Francisco. The lead agency contact person is:

Adena Friedman, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development Department
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
(650) 877-8535
[email protected]

3.2 Project Location
The approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area is in the City of South San Francisco. The City is south of the City of Brisbane and north of the City of San Bruno. The City is built on the bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. The City is located along major transportation routes, including U.S. 101, Interstate (I) 380, I-280, BART tracks, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks, which are also used by Caltrain. Figure 3-1, p. 3-47, shows the location of the Specific Plan area and the regional vicinity.

The Specific Plan area is at the intersection of South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue, adjacent to the City of San Bruno. The Specific Plan area is approximately 0.1 mile from the San Bruno 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 Specific Plan area encompasses seven parcels, including Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 014- 250-090, 014-250-080, 014-250-050, 014-241-030, 014-241-040, 014-232-030, and 014-232-050.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-4September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The Specific Plan area is within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, as described in the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan). As shown in Figure 3-2, p. 3-48, the off-site improvement areas are located within the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, generally adjacent to the Specific Plan area to the west, south, and east. Together, the approximately 26.5-acre Specific Plan area and the approximately 6.4-acre off-site improvement areas comprise the total approximately 33-acre project site.

3.3 Existing Setting

3.3.1 Regional Setting
The City of South San Francisco encompasses approximately 4,298 acres and is largely composed of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City and single-family homes to the north and west. Much of the City is already urbanized, and the amount of vacant land is limited. Growth in the City typically occurs mostly in the form of redevelopment and intensification.

3.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses and Circulation
As shown in Figure 3-2, p. 3-48, land uses surrounding the project site include the commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities north and east of the Specific Plan area within the City of South San Francisco. To the south of the project site are predominantly single-family residences, and to the west are the San Bruno BART station, the Shops at Tanforan, and San Bruno Towne Center, all of which are located in the City of San Bruno. The Centennial Way Trail, a Class I multi-use path, runs generally parallel to Maple Avenue west of the Specific Plan area, in addition to bicycle lanes along Sneath Avenue.

The San Bruno Caltrain station is approximately 0.75 mile south of the project site, and the South San Francisco Caltrain station is approximately 1.5 miles to the north. Existing circulation routes surrounding the Specific Plan area include South Maple Avenue, Huntington Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, Dollar Avenue, and South Linden Avenue. The Specific Plan area is approximately 0.1 mile from the SamTrans Transit Center at the San Bruno BART station, which provides bus service to a range of destinations in San Mateo County. The project site is served by six freeway interchanges within a radius of 1.5 miles, including I-380/El Camino Real, U.S. 101/Grand Avenue, U.S. 101/Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard, U.S. 101/San Bruno Avenue, I-280/Sneath Lane, and I-280/San Bruno Avenue. SFO is approximately 1.1 mile to the southeast.

3.3.3 Site Setting
The existing uses within the Specific Plan area include a variety of occupied and unoccupied office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities that were largely constructed in the 1940s and 1950s.

The existing structures within the Specific Plan area include 15 buildings and/or structures totaling approximately 344,000 square feet. Surface parking lots containing approximately 380 parking spaces and storage areas are interspersed among the buildings. The Specific Plan area currently lacks internal circulation; there are no routes through the site from South Maple Avenue on the west to South Linden Avenue on the east. A site plan of the existing conditions is shown in Figure 3-3, p. 3-49.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-5September 2021
ICF 00082.20
The topography of the project site and surrounding vicinity is relatively flat, with a slight slope downward toward the northeast. The project site elevation ranges from approximately 17 to 33.25 feet (NAVD 88)3 above mean sea level (MSL). As discussed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, of this EIR, the project site is underlain by native soils and artificial fill. Artificial fill generally underlies the project site to a depth of 2–5 feet below ground surface (bgs), except at 50-54 Tanforan Avenue, where artificial fill was measured to a depth of 22 feet. The depth to groundwater at the project site ranges from approximately 8 to 27 feet bgs.4 The Specific Plan area has a history of contamination related to its use over the years for various industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities uses; a series of recent environmental investigations have been conducted to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the Specific Plan area. These investigations are summarized in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this EIR and provided in Appendix 4.8-1.

The Specific Plan area contains some ornamental landscaping and approximately 162 trees, including two protected trees.5,6 Of the 162 trees, 80 are located on the Phase 1 site (not including the two protected trees, which are located in future phase areas). The off-site improvement areas contain additional ornamental landscaping and approximately 19 trees, with four trees near the intersection of South Linden Avenue and Dollar Avenue in the City of South San Francisco, and 15 trees near the proposed Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection in the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno. 7 The Specific Plan area is served by
existing utility infrastructure owned and maintained by the City (sanitary sewer and stormwater), the California Water Service Company (Cal Water) (water), and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) (natural gas and electricity).

The Specific Plan area encompasses seven parcels, including APNs 014-250-090, 014-250-080, 014- 250-050, 014-241-030, 014-241-040, 014-232-030, and 014-232-050. The existing parcel size, address, land use, and building size for the seven parcels within the Specific Plan area are described in Table 3-1, p. 3-6.
3 The North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88) is the vertical control datum established in 1991 by the minimum-constraint adjustment of the Canadian-Mexican-United States leveling observations. It held fixed the height of the primary tidal bench mark, referenced to the new International Great Lakes Datum of 1985 local mean sea level height value, at Father Point/Rimouski, Quebec, Canada. 4 Cornerstone Earth Group. 2020. Southline Development: Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Project Number 129.3.6. July 28, 2020.
5 Urban Tree Management. 2020. Tree Inventory of Southline, South San Francisco, CA 94080. May 13. 6 City of South San Francisco. n.d. South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 13.30, Tree Preservation.

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

Accessed: January 25, 2021.
7 Aerial and street view imagery from Google Earth was used to approximate the number of trees in the off-site improvement areas.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-6September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 3-1. Existing Building Summary
APN
Parcel Size
(sf) Address Use Type Year Built
Building
Size
(sf)
Building
Height
(stories)
Yard Size
(sf)
014-250-090 317,988 30 Tanforan Ave.* Administrative Office 1963 6,300 1 N/A 40 Tanforan Ave.* Industrial Warehouse c. 1956 42,000 1 172,000 347 S. Maple Ave. Industrial Warehouse c. 1965 4,500 1 N/A 349 S. Maple Ave. Industrial Warehouse 1959 9,500 1 61,000 014-250-080 74,152 50 Tanforan Ave.* Industrial Warehouse 1959 34,000 1 32,000 014-250-050 129,983 54 Tanforan Ave.* Industrial Warehouse c. 1943 26,000 2 130,000 014-241-030 163,176 240 Dollar Ave.* Industrial Factory c. 1943/1956/1965 60,000 1 55,000 180 S. Linden Ave.* Industrial Warehouse 1956/1982 7,500 1 40,000 014-241-040 231,216 160 S. Linden Ave.* Chemical Plant 1940/1958 60,000b 3 105,000 160 S. Linden Ave.* Ancillary building c. 1940 1
180 S. Linden Ave.* Tour bus barn (repair show) c. 2012 1 180 S. Linden Ave.* Tour bus barn (bus wash) c. 2012 1
014-232-030 219,610 315 S. Maple Ave. Industrial Warehouse 1995 19,000 1 N/A 319 S. Maple Ave. Industrial Warehouse 1996 20,000 1 N/A 325 S. Maple Ave. Industrial Warehouse 1946/ 1957 55,000 1 N/A Total 1,154,736
(approximately

26.5 acres) a
343,800 595,000
Source: Lane Partners, 2020.

Notes:
a Includes 18,611-square foot APN 014-232-050, which does not contain any buildings. b Includes ancillary structures.
sf = square feet
* Property addresses marked with an asterisk symbol are located partially or fully within the Phase 1 site.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-7September 2021
ICF 00082.20

3.3.3.1 Existing Land Use and Zoning Designations
Figures 3-4 and 3-5, pp. 3-50 and 3-51, illustrate the existing General Plan land use and zoning designations of the Specific Plan area and surrounding area, respectively.

General Plan Designation
Nearly all of the Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres) is designated under the City’s General Plan as Office, a designation intended to provide sites for administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices in locations proximate to BART or Caltrain stations. The maximum base permitted floor area ratio (FAR) in the Office designation is 1.0, but increases may be permitted up to a total FAR of 2.5 for development meeting specific criteria, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM), structured parking, off-site improvement, or specific design standards. 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 area is a linear strip that runs in a southwest–northeast direction, corresponding with a former rail easement. General Plan Figure 2-2 (Airport-Related Height Limitations) indicates that the Specific Plan area is located within an area subject to a height limit of 161 feet per ALUCP requirements; however, Figure 2-3 (Special Area Height Limitation) further indicates that all or a large portion of the Specific Plan area is located in an area subject to a height limit of 80 feet, implemented through the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan also proposes a new street extension that crosses the Specific Plan area between South Linden and South Maple Avenues, extending to Sneath Lane, which is intended to provide a connection between downtown South San Francisco and the San Bruno BART station, provide vehicle and truck access to I-380, and increase overall access to the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, described below.

The General Plan is currently being updated as part of the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. 8 The General
Plan remains active until completion and adoption of the new general plan. The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan preferred land use alternative, which will ultimately serve as the basis for the updated Shape SSF 2040 General Plan and related Land Use Element, maintains the existing land use designation for the bulk of the Specific Plan area, although it renames the designation from Office to Business and Professional Office.
9 The Shape SSF 2040 General Plan preferred land use alternative maintains the proposed new street extension that crosses the Specific Plan area between South Linden and South Maple Avenues. The City anticipates that any General Plan amendments required for implementation of the proposed project, as further described below in Section 3.7, Required Governmental Approvals, will be reflected in the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan.

Lindenville Planning Sub-Area
The Planning Sub-Areas Element of the General Plan identifies the Specific Plan area as being located within the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, which, according to the General Plan, is the only largescale industrial area in the City west of U.S. 101. The area comprises a range of commercial uses, including small business parks. The Planning Sub-Areas Element does not impose density or height standards separate from those standards found in the General Plan’s Land Use Element. The 8 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan, Preferred Land Use Alternative. Available:
https://shapessf.com/. Accessed: October 18, 2020.
9 City of South San Francisco, Shape SSF Preferred Alternative. Available:
https://shapessf.com/preferredalternative/. Accessed: January 4, 2021.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-8September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Lindenville Planning Sub-Area is an area that the City has identified as needing “upgrading and rehabilitation.”10 Access to the area is constrained, and often trucks have to negotiate downtown streets to access U.S. 101 at the Grand Avenue intersection, creating bottlenecks at major entryways to the city of South San Francisco. The General Plan indicates that the Lindenville Planning SubArea’s proximity to the San Bruno BART station will provide opportunities for redevelopment. To that end, the General Plan includes a number of policies that encourage redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area, such as providing better connectivity to the San Bruno BART station, including an extension of South Linden Avenue through the Specific Plan area; enhancing the appearance of the area by undertaking streetscape and other improvements; improving the buffering between industrial areas in the Lindenville Planning SubArea and surrounding residential neighborhoods; and encouraging new office development in areas designated for that use.

Zoning
The South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, is the primary document that implements the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance provides regulations regarding permitted land uses, development regulations, and development processes for land within the City. The majority of the Specific Plan area (approximately 26.2 acres), which corresponds with the Office land use designation under the General Plan, is zoned Business and Professional Office under the Zoning Ordinance. This zoning district, which implements the General Plan’s Office designation, is intended to provide sites for development for a range of commercial uses at locations close to BART or Caltrain stations, such as administrative, financial, business, professional, medical, and public offices; research and development; and supportive amenity uses. Retail uses are limited to business services, food service, and convenience goods for those who work in the area. New residential uses, including group residential facilities, are not permitted, but live/work uses are allowed. The maximum base FAR for administrative, financial, and other office uses is typically 1.0, but increases up to a maximum FAR of 2.5 may be permitted for development that meets specific transportation demand management, off-site improvement, or design requirements or criteria. Outside of the East of 101 Area, building heights in the Business and Professional Office zoning district may not exceed 80 feet. The small 0.3-acre linear portion of the Specific Plan area that was the location of a former rail easement, and corresponding with the Parks and Recreation land use designation, is also zoned Parks and Recreation.

3.3.3.2 Existing Utilities
The Specific Plan area is served by existing storm drainage systems, sanitary sewer conveyance systems, and wastewater treatment infrastructure, all of which is owned, operated, and maintained by the City. Potable water infrastructure is owned, operated, and maintained by Cal Water. Electric and gas service is provided by PG&E. Existing dry utilities (power, phone, cable, and natural gas) are also in place in the Specific Plan area and surrounding roads. Existing water, sewer, storm drainage, electrical, gas, and communications utilities are located in public utility easements throughout and adjacent to the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan area is not located in an area supplied with recycled water because the South San Francisco district does not have an existing or planned recycled water distribution system in place. Refer to Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, of this EIR for a detailed discussion of exiting utility infrastructure that serves the Specific Plan area. 10 City of South San Francisco General Plan, p. 3-14. 1999.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-9September 2021
ICF 00082.20

3.4 Intended Uses of the EIR
This section provides a brief overview of the purpose and intended uses of this EIR. Refer also to Section 1.2 in Chapter 1, Introduction, of this EIR. As discussed in Chapter 1, this a combined program-level and project-level EIR that provides a program-level evaluation of the Specific Plan and a project-level evaluation of Phase 1, including off-site improvements included in Phase 1.

3.4.1 Program-Level Analysis
Buildout under the proposed Specific Plan is evaluated at a program level in this EIR under an Office Scenario and a Life Sciences Scenario, as described in Section 3.6.2.2, p. 3-14. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 establishes the use of program EIRs for review of later activities. As defined therein, a program EIR is an EIR prepared on a series of related actions that can be characterized as one large project. Feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the program EIR must be incorporated into later activities in the program to the extent applicable to the individual later activity. Later activities must be evaluated to determine whether additional environmental review is needed. If a later activity is determined to be “within the scope” of the project covered by the program EIR, the lead agency can make a finding of consistency and approve the activity without having to prepare a new environmental document. The lead agency may use a written checklist or similar device to determine whether the environmental effects of the later action are within the scope of the program EIR. The City anticipates utilizing such a written checklist or similar device when evaluating future Precise Plan submittals processed under the Specific Plan and/or for implementation of related off-site improvements.

3.4.1.1 Subsequent Activities Not Previously Examined
If the lead agency determines that the later activity would have effects that were not examined in the program EIR, subsequent environmental review would be required. Conditions triggering subsequent environmental review are set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162–15163 (Public Resources Code Section 21166) and include:
⚫ Substantial changes are proposed in the project that require major revisions of the EIR to address new or substantially increased significant effects; ⚫ Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken, which require major revisions in the EIR to address new or substantially increased significant effects; and
⚫ New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the EIR was certified as complete, becomes available that shows new or substantially increased significant effects or suggests changes to mitigation measures are needed.

A program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing environmental documents on later parts of the program by serving as a “tiering” document that focuses future analyses on impacts not previously studied under the program EIR. This subsequent or supplemental CEQA document would not re-open the analyses in the program EIR that are not related to the new or more severe impact implicated in the action. As needed, a subsequent or supplemental CEQA document related to this EIR would focus on the newly proposed action. It would update the prior EIR as needed to disclose the new or more severe impacts that could result from the later action. Depending on circumstances, the CEQA document may be in the form of a new subsequent EIR, a less extensive supplemental EIR, or a subsequent mitigated negative declaration. Alternatively, an addendum under CEQA Guidelines City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-10 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Section 15164 may be prepared if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for subsequent environmental review have occurred.

3.4.1.2 Additional Streamlining Opportunities
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15182 and 15183
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155.4 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, future projects that meet the following criteria qualify for a statutory exemption from CEQA:

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

2. The project is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA);

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

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

A TPA is defined as an area within 0.5 mile of an existing or planned major transit stop, such as a rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by transit, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes (Public Resources Code Section 21099(a)(7)). As shown in Figure 3-6, p. 3-52, the Specific Plan area is within a designated TPA. Furthermore, Public Resources Code Section 21099(a)(1) defines an employment center project as “a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a transit priority area.” Thus, future projects under the Specific Plan may qualify for this exemption.

In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows for a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. To be eligible for streamlined review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the following findings must be made based on an initial study or other analysis:

1. The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.

2. There are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.

3. There are no project specific impacts which the prior EIR failed to analyze as significant effects.

4. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the prior EIR failed to evaluate.

5. There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the prior EIR.

As discussed in Section 3.6.2.4 and Section 3.7, the proposed project would establish a new zoning district unique to the proposed Specific Plan area, referred to as the Southline Campus District (S-C District), the impacts of which are evaluated in this EIR. Therefore, future projects under the Specific Plan may qualify for streamlined environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.

This EIR will provide environmental clearance for the required project approvals listed below in Section 3.7. The City, or responsible agencies, as applicable, will review future projects for their City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-11 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
conformance with the criteria discussed above and determine whether later activities may be cleared under or may tier from this EIR analysis (i.e., whether the project is within the scope of the program EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168, whether subsequent or supplemental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162–15163, whether the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Public Resources Code Section 21155.4), or whether the project qualifies for streamlined environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183).

3.4.2 Project-Level Analysis
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, this EIR also provides project-level CEQA analysis for development of Phase 1, the first Precise Plan proposed under the Specific Plan. As previously stated, Phase 1 includes all of the off-site improvements except for the roadway widening, streetfront improvements, and sewer main upgrades in Maple Avenue. A project EIR is defined as an EIR that examines the physical environmental impacts of a specific development project. Phase 1 is evaluated at a detailed project level in this EIR and, as such, would not be subject to future environmental analysis unless required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Public Resources Code Section 21166).

3.5 Project Objectives
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a project description contain a clear statement of the project objectives, including the underlying purpose of the project. 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. Other objectives of the proposed project include the following:
⚫ Create a commercial campus development consistent with the General Plan designation for the Specific Plan area.
⚫ Promote the City’s ongoing development of its transit-accessible corridors with high-quality development.
⚫ 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.
⚫ 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.
⚫ Establish flexibility to build the proposed project in phases that respond to market conditions. ⚫ 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. ⚫ 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. ⚫ Provide well-designed retail and publicly available open spaces to increase local participation and usage of the Specific Plan area.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-12 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
⚫ Create new publicly accessible open spaces, including plazas, courtyards, and green spaces within the Specific Plan area.
⚫ Provide an extensive pedestrian network that links buildings and outdoor recreational spaces through paving, wayfinding signage, street furniture, and lighting. ⚫ 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 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. ⚫ Enhance vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation and access in the area surrounding the Specific Plan area.
⚫ Work cooperatively with relevant agencies to implement off-site improvements compatible with planned regional circulation and safety improvements.
⚫ 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. ⚫ 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.

3.6 Description of the Proposed Project
The proposed project would develop a commercial campus with up to 2,800,000 square feet and infrastructure improvements under the policy guidance and regulatory authority of the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to off-site transportation and circulation improvements. The Specific Plan is a regulatory document that would serve as the applicable zoning for all properties within the Specific Plan area. It would permit and govern the orderly development of the proposed project. The Specific Plan defines a unique zoning district – the Southline Campus (S-C) District – for the Specific Plan area and establishes development standards, allowed land uses, circulation and mobility guidelines, design guidelines, infrastructure improvement guidelines, and implementation procedures for future development. When subsequent project-level proposals under the Specific Plan are presented to the City through the Precise Plan review process, those proposals will be evaluated for consistency with the Specific Plan by the City.

This section describes the components of the Specific Plan and other features of the proposed project pertinent to the assessment of the proposed project’s potential effects on the environment.

This section also describes two reasonably foreseeable buildout scenarios that could occur under the Specific Plan and are the basis of the program-level environmental impact analysis presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR as well as Phase 1 of the proposed project, which is evaluated at a project level in Chapter 4. This section also describes the approvals that would be required to implement the proposed project, including approvals specific to Phase 1.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-13 September 2021
ICF 00082.20

3.6.1 Specific Plan Organization
The draft Specific Plan, which is included in Appendix 2 of this EIR, is organized per the following chapters:
⚫ Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter describes the Specific Plan’s organization, regional setting, authority, purpose and intent, and the objectives that would be used to guide future development within the Specific Plan area.
⚫ Chapter 2: Land Use Plan and Development Standards. This chapter illustrates the land use plan for the Specific Plan area and defines the Southline Campus (S-C) land use district unique to the Specific Plan area. This chapter also describes the permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited land uses and development standards applicable to the Specific Plan area. ⚫ Chapter 3: Circulation and Mobility. This chapter describes the conceptual circulation and mobility plan for multiple modes of transportation including bicyclists, pedestrians, and vehicles throughout the Specific Plan area. It includes the conceptual roadway network and crosssections for selected roadways. It also describes off-site roadway improvements that are proposed as part of this Specific Plan.
⚫ Chapter 4: Infrastructure and Public Services. This chapter provides a description of the major utility infrastructure improvements to be provided at build-out of the Specific Plan and the public services required to serve users of the Specific Plan area. ⚫ Chapter 5: Design Guidelines. This chapter explains the design principles and establishes a set of design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan area, including sustainability, site design, building architecture, lighting, landscaping, and signage. ⚫ Chapter 6: Implementation. This chapter addresses the actions that are necessary to implement the Specific Plan by the City of South San Francisco, other agencies, and future Project Applicant(s) to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the Specific Plan.

3.6.2 Project Characteristics

3.6.2.1 Land Use Program
The proposed project entails the development of commercial buildings totaling up to approximately 2,800,000 square feet. The commercial buildings would generally range in height from five to seven stories. The buildings are primarily envisioned to accommodate office and R&D (including life science) tenants but may include limited office-supporting uses dedicated solely to tenant use, such as professional services, dining facilities, fitness centers, and related ancillary uses. Ground-floor spaces could include tenant amenities and/or commercial space. Where feasible, the public lobbies of new commercial buildings would front onto a newly constructed Southline Avenue, which would provide connectivity through the Specific Plan area to create a unified campus environment.

Future development of the proposed project would be subject to the development standards and design guidelines established in the Specific Plan. The specific number and locations of commercial buildings could vary as long as they are consistent with the development standards and design guidelines established in the Specific Plan. The development standards and design guidelines are described in Section 3.6.2.5 on p. 3-25 and Section 3.6.2.6 on p. 3-27, respectively. As described in Section 3.6.2.2, for purposes of the program-level EIR analysis and illustration, seven buildings and City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-14 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
an above-grade parking structure are assumed for the Office Scenario, and nine buildings and an above-grade parking structure are assumed for the Life Sciences Scenario.

The total commercial square footage allowed under the proposed project would include a four-story supportive amenities building (Building 2) of approximately 88,200 square feet, which is planned on the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area as part of Phase 1. Planned uses for the amenities building include publicly accessible ground-floor retail and amenity uses that front onto a public open space area adjacent to Huntington and Southline Avenues—an area referred to as the Southline Retail Plaza. It is anticipated that the upper floors of the amenities building would include amenity uses available to the Southline campus tenants such as a fitness center, cafeteria, and meeting spaces.

As part of the integrated campus design, the campus land use plan anticipates development of a central green space totaling approximately 1.5 acres—referred to as Southline Commons—that would offer outdoor amenities accessible to both tenants and the public. It is envisioned to include pedestrian paths, outdoor meeting and gathering spaces, casual dining areas, and space for recreation activities. Another integral part of the proposed design is the development of a new arterial roadway— Southline Avenue—that would be constructed east to west through the Specific Plan area between Huntington and South Linden Avenues. Southline Avenue would be constructed as part of Phase 1 and dedicated to the City as a public street.

3.6.2.2 Projected Buildout Scenarios and Phasing
Because the proposed Specific Plan would allow for development of the commercial campus as either office or R&D uses, or a combination of both, up to a total buildout of 2,800,000 square feet, the exact amount and configuration of future development cannot be forecast with precision.

Therefore, for purposes of the program-level EIR analysis, the project applicant has identified two projected buildout scenarios that represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario.

The Office Scenario would develop office uses up to seven stories tall and the four-story amenities building (Building 2), for a total of approximately 2,800,000 square feet (FAR of approximately 2.4).

The Life Sciences Scenario would develop R&D uses, including laboratory and office spaces, up to six stories tall and the four-story amenities building (Building 2), for a total of approximately 2,025,050 square feet (FAR of approximately 1.75). Table 3-2, p. 3-15, provides a comparison of key project features between the Office Scenario and Life Sciences Scenario. Each buildout scenario is described in detail below.

The reasonably foreseeable development assumed for the EIR analysis assesses what might be feasible, based on a number of market factors. Each buildout scenario is assumed to be compliant with the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan. Through the established Precise Plan and environmental review process required for each individual development under the Specific Plan, the City would monitor actual development as the Specific Plan is implemented to assess whether it is covered by the EIR analysis or whether subsequent review under CEQA is required.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-15 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 3-2. Buildout Scenario Comparison
Office Scenario Life Sciences Scenario
Total Office Area (sf)a 2,711,800 0
Total R&D Area (sf) 0 1,936,850
Total Amenity Area
(restaurant, fitness center,
event space) (sf)
88,200 88,200
Total Building Area (sf) 2,800,000 2,025,050
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)

2.4 1.75
Number of New Buildings Seven buildings, one abovegrade 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)
Four stories (60 feet above grade)
to six stories (113 feet above
grade)b
Total Building Footprint (sf)
and Building Lot Coverage
543,315 (49 percent) 531,765 (46 percent)
Total Impervious Surface Area
Including Buildings and
Hardscape (sf)
897,691 893,499
Total Area of Ground
Disturbance (sf)
1,435,737 1,435,737
Total Excavation volume (cy)c 688,400 353,700
Maximum Depth of Excavation
(feet below grade surface)
31 31
Building Area to be
Demolished (sf)
343,800 (all existing buildings
in Specific Plan area)
343,800 (all existing buildings in
Specific Plan area)
Trees to be Removedd 162 (all existing trees in
Specific Plan area)
162 (all existing trees in Specific
Plan area)
Trees to be Plantede 581 581
Estimated Employeesf 10,935 4,392
a sf = square feet
b Interior floor-to-ceiling heights would be greater under the Life Sciences Scenario to accommodate associated equipment for that use type.
c cy = cubic yards; volumes are inclusive of off-site improvement areas. d 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.
e 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).
f Consistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix 4.15-1, assumes one employee per 250 square feet of office space, one employee per 1,000 square feet of amenity space, and one employee per 450 square feet of R&D space.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-16 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Each section in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyzes the buildout scenario which is the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts. For example, office uses generate more vehicle trips, on a per square-footage basis, than R&D uses.

Therefore, the Office Scenario is used to estimate the proposed project’s trip generation in Section

4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR. Table 4.1-1 in Section 4.1, Approach to Environmental Analysis, of this EIR lists the buildout scenario assumed for each resource analysis presented throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation.

Office Scenario Buildout
Under the Office Scenario, all existing uses would be demolished, and the Specific Plan area would be developed with 2,711,800 square feet of office uses and 88,200 square feet of amenity uses, for a total building area of 2,800,000 square feet and a total FAR of approximately 2.4. Seven buildings and an above-grade parking structure (Parking Structure C) would be constructed, resulting in an overall building footprint of approximately 543,315 square feet and a lot coverage of approximately 49 percent. The six office buildings would range in height from five to seven stories (74 feet to 115 feet above ground level). The amenity uses would be located in an amenities building (Building 2) at the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area at Tanforan and Huntington Avenues. Building 2 would be four stories in height (approximately 60 feet above ground level) and total 88,200 square feet. The amenity uses are assumed to include 16,400 square feet of various retail and dining uses that would be open to the public, with the remaining 71,800 square feet intended for campus tenant-only use, including a 9,000-square-foot private cafeteria, a 49,000-square-foot private gym, and a 13,800-square-foot auditorium/event space with associated ancillary space.

As described in Section 3.6.2.8 on p. 3-31, vehicle parking would be provided through subterranean parking under several buildings, a stand-alone parking garage (Parking Structure C), and limited offstreet surface parking. The Specific Plan development standards allow for vehicle parking to be provided at a ratio of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use, resulting in a total parking supply of 5,769 stalls under the Office Scenario.

The Office Scenario would be consistent with the land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines described in Sections 3.6.2.5 and 3.6.2.6 on pp. 3-25 and 3-27, respectively. The Office Scenario would include the circulation and mobility improvements, parking and TDM improvements, landscape and public realm improvements, infrastructure improvements, and sustainability features described in Sections 3.6.2.7 through 3.6.2.12. Construction of the Office Scenario would occur as described in Section 3.6.2.13 on p. 3-37.

Table 3-3, p. 3-18, provides a breakdown of land uses under the Office Scenario. Figure 3-7, p. 3- 53, provides a conceptual site plan for the Office Scenario.11 The conceptual site plan is intended to 11 In addition to Figure 3-7, which provides a conceptual site plan for the Office Scenario, and Figure 3-8, which provides a conceptual site plan for the Life Sciences Scenario, Appendix C of the Specific Plan (included in Appendix 2 of this EIR) includes a conceptual site plan that shows a blended office/life sciences scenario.

Since both office and R&D uses are permitted within the Specific Plan area, it is likely that Specific Plan buildout would contain a mixture of these uses; thus, the blended office/life sciences scenario is the most realistic buildout scenario. However, for purposes of the EIR analysis, either the Office Scenario or Life Sciences Scenario is evaluated, depending on which scenario is the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts. This approach ensures that the EIR evaluates and discloses the greatest potential environmental impact that could result from Specific Plan buildout.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-17 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
demonstrate an illustrative example of the potential location and orientation of buildings, alignment and design of streets, and placement and size of open space areas and public facilities, based on the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan, and is utilized for analyzing potential impacts under CEQA; however, the conceptual site plan should not be considered definitive with respect to the City’s processing of future Precise Plans entitlements that may be issued under the Specific Plan.

Life Sciences Scenario Buildout
As shown in Table 3-4, p. 3-19, the Life Sciences Scenario assumes that all phases of development, including Phase 1, would include R&D uses. Although the Phase 1 Precise Plan application proposes office uses only, and the project-level analysis of Phase 1 in this EIR assumes office uses only (as described in Section 3.6.3), it is appropriate to provide a program-level analysis of a full Life Sciences Scenario that includes Phase 1 as an R&D use, given that implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for development of an R&D campus. The Life Sciences Scenario is included to ensure that any particular impacts associated with R&D uses are fully analyzed and mitigated, as appropriate. The analysis of the Life Sciences Scenario is consistent with the project objectives discussed above in Section 3.5, with a variety of commercial building uses accommodated to ensure that the Specific Plan is responsive to market conditions and demands and to establish flexibility to build the proposed project in phases that respond to market conditions.

The total square footage of the Life Sciences Scenario is lower than the total square footage in the Office Scenario because laboratory spaces are assumed to require a greater floor-to-ceiling height, within the maximum permitted building height and FAR; this results in generally fewer floors per building and therefore less building square footage. Under the Life Sciences Scenario, all existing uses would be demolished, and the Specific Plan area would be developed with 1,936,850 square feet of life sciences/R&D uses12 and 88,200 square feet of amenity uses, for a total building area of 2,025,050 square feet and a total FAR of 1.75. Nine buildings and an above-grade parking structure (Parking Structure C) would be constructed, resulting in an overall building footprint of approximately 531,765 square feet and a lot coverage of approximately 46 percent. The eight R&D buildings include a mix of laboratory, office, assembly, and related supportive spaces, and would range in height from four to six stories (approximately 52 feet to 113 feet above ground level).

Unlike the Office Scenario, the Life Sciences Scenario would include wet laboratories with up to six compressed natural gas (CNG) process boilers, which could be used to generate steam for a range of applications (e.g., intensive cleaning of manufactured equipment).

As in the Office Scenario, the amenity uses would be located in an amenities building (Building 2) at the southwest corner of the Specific Plan area at Tanforan and Huntington Avenues and would be four stories in height (approximately 60 feet above ground level) and total 88,200 square feet. As with the Office Scenario, the amenity uses are assumed to include 16,400 square feet of various retail and dining uses that would be open to the public, with the remaining 71,800 square feet intended for campus tenant-only use, including a 9,000-square-foot private cafeteria, a 49,000-square-foot private gym, and a 13,800-square-foot auditorium/event space with associated ancillary space. 12 For purposes of this EIR, “research and development,” or “R&D,” has the meaning set forth in Section

20.620.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code: “A facility for scientific research and the design, development, and testing of electrical, electronic, magnetic, optical, pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology components and products in advance of product manufacturing. Includes assembly of related products from parts produced off-site where the manufacturing activity is secondary to the research and development activities.”
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-18 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 3-3. Projected Buildout Summary – Office Scenario Land Use
Existing
(sf)
Existing to be Removed (sf) New Construction (sf)a Net New (sf)a Total Buildout (sf)a Phase 1
Future
Phases Total Phase 1b
Future
Phases Total Phase 1b
Future
Phases Total Phase 1b
Future
Phases Total
Industrial/Warehouse 339,349 339,349 0 339,349 0 0 0 (339,349) 0 (339,349) 0 0 0 Office 4,451 4,451 0 4,451 612,715 2,099,085 2,711,800 608,264 2,099,085 2,707,349 612,715 2,099,085 2,711,800 R&D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Amenityc
Retail/Dining 0 0 0 0 16,400 0 16,400 16,400 0 16,400 16,400 0 16,400 Cafeteria 0 0 0 0 9,000 0 9,000 9,000 0 9,000 9,000 0 9,000 Fitness Center 0 0 0 0 49,000 0 49,000 49,000 0 49,000 49,000 0 49,000 Auditorium/Other 0 0 0 0 13,800 0 13,800 13,800 0 13,800 13,800 0 13,800 Total 343,800 343,800 0 343,800 700,915 2,099,085 2,800,000 357,115 2,099,085 2,456,200 700,915 2,099,085 2,800,000 Notes:
a The total square footage allocation is intended to provide information regarding one conceptual buildout of the proposed project. With exception for the total allowable buildout square footage of 2,800,000 square feet, the square footages of new construction provided in this table are not intended as caps on development of specific uses. Development under the Specific Plan would require approval of project-level Precise Plans by the City, a process that would include either analysis to confirm that no subsequent CEQA analysis is required, or completion of subsequent CEQA analysis.
b Specific development square footage allocated to Phase 1 is subject to project-level Precise Plan review and approval by City. Any square footage allocated to Phase 1 that is not constructed during Phase 1 may be developed in subsequent phases, subject to development standards and design guidelines. c The ground floor retail and dining uses would be open to the public. All other upper-floor amenity uses would be for the private use of project tenants.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-19 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 3-4. Projected Buildout Summary – Life Sciences Scenario Land Use
Existing
(sf)
Existing to be Removed (sf) New Construction (sf)a Net New (sf)a Total Buildout (sf)a Phase 1
Future
Phases Total Phase 1b
Future
Phases Total Phase 1b
Future
Phases Total Phase 1b
Future
Phases Total
Industrial/Warehouse 339,349 339,349 0 339,349 0 0 0 (339,349) 0 (339,349) 0 0 0 Office 4,451 4,451 0 4,451 0 0 0 (4,451) 0 (4,451) 0 0 0 R&D 0 0 0 0 612,715d 1,324,135 1,936,850 612,715 1,324,135 1,936,850 612,715 1,324,135 1,936,850 Amenityc
Retail/Dining 0 0 0 0 16,400 0 16,400 16,400 0 16,400 16,400 0 16,400 Cafeteria 0 0 0 0 9,000 0 9,000 9,000 0 9,000 9,000 0 9,000 Fitness Center 0 0 0 0 49,000 0 49,000 49,000 0 49,000 49,000 0 49,000 Auditorium/Other 0 0 0 0 13,800 0 13,800 13,800 0 13,800 13,800 0 13,800 Total 343,800 343,800 0 343,800 700,915 1,324,135 2,025,050 357,115 1,324,135 1,681,250 700,915 1,324,135 2,025,050 Notes:
a The total square footage allocation is intended to provide information regarding one conceptual buildout of the proposed project. With exception for the total allowable buildout square footage of 2,025,050 square feet, the square footages provided in this table are not intended as caps on development of specific uses. Development under the Specific Plan would require approval of project-level Precise Plans by the City, a process that would include either analysis to confirm that no subsequent CEQA analysis is required, or completion of subsequent CEQA analysis.
b Specific development square footage allocated to Phase 1 is subject to project-level Precise Plan review and approval by City. Any square footage allocated to Phase 1 that is not constructed during Phase 1 may be developed in subsequent phases. c The ground-floor retail and dining uses would be open to the public. All other upper-floor amenity uses would be for the private use of project tenants. d Although the Phase 1 Precise Plan application proposes office uses only, and the project-level analysis of Phase 1 in this EIR assumes office uses only (as described in Section 3.6.3 on p. 3-38), it is appropriate to provide a program-level analysis of a full Life Sciences Scenario that includes Phase 1 as an R&D use, given that implementation of the Specific Plan would allow for development of an R&D campus.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-20 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
As described in Section 3.6.2.8 on p. 3-26, vehicle parking would be provided through subterranean parking under several buildings, a stand-alone parking garage (Parking Structure C), and limited offstreet surface parking. The Specific Plan development standards allow for vehicle parking to be provided at a ratio of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use, resulting in a total parking supply of 4,291 stalls under the Life Sciences Scenario.

The Life Sciences Scenario would be consistent with the land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines described in Sections 3.6.2.5 and 3.6.2.6 on pp. 3-25 and 3-27, respectively. The Life Sciences Scenario would include the circulation and mobility improvements, parking and TDM improvements, landscape and public realm improvements, infrastructure improvements, and sustainability features described in Sections 3.6.2.7 through 3.6.2.12.

Construction of the Life Sciences Scenario would occur as described in Section 3.6.2.13 on p. 3-37.

Table 3-4, p. 3-19, provides a breakdown of land uses under the Life Sciences Scenario. Figure 3-8, p. 3-54, provides a conceptual site plan for the Life Sciences Scenario.13 The conceptual site plan is intended to demonstrate an illustrative example of the potential location and orientation of buildings, alignment and design of streets, and placement and size of open space areas and public facilities, based on the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan and is utilized for analyzing potential impacts under CEQA; however, the conceptual site plan should not be considered definitive with respect to the City’s processing of future Precise Plans that may be issued under the Specific Plan.

Phasing
The proposed project would be implemented over time and in a phased approach, with full buildout anticipated in 2030. The anticipated sequence of construction is shown in Figure 3-9, p. 3-55. Two or three phases are anticipated, with Phase 1 construction anticipated to commence in 2022. The specific details regarding the future phases following Phase 1 with respect to precise timing for development, the exact boundaries within the Specific Plan area of these phases, and the square footage developed within each phase would depend on a number of factors, including market conditions, availability of financing, and tenancy requirements. Table 3-3 and Table 3-4, pp. 3-18 and 3-19, describe the square footages of development proposed for Phase 1 and future phases under the Office Scenario and Life Sciences Scenario, respectively. Phase 1 is described in further detail in Section 3.6.3 on p. 3-38. The construction sequences are shown in Figure 3-9. Tables 3-3 and 3-4 are intended to demonstrate the area anticipated for Phase 1 construction, as well as the remaining portion of the Specific Plan area in which future phases would be developed, to be utilized for analyzing potential impacts under CEQA; however, it should not be considered definitive with respect to the City’s processing of future Precise Plans that may be issued under the Specific Plan.
13 In addition to Figure 3-7, which provides a conceptual site plan for the Office Scenario, and Figure 3-8, which provides a conceptual site plan for the Life Sciences Scenario, Appendix C of the Specific Plan (included in Appendix 2 of this EIR) includes a conceptual site plan that shows a blended office/life sciences scenario. Since both office and R&D uses are permitted within the Specific Plan area, it is likely that Specific Plan buildout would contain a mixture of these uses; thus, the blended office/life sciences scenario is the most realistic buildout scenario. However, for purposes of the EIR analysis, either the Office Scenario or Life Sciences Scenario is evaluated, depending on which scenario is the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts.

This approach ensures that the EIR evaluates and discloses the greatest potential environmental impact that could result from Specific Plan buildout.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-21 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Any future development within the Specific Plan area would be responsible for the construction of the required private and public infrastructure necessary to support each phase of development within that respective area (e.g., water, sewer, stormwater) and, in relevant circumstances, in adjacent off-site areas, as determined by the City. It is anticipated that constructed public infrastructure associated with development of the proposed project would be dedicated to and accepted by various relevant public agencies and utility companies (i.e., City of South San Francisco, City of San Bruno, Cal Water, PG&E, etc.).

3.6.2.3 Off-Site Improvements
The proposed project includes circulation and infrastructure improvements located within the 6.4- acre off-site improvement areas, outside the 26.5-acre Specific Plan area, some of which are located in the City of San Bruno and/or within BART jurisdiction. Table 3-5, p. 3-21, lists the proposed offsite improvements, the jurisdiction(s) in which the improvements are located, when each improvement would be constructed, and where the improvements are described in this EIR.

Table 3-5. Summary of Off-Site Infrastructure Improvements Improvement Agencies with Jurisdictiona Project Phase
Where
Described in
EIR
Circulation
Construct new signalized
intersection at Huntington
Avenue/Sneath
Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple
Avenue. Install transit signal
priority devices on the signal
masts for SamTrans and
shuttle buses.

City of San Bruno,
City of South San Francisco
Phase 1 Section 3.6.2.7,
Figure 3-20
Construct, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian improvements
along Huntington Avenue from
Southline Avenue south to the
existing BART garage
intersection located west of
Pacific Avenue, including:
• Improved ADA-accessible
pedestrian path on the east
side of Huntington Avenue.
• A new dedicated, signalized
northbound left turn lane on
Huntington Avenue
providing a new entrance
into the transit center for
SamTrans buses.
• A new multi-use
pedestrian/bicycle pathway
on the west side of
City of San Bruno,
City of South San Francisco,
BART
Phase 1 Section 3.6.2.7,
Figure 3-18,
Figure 3-19,
Figure 3-20
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-22 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Improvement Agencies with Jurisdictiona Project Phase
Where
Described in
EIR
Huntington Avenue from
Southline Avenue to the
transit center and BART
station, providing connection
to the existing Centennial
Way Trail.
• Bulb-outs and high-visibility
crosswalks at the BART
station garage intersection to
facilitate safe pedestrian
crossing.

Reconfigure the west end of
Tanforan Avenue to create a
new cul-de-sac allowing for
residential and emergency
vehicle access only (i.e., no
through access to Huntington
Avenue).

City of South San Francisco,
City of San Bruno
Phase 1 Section 3.6.2.7,
Figure 3-22
Realign and install
synchronized signal at Dollar
Avenue and South Linden
Avenue intersection
City of South San Francisco Phase 1 Section 3.6.2.7,
Figure 3-20
Reconfigure existing at-grade
rail crossing at South Linden
Avenue
City of South San Francisco,
Caltrain,
CPUC
Phase 1 Section 3.6.2.7,
Figure 3-20
Widen South Maple Avenue
and install streetfront
improvements. Construct
wider ramps and crosswalks
on the Centennial Way Trail
adjacent to South Maple
Avenue.

BART,
City of South San Francisco
Future phases Section 3.6.2.7,
Figure 3-18
Utilities
Relocate water main along
South Linden and Dollar
Avenues
City of South San Francisco Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-1
Construct new water main
from South Maple Avenue
along the entirety of Southline
Avenue to the existing six-inch
water line on South Linden
Avenue
City of South San Francisco Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-1
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-23 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Improvement Agencies with Jurisdictiona Project Phase
Where
Described in
EIR
Upsize sewer mains on
Tanforan Avenue and Shaw
Road
City of South San Francisco Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-2
Install new 8-inch sewer main
to proposed development
south to Tanforan Avenue
City of South San Francisco Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-2
Construct new storm drain
mains in South Linden and
Dollar Avenues
City of South San Francisco Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-3
Realign existing storm drain
main within Huntington
Avenue to conform to the
proposed intersection
improvements at Huntington
Avenue/Southline Avenue
City of South San Francisco
City of San Bruno
Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-3
Realign existing sewer main
within Huntington Avenue to
conform to the proposed
intersection improvements at
Huntington Avenue/Southline
Avenue
City of South San Francisco
City of San Bruno
Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-2
Realign existing water main
within Huntington Avenue to
conform to the proposed
intersection improvements at
Huntington Avenue/Southline
Avenue
City of South San Francisco
City of San Bruno
Cal Water
Phase 1 Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-1
Upsize sewer mains on the
northerly portion of South
Maple Avenue from South
Maple through an existing
easement to Lowrie Avenue
City of South San Francisco Future phases Section

3.6.2.11, Figure

4.17-2
Notes:
a Jurisdiction over improvements along Huntington Avenue south of Southline Avenue are subject to ongoing coordination between BART and the City of San Bruno to complete a right-of-way transaction separate from the proposed project.

3.6.2.4 Land Use Regulations
The proposed project would establish a new zoning district unique to the proposed Specific Plan area, referred to as the Southline Campus District (S-C District). The S-C District is intended to implement the development standards established under the Specific Plan. As shown in Figure 3- 10, p. 3-56, the S-C District would cover the entire Specific Plan area. The proposed project would also require General Plan amendments to amend General Plan Figure 2-3, Special Area Height Limitations; increase the allowable building heights in the Specific Plan area from 80 feet up to a City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-24 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
maximum of 120 feet, consistent with FAA limits; and re-designate the approximately 0.3-acre parcel currently designated as Parks and Recreation to Office, to be consistent with the General Plan designation of the remainder of the Specific Plan area.

Permitted, conditionally permitted, and prohibited uses within the S-C District are shown in Table 3-6, below. Permitted and conditionally permitted uses include various types of office; employment and commercial; eating and drinking; public and semi-public; transportation, communications, and utility; and temporary and interim uses. In cases where a specific land use or activity is not specifically listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted use, the Chief Planner may assign the land use or activity to a classification that is substantially similar in character. The Specific Plan does not permit residential uses or indoor cannabis cultivation or testing uses. Uses that are illegal under local, state, or federal law would not be allowed.

Table 3-6. Allowable Land Uses in the S-C District
Usea,b
Southline
Campus (S-C)
Offices
Business and Professional P
Medical/Dental P
Walk-In Clientele P
Employment and Commercial Uses
Research and Development (R&D) P
Clean Technology P
Business Services P
Commercial Recreation P
Lodging – Hotels and Motels CUP
Parking Services P
General Personal Services P
Retail Sales – General Sales P
Indoor Sports and Recreation P
Cannabis Indoor Cultivation or Testing NP
Eating and Drinking Establishmentsc
Coffee Shops/Cafés P
Restaurants, Full Service P
Restaurants, Limited Service P
Residential NP
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Community Assembly CUP
Cultural Institutions CUP
Government Offices CUP
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P
Public Safety Facilities P
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-25 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Usea,b
Southline
Campus (S-C)
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities
Antennae and Transmission Towers CUP
Transportation Hub d P
Utilities – Minor P
Other
Temporary and interim uses, including produce market, flea market, craft and art fairs, auction gallery, and other similar uses
TUP
Other uses determined by the Chief Planner to be similar to and compatible with described permitted and conditionally permitted uses
P
Notes:

P Land use permitted by right
CUP Land use allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit per generally applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

TUP Land use allowed with the approval of a Temporary Use Permit per generally applicable provisions of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

NP Land use not allowed/not permitted
a Unless otherwise indicated, uses have the same meaning as those use classifications, as defined under Chapter

20.620 of the South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance.
b Certain permitted or conditionally uses are subject to confirmation that no subsequent CEQA analysis is required or, if subsequent CEQA analysis is required, the subsequent analysis has been completed. c Includes food trucks/mobile food facilities and outdoor food kiosks. d Use includes facilities for accommodation of shuttles and ride-share pickup and drop-off zones, along with other features that may be included in any applicable TDM programs within the project site.

3.6.2.5 Development Standards
The Specific Plan establishes development standards for the S-C District related to intensity of development, parking, setbacks, building height, landscaping, and loading areas. The development standards, shown in Table 3-7, p. 3-26, establish rules for the physical development of property within the Specific Plan area, including building placement, scale and form, and lot design. Among other requirements, the development standards establish a total maximum floor area of 2,800,000 square feet and a maximum building height in accordance with FAA and ALUCP requirements; generally, the maximum height limit within the Specific Plan would be 120 feet, as shown in Figure 3-11, p. 3-57, but actual heights will depend on the specific elevation of the relevant portion of the Specific Plan area and the applicable height contours under the above applicable regulations. In any instance where both the Specific Plan and South San Francisco Municipal Code (or other City rule, regulation, or guideline) provide a development standard for some aspect of site or building design, the Specific Plan requirement would supersede the other requirement. Together with the proposed design guidelines (refer to Section 3.6.2.6, p. 3-22), the development standards implement and refine the policies and vision of the General Plan for the Specific Plan area and the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-26 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 3-7. Southline Campus (S-C) Development Standards Standard Requirement Comments/Additional Regulations
Lot and Density Standard
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 2.4a See Chapter 20.040, Rules of Measurement, of the South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance
Maximum Lot Coverage 70 percent See Section 20.040.010, Determining Lot Coverage, of the South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance
Minimum Open Space Coverage 15 percentb
Maximum Parking (spaces per
1,000 sf)

2.20c With option of valet parking within this
range
Minimum Bicycle Parkingd 1 bicycle space per
3,000 square feet
Approximately 90% of bicycle spaces will
be provided for long-term use and the
remaining 10% will be for short-term use.

The specific allocation and location of
short-term and long-term spaces will be
established under each Precise Plan.

Setbacks (feet) e
Front 10
Side, Interior 10
Side, Street 10
Tanforan Avenue 25 Setback to be 25 feet as measured from property line per SSFMC 20.040.012 and
approximately 40 feet as measured from
the Tanforan Avenue right of way.

Southline Avenue 0 Landscape buffers should be used to
visually screen and soften the perimeter
of the Specific Plan area, including along
Southline Avenue. See Section 5.4.6 and
Figures 3-2a and 3-2b Conceptual
Southline Avenue Cross-Sections of the
Specific Plan.

Rear, Interior 10
Building Form and Location
Maximum Building Height (feet) Approximately
120f
Building heights shall be governed by
maximum height allowances under FAA
Part 77 regulations and San Francisco
International Airport ALUCP. See Section

20.040.005, Measuring Height, and
Section 20.300.006, Height and Height
Exceptions, of the South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-27 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Standard Requirement Comments/Additional Regulations
Loading Area 1 / building Minimum size may not be less than 12 feet wide, 50 feet long, and 14 feet high,
exclusive of driveways for ingress and
egress, maneuvering areas, and setbacks.

Notes:
a Total allowable floor area and FAR shall be calculated based on entire Specific Plan area (inclusive of Southline Avenue and other dedicated improvements) rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. The total allowable floor area shall be 2,800,000 square feet across the entire Specific Plan area, which equates to approximately 2.4 FAR, exclusive of the campus Parking Structure C, underground parking, and any other applicable exceptions provided under South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement. b Total allowable open space area shall be calculated based on entire Specific Plan area (inclusive of Southline Avenue and other dedicated improvements) rather than on a lot-by-lot basis. Open space includes all landscaped areas, sidewalks and pathways, decorative paving, and passive and active areas. c Includes 30 spaces allocated to ground-floor public retail uses in Building 2. Upper-floor amenity space in Building 2 would be for tenant use only and would not be subject to additional parking requirement. In coordination with the City of South San Francisco, the project applicant shall monitor parking usage and availability during Phase 1 to determine how much parking is needed and constructed for future phases. Precise Plan applications for subsequent phases following Phase 1 shall include information regarding existing parking demand and usage in order to evaluate additional on-site parking required and to ensure that on-site parking remains within the maximum parking ratio of 2.2.
d The Southline Specific Plan Table 2-1 and the Chapter 5 Design Guidelines establish the bicycle parking requirements for the Specific Plan area; SSFMC 20.330.008 (Bicycle Parking) does not apply. e Setbacks are measured from the property line. Refer to SSFMC 20.040.012 Determining Setbacks (Yards) and SSFMC 20.300.011 Projections into Required Yards. Subterranean garages within the Specific Plan area are not subject to setback requirements.
f Actual building heights will depend on the specific elevation of the relevant portion of the Specific Plan area and the applicable height contours under the above applicable regulations.

3.6.2.6 Design Guidelines
The Specific Plan includes design guidelines for development within the Specific Plan area, including site design, building architecture, lighting, landscaping, and signage. The design guidelines describe and illustrate the designs, concepts, and features intended to promote the high-quality development that is envisioned for the Specific Plan area. These design guidelines would be used by the City in conjunction with the development standards described in Section 3.6.2.5 to guide the review and approval of subsequent Precise Plans for development within the Specific Plan area.

The design guidelines for commercial buildings encourage a contemporary interpretation of the existing industrial motif using glass, metal and “brick-like” materials in a rich color palette, reflecting the industrial history of the Lindenville Planning Sub-Area. The composition of each building’s massing and design would vary, making each building unique rather than utilizing repetitive forms throughout the project site. Building features are encouraged to create visual interest that would help to break down the overall scale and massing. Wall planes would vary in depth and direction to create an interesting streetscape. Building scale would be further articulated by fenestration that offers additional depth and texture. A combination of parapets, eaves, projecting roof forms would be used to create interest at the roof line. Integrated penthouse forms above each or some of the building main entries would further emphasize massing hierarchy. Building entries would be prominently located and marked.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-28 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Parking Structure C is envisioned to have simple and straightforward volumetric geometry. Stairs and elevator towers would utilize distinctive mass that is different but complementary to the overall building form. Prominent building corners would include additional notching, stepping, and integrating architectural elements like stairs or elevator towers to enhance the overall building form. The design character and building materials would be compatible with the commercial buildings in the Specific Plan area.

Landscape elements (including planting, lighting, hardscape, etc.) within the Specific Plan area would be designed to reflect a contemporary campus setting that is compatible with the Industrial Modern building architecture and aesthetic described above. Landscaping and open space would be designed to create a distinct visual identity through the use of cohesive streetscapes; street and outdoor common area furniture; walls; entry features; local, native and/or adaptive plant materials; distinctive street lighting and directional signage; and other similar elements.

Figures 3-12 through 3-15, pp. 3-58 through 3-61, provide conceptual simulations of future uses under the proposed design guidelines. The conceptual simulations are intended to demonstrate an illustrative example of the potential location and orientation of buildings, alignment and design of streets, and placement and size of open space areas and public facilities, based on the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan, and should not be considered definitive.

3.6.2.7 Circulation and Mobility
The proposed project would construct new circulation improvements throughout the project site (i.e., within the Specific Plan area and the off-site improvement areas). The proposed circulation improvements include new streets, pedestrian network improvements to enhance access and connectivity to the San Bruno BART station, minor reconfiguration to Centennial Way Trail, neighborhood traffic calming measures, and roadway reconfigurations to ensure compatibility with a potential future grade separation of the Caltrain tracks.

Vehicular Circulation
As shown in Figure 3-16, p. 3-62, vehicular circulation within the Specific Plan area would include the new public Southline Avenue roadway that would provide connectivity through the Specific Plan area and to surrounding areas, as well as internal private roadways that would provide access to parking, loading, and building areas within the Specific Plan area.

Southline Avenue (Phase 1)
The new Southline Avenue arterial roadway (provisionally named for the purpose of the Specific Plan and CEQA review), a central circulation feature, would be constructed east to west through the Specific Plan area between Huntington and South Linden Avenues during Phase 1. The construction of the new Southline Avenue would be consistent with and would further General Plan policies calling for the extension of South Linden Avenue to the San Bruno BART station. Southline Avenue would have two travel lanes in each direction, a center median, and a Class II bike lane on both sides.

A wide sidewalk would be separated from the roadway by a landscaped planting area on both sides.

Cross-sections for the proposed Southline Avenue are shown in Figure 3-17, p. 3-63 and 3-64.

Development of Southline Avenue would involve the construction of new signalized intersections at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Maple Avenue (described below under “Off-Site Circulation Improvements”) and mid-block within the Specific Plan area (Southline Avenue/Central Project City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-29 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Driveway). The proposed project also would realign the intersection of South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue on the east side of the Specific Plan area to connect to Southline Avenue (also described below under “Off-Site Circulation Improvements”). Upon completion of Southline Avenue, it is anticipated that Southline Avenue and associated improvements located within South San Francisco would be dedicated to the City.

Pedestrian Circulation
The proposed project would include pedestrian circulation and safety improvements both on-site for campus users and off-site in the adjacent community, particularly through enhanced access to the San Bruno BART station and the Centennial Way Trail.

The arrangement of on-site pedestrian facilities would provide on-site walkable connectivity between buildings, on-site vehicle and bicycle parking areas, the Southline Commons open space area (described in Section 3.6.2.10), mobility hubs, and connectivity across Southline Avenue. In appropriate areas, pedestrian walkways may include distinctive formal and informal hardscape features such as concrete unit pavers, ceramic wood tile, and decomposed granite. Areas for seating and benches may be located and integrated with these walkways. Where appropriate, landscaping would be used to provide safe, pedestrian-friendly separation from adjacent roadways. Figure 3-18, p. 3-65, provides a conceptual layout of potential pedestrian facilities located on and adjacent to the project site in a manner that reflects the goals and policies of the Specific Plan.

Bicycle Circulation, Parking and Facilities
Bicycle circulation would be integrated throughout the Specific Plan area and would include Class II bike lanes on both sides of Southline Avenue and Class III bike routes on internal roadways where bicyclists and slower-moving vehicles would share the road, as shown in Figure 3-19, p. 3-66. As described in Table 3-7, p. 3-3-26, the Specific Plan includes a development standard requiring that1 bicycle space be provided per 3,000 square feet of development. Approximately 90 percent of bicycle spaces would be provided for long-term use and the remaining 10 percent will be for shortterm use; however, the specific allocation and location of short-term and long-term spaces would be established under each Precise Plan. Short-term bicycle parking would be provided by surface-level bike racks located adjacent to the Southline Retail Plaza (described in Section 3.6.2.10) and proximate to building entries. Long-term bicycle parking would be provided in below- and abovegrade parking structures. Where appropriate, buildings would include showers and lockers to accommodate long-term users (i.e., employees). Refer to Table 3-8, p. 3-29, for the Specific Plan’s proposed bicycle parking requirements as applied to the Office Scenario, which would result in the maximum amount of bicycle parking compared to the Life Sciences Scenario.

Table 3-8. Proposed Bicycle Parking
Phase 1 Future Phases Total at Buildout
1 space / 3,000 sf 1 space / 3,000 sf 1 space / 3,000 sf Long-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces 191 602 793
Short-Term Bicycle Parking Spaces 27 71 98
Total Bicycle Parking Spaces – Office
Scenarioa
218 673 891
a This table provides a summary of the approximate number of bicycle spaces that would result from development of the Office Scenario, which would result in a higher amount of bicycle parking compared to the Life Sciences City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-30 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Scenario. Specific details regarding bicycle parking amount and location, as well as the specific allocation and location of short-term and long-term spaces, would be established under each Precise Plan as set forth in the Southline Specific Plan.

Off-Site Circulation Improvements
A number of off-site circulation improvements, including new signalization at certain intersections, located outside of the Specific Plan area, are planned in connection with development of the proposed project. Unless otherwise noted, these improvements would occur in Phase 1. The location of these improvements are shown in Figure 3-20, p. 3-67. Implementation of these improvements would require review and/or approvals or actions by the City and/or other agencies or entities, including approvals by the City of San Bruno, BART, SamTrans, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), and/or the California Public Utilities Commission.

Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue Intersection (Phase 1) The project would create a new signalized intersection between Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue at the project entrance, as shown in Figure 3-21, p. 3-68.

Huntington Avenue would be aligned with Maple Avenue, while Sneath Lane would be aligned with Southline Avenue. The western leg of the intersection would include a crossing for the Centennial Way Trail, while high-visibility crosswalks would be provided on the remaining northern, southern, and eastern legs of the intersection.

The new intersection would change access to several adjacent driveways. Access to the BART maintenance facility driveway on the north side of Huntington Avenue would remain in the westbound direction but would be restricted in the eastbound direction. Northbound bus access from Huntington Avenue to the SamTrans Transit Center would be relocated to a signalized busonly left turn. Eastbound access to the SamTrans Transit Center would remain. Tanforan Avenue would be separated from Maple Avenue while maintaining a connection with Huntington Avenue East. No vehicular project access would occur on Tanforan Avenue.

Huntington Avenue Improvements (Phase 1)
As shown in Figure 3-21, p. 3-68 and 3-69, to provide improved pedestrian access to the San Bruno BART station, a portion of Huntington Avenue, primarily within City of San Bruno and BART jurisdiction, would be improved from the new intersection at Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue. The project would extend the Centennial Way Trail to the San Bruno BART station, providing an approximately 15- to 17-foot-wide multi-use path for shared bicycle and pedestrian use along the west side of Huntington Avenue. The project would also implement accessibility improvements pedestrian path on the east side of Huntington Avenue and a new crosswalk and pedestrian bulb-out on the south side of the SamTrans Transit Center driveway to provide a more direct connection between the BART station to the eastern sidewalk along Huntington Avenue. Improvements would also include installing transit signal priority devices on the signal masts at the Huntington/Southline Avenues intersection for SamTrans and shuttle buses to create a dedicated signalized bus entrance to the SamTrans transit center. The project would also construct a new dedicated, signalized northbound left turn lane on Huntington Avenue providing a new entrance into the transit center for SamTrans buses.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-31 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Tanforan Avenue Improvements (Phase 1)
As shown in Figure 3-22, p. 3-70, Tanforan Avenue would be converted to a cul-de-sac east of Huntington Avenue, adjacent to residential uses within San Bruno’s jurisdiction. This would prohibit through traffic and create a slower traffic environment for the existing San Bruno residents to the south. With the exception of required emergency vehicle access, there would be no vehicular access from Tanforan Avenue into the Specific Plan area. The residential community located to the south of the project site would continue to have access from the existing one-way northbound Huntington Avenue East to Tanforan Avenue.

Southline Avenue/South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue Intersection (Phase 1) As shown in Figure 3-20, p. 3-67, the proposed project would realign and signalize the intersection of South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue on the east side of the Specific Plan area to connect to the new Southline Avenue. The northern leg of South Linden Avenue would align with Dollar Avenue, while Southline Avenue would connect across a realigned at-grade rail crossing of Caltrain to San Mateo Avenue. Eventually, it is anticipated that this crossing would be grade separated as part of the proposed South Linden Avenue and Scott Street Grade Separation Project that are independent and unrelated to the project. The project’s design of Southline Avenue maintains flexibility for a future grade separation; in the interim, the project proposes a reconfigured at-grade rail crossing to connect Southline Avenue with South Linden Avenue.

South Maple Avenue Improvements (Future Phase)
South Maple Avenue currently includes one travel lane north and one travel lane south. On-street parking is available on one or both sides at various locations. Planned roadway improvements, within both South San Francisco and San Bruno, include reconfiguration of portions of the roadway and revisions to parking at various locations. A sidewalk on the east side and existing Centennial Way Trail on the west side would be separated by a landscaped planting area. Wider ramps and crosswalks would be constructed on the Centennial Way Trail, as shown in Figure 3-18, p. 3-65.

Widening of and street front improvements along portions of South Maple Avenue and the Centennial Way Trail are anticipated to occur during future phases of development.

3.6.2.8 Vehicle Parking
Vehicle parking would be provided through subterranean parking under several buildings, a standalone parking garage (Parking Structure C), and limited off-street surface parking. Pursuant to the development standards shown in Table 3-7, p. 3-26, parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use, with an option to incorporate a valet parking strategy within this range. For purposes of the EIR analysis, a 2.2 parking ratio is assumed, which would result in larger parking areas and a greater impact on the environment.

As shown in Table 3-9, p. 3-32, an estimated 3,420 to 5,769 parking spaces would be provided, depending on the total amount of development and parking ratios applied. The total parking provided includes 30 spaces allocated to ground-floor public retail uses in Building 2. Upper-floor amenity space in Building 2 would be for tenant use only and not subject to additional parking requirements.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-32 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Table 3-9. Proposed Vehicle Parking
Phase 1a Future Phasesa Total at Buildouta
Office Scenario
Vehicle Parking Stalls 1,379 4,390 5,769
Life Sciences Scenario
Vehicle Parking Stalls 1,379 2,912 4,291
Notes:
a Per the Specific Plan, parking would be provided at a ratio of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of commercial use.

Most of the project’s parking would be provided in Parking Structure C, an L-shaped, above-grade parking structure that would be constructed in the northeast corner of the Specific Plan area. As shown in Figure 3-9, p. 3-55, the eastern wing of Parking Structure C would be constructed as part of Phase 1, and the western wing would be constructed in a future phase. Primary access to Parking Structure C in Phase 1 would be from South Linden Avenue. Eleven levels of parking, including nine above-grade levels and two below-grade levels, would provide up to approximately 3,330 parking spaces, 1,490 of which would be constructed during Phase 1, as described in Section 3.6.3.214 Two levels of subterranean parking would be located north and south of the new Southline Avenue, spanning most of the project site, as shown in Figure 3-23, p. 3-71. In both areas, the Level 2 basement would extend to a depth of approximately 31 feet below grade level, but the footprint of the Level 2 foundation north of Southline Avenue would be substantially larger under a 2.2-per1,000-square-foot parking ratio. The EIR analysis is based on the larger foundation footprint. The subterranean parking levels north of Southline Avenue would be accessed from Parking Structure C, which would connect to the subterranean parking underground, and an at-grade ramp in the center of the Specific Plan area, accessed from the internal street network. Access to the subterranean parking south of Southline Avenue would be from Southline Avenue.

3.6.2.9 Transportation Demand Management
The proposed project includes a preliminary TDM Plan designed to reduce the project’s singleoccupancy vehicle trips and parking demand consistent with the goals set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 20.400). The TDM Plan is designed to achieve a 45 percent alternative mode share, consistent with City requirements for projects proposing FAR of up to 2.5.

The TDM Plan includes a number of program measures to build upon the proposed infrastructure and on-site facilities, reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips, and meet the required 45 percent alternative mode share target. The specific measures are still preliminary, but are anticipated to include:
⚫ Direct Access to Transit – The project’s access improvements to the San Bruno BART station and SamTrans Transit Center would enable convenient use of BART and bus service. 14 Only a portion of Parking Structure C vehicular stalls are anticipated to be used for Phase 1 tenant parking, the full capacity of the Phase 1 portion of Parking Structure C would be constructed during Phase 1 for purposes of construction efficiency and to allow for a portion of the excess spaces to be utilized for temporary constructionrelated parking for development of Phase 1 and subsequent phases.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-33 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
⚫ On-site Amenities for Bicycle and Pedestrian Access. The project would provide direct, highquality bicycle and pedestrian connections to and within the Specific Plan area, building entrances, the Centennial Way Trail, existing bicycle circulation on Sneath Lane and San Bruno BART station. The project would provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces in various locations throughout the Specific Plan area, bicycle repair areas, and showers and changing rooms.
⚫ Shuttle Service to Caltrain – The TDM Plan would provide first-/last-mile shuttle service to the South San Francisco and/or San Bruno Caltrain stations. ⚫ Carpooling and Vanpooling Facilities and Services – Approximately 10 percent of the vehicle parking within the Specific Plan area will be reserved for carpools or vanpools. The TDM Plan would offer ride-matching services for carpools and vanpools users thorough 511.org and/or other programs and provide reserved parking spaces for such vehicles. ⚫ Mobility Hubs: The TDM Plan would require incorporation of one or more mobility hubs located within the Specific Plan area to provide dedicated loading zones for alternative mode options, including shuttles, carpool/vanpool, and ride sharing services. ⚫ Mode Shift Incentives – The TDM Plan would provide reduced parking supply at a rate that is at least 25 percent less than the City’s typical on-site parking requirements for comparable projects as a means of incentivizing mode shift usage and would require semi-annual employee surveys to evaluate mode choices and best practices.
⚫ Other TDM program features – The TDM Plan would include a range of features, such as a onsite amenities including dining, retail fitness and conference facilities; information boards and kiosks located in commercial building lobbies displaying information regarding transit options; a guaranteed ride-home program; at least one mobility hub that would accommodate shuttle, ride share, and other passenger loading; and on-site TDM coordinator(s).

As required by the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the TDM Plan would include requirements for monitoring and auditing the performance of the measures, which may be revised or amended as needed to meet the TDM performance objectives. Implementation of the TDM Plan would be monitored annually and adjusted accordingly, if necessary, in order to meet the required modeshare targets. Leases for all tenants would include provisions regarding the mandatory TDM measures and appointment of a TDM coordinator (which may be shared among multiple tenants).

3.6.2.10 Open Space, Landscape, and the Public Realm
The proposed project would provide up to 341,800 square feet (7.8 acres) of open space, including approximately 285,000 square feet (6.5 acres) of irrigated landscape area. The proposed project would remove 162 existing trees, including two protected trees,15 within the Specific Plan area during Phase 1; approximately 19 additional trees may be removed within the off-site improvement areas. The project would plant 581 new trees (311 during Phase 1 and 270 during future phases), for a total net increase of 419 trees within the project site. 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).

Selected tree species would be climate appropriate to reduce water use and the need for fertilizer.

Tree plantings would also incorporate shade of hardscapes wherever possible to minimize heat island effect and reduce energy use for cooling.
15 Protected trees are defined by South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 13.30.020.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-34 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Landscaping and open space within the Specific Plan area would include a network of pedestrian walkways and landscaped edges, “gateway” entries, lobby plazas, and three distinct open space/public realm areas: Southline Commons, the Southline Retail Plaza, and the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet. Each of these areas is described below. Landscape materials are specified in the design guidelines (refer to Section 3.6.2.6, p. 3-27) and would be complementary to the industrial modern character of the building architecture. The plant palette would include a variety of deciduous and evergreen native and/or adaptive trees, shrubs, ornamental grasses, and groundcover. Figure 3-24, p. 3-72, provides a conceptual landscape and open space plan of the Specific Plan area.

The proposed streetscape includes common area elements such as benches, tables, and chairs; litter and recycling receptacles; bicycle storage facilities; and transit shuttle shelters. It also includes exterior lighting and signage. Streetscape materials are specified in the design guidelines (refer to Section 3.6.2.6) and would be complementary to the industrial modern character of the building architecture.

Southline Commons
An approximately 1.5-acre open space area, referred to as Southline Commons, would be developed on the north side of the new Southline Avenue in the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan area.

Southline Commons would serve as a public central gathering space within the Specific Plan area.

Southline Commons would provide passive and active open space that would serve as an exterior amenity for campus tenants. Southline Commons would include two lounge areas totaling 2,750 square feet, a 7,050-square-foot outdoor dining area with a maximum capacity of up to approximately 197 people, and two activity/recreation areas that would total approximately 3,000 square feet. The outdoor lounge and dining areas would include seating areas, while the activity/ recreation areas would include recreational activities such as a bocce ball court, ping pong table, and cornhole. In total, this outdoor area would have an estimated capacity for approximately 320 people.

Southline Commons would include a variety of pavers and hardscape elements to create a contemporary and durable outdoor space. Southline Commons would include a varied landscape texture, including shade trees and landscaped berms to create usable edges for sitting that would also serve as green space.

Southline Retail Plaza
The Southline Retail Plaza would front the amenities building (Building 2) on Southline and Huntington Avenues and would be constructed as part of Phase 1. It would be designed to complement and support the adjacent ground-floor retail. It would include outdoor dining areas, terraced seating, and landscaping to serve as both a both buffer and transition to the street edge.

This outdoor area of approximately 0.32 acres would have an estimated capacity for approximately 130 people.

Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet
The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet would be developed during Phase 1, comprising approximately 0.5 acre (approximately 25,700 square feet) within an approximately 40-foot buffer setback on the north side of Tanforan Avenue. Intended to provide a transition between the Specific Plan area and the residential neighborhood located to the south, the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet would be accessible to employees and to the surrounding community, including nearby residents. The Tanforan Community Parklet would incorporate a walking pathway surrounded by City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-35 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
landscaping and would include active and passive recreational features, including a picnic area, a children’s play area, a stormwater demonstration garden, and a plant garden. The area would have an estimated capacity for approximately 74 people. The Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet is anticipated to be privately owned and maintained but fully accessible by the public.

3.6.2.11 Infrastructure Improvements
Future development within the Specific Plan area would utilize the existing public utility infrastructure located adjacent to the Specific Plan area to the extent feasible. Notwithstanding, the proposed project would require demolition and re-routing of some existing utilities and the construction of new utility infrastructure to serve the project’s demand for water, wastewater, storm drain, and dry utility services. Infrastructure and utilities would be designed to meet the standards of the City and other utility agencies with oversight authority. The City would determine required utility connections and improvements during project-level Precise Plan review for each development phase. It is anticipated that the infrastructure improvements below would be required to serve the proposed project. Other limited infrastructure improvements may be required based on final design in coordination with the City and other utility agencies. See also Table 3-5, p. 3-21, which summarizes the proposed infrastructure improvements that would be constructed within the off-site improvement areas.

Water
As shown in Figure 4.17-1 in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would require installation of a new public 12-inch water main from South Maple Avenue along the entirety of Southline Avenue to the existing 6-inch water line on South Linden Avenue. This improvement would occur as part of Phase 1. New service connections to existing water lines are anticipated to be constructed along Tanforan Avenue, South Maple Avenue, and South Linden Avenue concurrent with the construction of each building. In addition, a segment of an existing 6-inch water main along South Linden and Dollar Avenues would be relocated to conform with the proposed realignment of that intersection and the proposed reconfiguration of the existing at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue. Other limited infrastructure improvements may be required based on final design in coordination with Cal Water.

Wastewater
As shown in Figure 4.17-2 in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, several public sewer mains that directly serve the Specific Plan area would be upsized during Phase 1 to account for the additional sanitary sewer flow generation. The proposed project would upsize an existing 24-inch main on Tanforan Avenue from South Maple Avenue/Huntington Avenue east to an existing pump station on Shaw Road (FLS-11). The upsized main would range in size from 27 to 33 inches. During Phase 1, the proposed project also would relocate a segment of an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along South Linden and Dollar Avenues to conform with the proposed realignment of the intersection and proposed reconfiguration of the existing at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue (refer to Section 3.6.2.7). The proposed project would also install a new 8-inch sewer main to proposed development south to Tanforan Avenue. Sanitary sewer improvements anticipated for future phases include upgrading 18-inch mains to 24-inch mains in the northerly portion of South Maple Avenue and from South Maple Avenue to Lowrie Avenue.

It is anticipated that each building within the Specific Plan area would include at least one new lateral to connect to existing mains. Wastewater would be conveyed via both on-site pump stations City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-36 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
and gravity flow. All improvements would be designed and constructed consistent with City requirements.

Stormwater
As shown in Figure 4.17-3 in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would construct new stormwater facilities within the Specific Plan area along a portion of Southline Avenue and Dollar Avenue which would connect to an existing 42-inch storm drain within Tanforan Avenue. These new storm facilities would be constructed as part of Phase 1.

Off-site storm drainage infrastructure improvements would include new storm drain mains constructed within South Linden and Dollar Avenue that would tie into an existing 42-inch main located within Tanforan Avenue. Off-site storm drainage infrastructure improvements would also include the realignment of an existing 42-inch main located within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. These improvements are planned as part of Phase 1.

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications
Cable, phone, gas, and electric infrastructure improvements would be required to adequately serve development within the Specific Plan area. These dry utility infrastructure improvements are anticipated to include undergrounding the existing overhead utilities along the immediate street frontages, as conditioned by the City or otherwise required by the respective utility provider.

Where feasible, new dry utilities improvements would be located underground and in building service areas. Above-ground facilities would be screened from view utilizing landscaping and/or other appropriate screening methods. The extent and timing of dry utility improvements would be determined for each phase as part of the Precise Plan review.

3.6.2.12 Sustainability Features
The proposed project would incorporate sustainability features to reduce energy consumption, water consumption, and waste generation. All phases of the Project, including Phase 1, would be capable of achieving a minimum Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) version 4 Silver rating. Examples of the proposed sustainability measures include water-efficient devices (i.e., plumbing fixtures, appliances, and cooling equipment); water-efficient landscaping practices, such as landscaping with native drought-tolerant plants; all-electric energy sources to the extent feasible (and high-efficiency units for any new natural gas appliances); passive design strategies to minimize reliance on active heating and cooling systems; energy-efficient heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) systems and equipment; on-site recycling and composting facilities; and electric vehicle charging infrastructure (at least ten percent of on-site parking spaces would be installed with electric vehicle charging infrastructure). The Specific Plan requires that the project utilize 100 percent carbon-free electricity for all operational electricity needs through participation in programs such as PG&E Solar Choice or Peninsula Clean Energy. Proposed design elements, such as connectivity with surrounding transportation options (i.e., BART and Caltrain), bicycle parking, and TDM measures (refer to Section 3.6.2.9, p. 3-32), would encourage alternative transportation modes. The project would be designed to be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen. For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-37 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
(building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

The proposed project would also be designed to conserve resources and protect water quality through the management of stormwater runoff through low-impact development (LID) methods, where feasible. This approach implements engineered controls to allow stormwater filtering, storage, and flood control. Bioretention basins, flow through planters, pervious permeable pavements, and other site design features intended to manage stormwater runoff flows from the Specific Plan area and reduce stormwater pollution would be located throughout the Specific Plan area. The project would also use non-LID treatment measures allowed for “Special Projects” under the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) where LID treatment is not feasible, as discussed in 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. Special Projects include certain land development characterized as smart growth, high density, or transit-oriented development.

Special Projects can receive LID treatment reduction credits in recognition that density and space limitations may make 100 percent LID treatment infeasible.

3.6.2.13 Construction
Although the construction characteristics of individual Precise Plan proposals within the Specific Plan area would vary, generally, buildout of the proposed project would involve demolition, grading, excavation, and construction activities to build new structures and subterranean parking garages and install the new roadway, infrastructure, and landscaping improvements. Heavy construction equipment, including cranes, bulldozers, excavators, scrapers, and loaders, would be used. The number of construction workers on the project site would vary according to the stage of construction and whether or not construction phases are undertaken concurrently. Construction trucks would primarily travel along the following two haul routes: to/from I-380 via El Camino Real, South Spruce Avenue, Victory Avenue, and South Maple Avenue; and to/from U.S. 101 via South Airport Boulevard, San Mateo Avenue, and South Linden Avenue. Although not planned for use, this EIR analysis also considers the potential for haul trucks to travel to/from I-280 via Huntington Avenue and Sneath Lane.

All existing structures and trees on the Specific Plan area would be removed during Phase 1, totaling approximately 343,800 square feet of building demolition and 162 tree removals. Up to 16 additional tree removals may be required in the off-site improvement areas. The future phase areas would be used for construction worker parking and equipment staging during construction of Phase

1. The proposed project would require major grading and excavation to construct the new subterranean parking garages up to a depth of 31 feet below grade level. The off-site improvements would require trenching depths of approximately 3 to 9 feet below grade level. An estimated 32.96 acres of ground area would be disturbed, requiring a total excavation of approximately 688,400 cubic yards of soil under the Office Scenario and 353,700 cubic yards of soil under the Life Science scenario, the majority of which is anticipated to be hauled off the Specific Plan area, although these figures are inclusive of the off-site improvement areas. The proposed project would divert 100 percent of inert solids (building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all other materials) from landfills through recycling or reuse on-site as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and under state CALGreen requirements.

Construction dewatering would be required for certain site preparation and subterranean construction within the Specific Plan area associated with excavation for the subterranean garages.

Groundwater dewatering would only be required for major excavations in Specific Plan Area and only in the South San Francisco jurisdiction. Dewatering would not be required for construction in City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-38 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
off-site improvement areas. Phase 1 and future development under the Specific Plan would be required, as conditions of approval, to comply with recommendations contained in the Southline Development Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation (Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation) prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group in July 2020 (Appendix 4.6-1) and grading permit requirements. The Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation recommends that excavations less than 30 feet deep be supported by soldier beams and tiebacks, sheet piles, or soil mixed walls with internal bracing or tiebacks, or other methods. To prevent lateral groundwater seepage, the Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation recommends that excavations greater than 30 feet deep be shored with less pervious walls consisting of soldier pile tremie concrete (SPTC) or mixed-in-place soil/cement. Generally, groundwater trapped in soils would be removed by standard dewatering wells; however, sump pumping would be required to dewater saturated soil if fine grained soils are present. All subterranean parking garages would be waterproofed and would not require permanent dewatering systems.

3.6.3 Phase 1 Project Characteristics
As shown in Figure 3-9, p. 3-55, Phase 1 would involve the demolition of all existing uses within the Specific Plan area and the construction of all new development south of Southline Avenue, as described below. Phase 1 would also include construction of the eastern wing of Parking Structure C, the above-grade parking structure north of Southline Avenue. Phase 1 would include most of the proposed infrastructure, circulation, roadway, and pedestrian improvements described in Section

3.6.2.7, p. 3-28, and Section 3.6.2.11, p. 3-35, including:
⚫ Construction of Southline Avenue and associated underground utility infrastructure; ⚫ Realignment of Dollar Avenue and South Linden Avenue; ⚫ Reconfiguration of the existing at-grade rail crossing at South Linden Avenue; ⚫ Roadway and pedestrian improvements along Tanforan Avenue; ⚫ Roadway and pedestrian improvements along Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the BART garage intersection;
⚫ Upgrade to the existing signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/BART garage entry; ⚫ Signalized northbound left turn lane on Huntington Avenue providing a new entrance into the transit center for SamTrans buses;
⚫ Construction of new signalized intersections at:
o Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue o Southline Avenue/Main Campus Entry
o South Linden Avenue/Dollar Avenue/Southline Avenue
⚫ Water, sewer, and storm infrastructure replacements in Tanforan Avenue, Shaw Road, South Linden Avenue, Dollar Avenue, and Huntington Avenue
The 16.96-acre Phase 1 site is shown in Figures 3-2 and 3-9, pp. 3-48 and 3-55. The following discussion provides additional detail regarding Phase 1.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-39 September 2021
ICF 00082.20

3.6.3.1 Phase 1 Buildings
Phase 1 includes construction of Building 1, Building 2, Building 7, and a portion of Parking Structure C—namely, the long, eastern portion of the “L-shaped” campus parking structure. Building 2, the amenities building, would be located at the corner of Southline and Huntington Avenues and would provide a public entry point to the Specific Plan area, with access to the San Bruno BART station located across the street. Building 1 and Building 7, the office buildings, would be located east of Building 2. Table 3-10, below, provides a summary of the key characteristics of the Phase 1 buildings. Detailed land use breakdowns are provided in Section 3.6.2.2. Figure 3-25, p. 3-73 illustrates the proposed Phase 1 site plan. Building sections are shown in Figure 3-26, p. 3-74. The subterranean parking levels shown in the building sections are based on a parking ratio of 2.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet, the maximum (worst-case) parking configuration (refer to Section

3.6.2.8).

Table 3-10 Phase 1 Building Summary
Feature Building 1
Building 2 (Amenities
Building) Building 7
Parking
Structure C
(Eastern Wing)
Maximum Building
Area (sf)
317,495 88,200 295,220 1,490 spacesa
Proposed Use Office Retail/Dining: 16,400
Cafeteria: 9,000
Fitness Center: 49,000
Auditorium/Other: 13,800
Office Parking
Building Height
(feet)b
113 60 113 90 to top of
parapet,
104 to top of
elevator tower
Number of Stories 6 4 6 9
a Although only a portion of Parking Structure C vehicular stalls are anticipated to be used for Phase 1 tenant parking (approximately 205 stalls), the full capacity of the Phase 1 portion of Parking Structure C, as shown in Figure 3-25, p. 3-73, could be constructed during Phase 1 for purposes of construction efficiency. The portion of the excess spaces not required for Phase 1 use would be utilized for temporary construction-related parking for development of Phase 1 and subsequent phases.
b
Building heights measured in accordance with Zoning Ordinance, 20.040.005 Measuring Height, and 20.300.006 – Height and Height Exceptions.

Building 1 (Office Building)
The ground floor (Floor 1) of Building 1 would include a lobby, electrical and utility rooms, service elevators, tenant office space, and access to an elevator. Floors 2 through 6 would be used for tenant office space. The roof would include a mechanical penthouse, which would make up one-third of the roof area; mechanical equipment space; and a mechanical screen. Figure 3-27, p. 3-75, shows the Level 1 and Level 2 floor plans for Building 1. Other upper levels would resemble Level 2. Figure 3- 28, p. 3-76, shows representative elevations for the proposed building (south and east). Final floor plan configurations would be subject to Precise Plan review by the City.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-40 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Building 7 (Office Building)
Building 7 would be nearly identical in interior setup as Building 1. The ground floor (Floor 1) of the proposed building would include a lobby, tenant space, electrical and utility rooms, a service elevator, and separate elevator lobby. Floors 2 through 6 would be identical in layout and would include tenant space. Like Building 1, the roof of Building 7 would include a penthouse, making up one-third of the roof area; mechanical equipment space; and a mechanical screen. Figure 3-28, p. 3- 77, shows the Level 1 and Level 2 floor plans for Building 7. Other upper levels would resemble Level 2. Figure 3-29, p. 3-78, shows representative elevations for the proposed building (south and east). Final floor plan configurations would be subject to Precise Plan review by the City.

Building 2 (Amenities Building)
The ground floor (floor 1) of Building 2, the amenities building, would include an electrical room, bike kiosk, various retail spaces, bicycle parking, vehicle parking spaces, and an entry to the event space and fitness center lobby. Floor 2 would open up to the uses on Floor 1 and would include another level of podium (above-grade) vehicle parking spaces. Floor 3 would comprise a catering kitchen, café, two flexible meeting rooms, the entrance to the fitness center and lobby lounge, a basketball court, an administrative center/front desk, a utility room, two locker rooms, and a terrace garden. Floor 4 would include storage space, a game room, an open fitness area (including weight and cardio space), a flex fitness room, and a 680-seat auditorium with a stage. The roof would include mechanical equipment space and a mechanical screen. Figure 3-31, Figure 3-32, and Figure 3-33, pp. 3-79 through 3-81, show the Level 1, Level 3, and Level 4 floor plans for Building 2, respectively. Figure 3-34, p. 3-82, shows the elevations for the proposed building. Final floor plan configurations would be subject to Precise Plan review by the City.

Service and Loading Areas
Two service and loading yards would be constructed northeast and southwest of the proposed Building 1 and Building 7. The yards would be screened by 8- to 11-foot-tall screens or walls composed of materials that would be compatible with the architecture of the proposed buildings.

The yards would contain emergency generators and trash enclosures. Phase 1 would include up to four 1,250-kilowatt diesel generators and one 500-kilowatt diesel generator equipped with soundattenuating enclosures. The generators would be required to meet Bay Area Air Quality Management District permitting requirements for stationary sources. Periodic testing of the generators would be completed per National Fire Protection Association guidelines; testing is anticipated to consist of a minimum of 30 minutes of monthly testing per generator. However, it is likely that a weekly physical inspection and monthly load test would be conducted on each generator and phased over 1 to 3 days. In addition, every 36 months, the generators would run a 4- hour continuous test at a load of 100 percent. Other than testing, the generator would operate only during emergencies.

Building 1 would include two loading docks, with one loading dock intended for Building 1 tenant use and the second intended to serve Building 2. Building 7 would include one loading dock, which would accommodate weekly trash and recycling pickups, daily deliveries (e.g., FedEx, postal service), building equipment servicing (e.g., PG&E meter inspections), and occupants while moving in/moving out. In addition, all major HVAC equipment that would serve the proposed buildings would be located on the roof in a screened enclosure or in the rooftop penthouse for the chiller, boiler, and cooling towers. The screened enclosure would comprise metal panels as an extension of the building.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-41 September 2021
ICF 00082.20

3.6.3.2 Phase 1 Site Access, Circulation, and Parking
Phase 1 Site Access
Existing vehicular access via Dollar Avenue, Linden Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and Maple Avenue would be retained. As described in Section 3.6.2.7, Phase 1 would include the construction of a new roadway, Southline Avenue, on to which Buildings 1, 2, and 7 would front. The new Southline Avenue would connect Maple Avenue to Linden/Dollar Avenues. In addition, two new intersections would be constructed at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Maple Avenue and Southline Avenue and mid-block within the Specific Plan area at Southline Avenue and the Central Project Driveway. The existing intersection at South Linden and Dollar Avenues would also be realigned to connect to the new Southline Avenue. Emergency vehicle access to Building 1 and Building 2 would be provided by Tanforan Avenue and Southline Avenue, access to Building 7 would be provided by Dollar Avenue, and access to Parking Structure C would be provided by South Linden Avenue. In addition, Building 1 and Building 7 would include fire command rooms.

Phase 1 Vehicle and Bicycle Parking
Phase 1 would include construction of a total of approximately 2,664 parking spaces, including 1,490 parking spaces in Parking Structure C and 1,154 parking spaces in the parking structures south of Southline Avenue. Phase 1 includes development of only a portion of Parking Structure C— namely, the long, eastern portion of the “L-shaped” campus parking structure. Although only a portion of Parking Structure C vehicular stalls are anticipated to be used for Phase 1 tenant parking, the full capacity of the Phase 1 portion of Parking Structure C, as shown in Figure 3-25, p. 3-73, could be constructed during Phase 1 for purposes of construction efficiency. The portion of the excess spaces not required for Phase 1 use would be utilized for temporary construction-related parking for development of Phase 1 and subsequent phases. The parking spaces located in the parking structures south of Southline Avenue would include 1,034 below-grade spaces located under Building 1, Building 2, and Building 7 and 120 above-grade spaces in Building 2.

Approximately 15 additional surface parking spaces would be located south of Southline Avenue. Of the total parking spaces, Phase 1 would include approximately 31 ADA–compliant accessible spaces and 10 percent of total Phase 1 parking (approximately 83 stalls) will be electric vehicle charging ready spaces.

Phase 1 would include 18 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 188 long-term bicycle parking spaces, as shown in Table 3-8 and Table 3-9, pp. 3-54 and 3-55. The short-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided near the entries of the three proposed buildings. The long-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided in the below-grade parking structures beneath the three buildings. In addition, the proposed fitness center would include showers and clothes locker facilities.

Phase 1 Circulation
As described in Section 3.6.2.7 and shown in Figure 3-16, p. 3-62, vehicular circulation within the Specific Plan area would include the roadways that are located within the Specific Plan area and provide connectivity to the adjacent areas. Vehicle circulation would include the new public Southline Avenue roadway that would provide connectivity through the Specific Plan area as well as internal private roadways that would provide access to parking, loading, and building areas within the Specific Plan area.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-42 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
New pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths would be incorporated throughout the Phase 1 site.

New sidewalks would be located along both sides of Southline Avenue, Maple Avenue, Linden Avenue, Tanforan Avenue, and Dollar Avenue. In addition, walkways would be provided between the three proposed buildings, Parking Structure C, and along the Building 2 street frontages.

Similarly, new bike lanes would be included along Southline Avenue and Maple Avenue, providing connections to the Centennial Way Trail. Landscaping, signage, and lighting would be included along the sidewalks and pedestrian pathways, as discussed in Section 3.6.2.7, p. 3-28.

3.6.3.3 Phase 1 Site Landscaping and Open Space
Phase 1 would include approximately 128,440 square feet (approximately 3 acres) of open space, including the Southline Retail Plaza and Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet described in Section

3.6.2.10, p. 3-33. Upon Phase 1 site completion, approximately 18 percent of the Phase 1 site would be covered with pervious surfaces, and 82 percent of the Phase 1 site would be covered with impervious surfaces. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.10, all 162 trees within the Specific Plan area would be removed during Phase 1, including two protected trees. Approximately 19 trees may be removed within the off-site improvement areas during Phase 1. Phase 1 would plant 311 trees within the Phase 1 site. Additional trees may be planted in the off-site improvement areas during Phase 1, 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).

Phase 1 would include both private and public outdoor open space. The third floor of Building 2, the amenity building, would include a private 5,900-square-foot outdoor terrace that would provide both dining and lounge areas. Public open space would be provided in the form of the Southline Retail Plaza, sidewalk frontages, and the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, described in Section 3.6.2.10, p. 3-33. The Southline Retail Plaza and sidewalk frontage would be located along the western and northern border of Building 2 and would provide approximately 4,600 square feet of dining space for up to 130 people as well as landscaping along the sidewalks. The Phase 1 buildings would be setback from Tanforan Avenue by 40 feet to allow for development of the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet, which is further described in Section 3.6.2.10.

Phase 1 would include 10 biotreatment areas (e.g., planting areas) that would be distributed throughout the three proposed building areas. The biotreatment areas would total approximately 10,953 square feet. In addition, Phase 1 would include new perimeter landscaping. In total, Phase 1 would include approximately 92,647 square feet of planted landscaped areas (not accounting for the proposed biotreatment areas) and 103,600 square feet of irrigated landscape inclusive of bioretention areas. A conceptual landscape plan for Phase 1 is provided in Figure 3-35, p. 3-83.

3.6.3.4 Phase 1 Building Design
The proposed Phase 1 buildings would reflect the design guidelines described in Section 3.6.2.6.

The buildings would be constructed of contemporary materials, such as high-performance vision glass, terra cotta tile, corrugated metal panels, ribbed metal panels, and metal trim and trellises.

The architectural style would include both vertical and horizontal elements (see Figures 3-12 through 3-14, pp. 3-58 through 3-60), massing breaks, building openings, and wall planes that would combine architectural and landscaping features. In addition, signage and lighting would be included at building entrances, along walkways, and in parking lots. Conceptual renderings of Phase 1 are shown in Figure 3-14, p. 3-60 (Building 2), and Figure 3-15, p. 3-61 (Buildings 1 and 7). The conceptual renderings are intended to demonstrate an illustrative example of the buildings City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-43 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
and open space areas, based on the development standards and design guidelines set forth in the Specific Plan, and should not be considered definitive.

3.6.3.5 Phase 1 Infrastructure
Phase 1 would be served by existing water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain facilities fronting the project site and would construct new lateral connections to connect to existing pipes to the extent feasible. Phase 1 would also construct the following infrastructure improvements, as shown in Table 3-5, p. 3-21, and described in Section 3.6.2.11: install a new 12-inch water main in Southline Avenue, relocate a segment of an existing 6-inch water main along South Linden and Dollar Avenues, upsize an existing 24-inch sewer main on Tanforan Avenue, relocate a segment of an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer line along South Linden and Dollar Avenues, construct new storm drain mains in South Linden and Dollar Avenues, and realign an existing 42-inch storm drain main in Huntington Avenue.

3.6.3.6 Phase 1 Sustainability Features
The sustainability features for Phase 1 would be consistent with those described in Section 3.6.2.12 for the proposed project.

3.6.3.7 Phase 1 Construction
Construction of Phase 1 is anticipated to commence in Q1 2022 and end in Q3 2024, lasting approximately 30 months. Phase 1 would include the following construction stages, which may overlap: (1) abatement and demolition; (2) site preparation; (3) grading, road, and intersection construction; (4) Building 2 construction; (5) Building 1 construction; (6) Building 7 construction; (7) Parking Structure C construction (partial, as described above); and (8) landscape improvements.

The hours of construction would be stipulated by the City Building Division, and the project contractor would be required to comply with Section 8.32.050 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance), which includes regulations related to noise generated by construction.

Phase 1 construction would typically occur Monday through Saturday between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., with most noise-generating construction beginning at 8:00 a.m. During the 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. hours, workers would arrive, equipment and materials would be rolled out, and pre-task planning for the work day would take place. Approximately 18 instances of nighttime construction work would occur for concrete pours; such nighttime construction would begin approximately at 5:00 a.m. and be completed by 8:00 p.m. These pours would not take place on back-to-back nights.

Equipment for these activities could be located within 100 feet from the residences located south of Tanforan Avenue. Construction is not anticipated to occur on major legal holidays. Nighttime construction work would require a permit from the City and be subject to additional noise restrictions pursuant to Section 8.32.050(d) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

Construction materials and equipment would be staged entirely within the Specific Plan area, in areas where construction is not occurring. Construction workers would park on the future phase area and in the portions of Parking Structure C not utilized by Phase 1 tenants. Temporary road closures would be required for the construction of the Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue intersection, which would affect the public right-of-way during construction.

In addition, temporary sidewalk rerouting on Tanforan Avenue and Maple Avenue may be expected.

Roadway traffic control would be used as needed during construction.

City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-44 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
Demolition, Site Grading and Preparation
For purposes of this EIR analysis, it is assumed that all existing structures within the Specific Plan area would be demolished during Phase 1 construction, along with demolition and removal of all existing paving and hardscape within the approximately 11.93-acre Phase 1 portion of the Specific Plan area. The EIR assumes that the remaining paving and hardscape located within the other portions of the Specific Plan area would remain intact during Phase 1 construction in part to provide construction staging areas.

The proposed buildings and parking structure would be constructed on shallow mat slab foundations. Drilled cast-in-place piles would be required; no pile-driving would occur. Demolition of all existing uses on the Specific Plan area during Phase 1 would generate approximately 92,636 cubic yards of demolished material. Phase 1 would require grading or disturbing an area of approximately 740,000 square feet during construction. Phase 1 would excavate approximately 293,000 cubic yards of soil to a depth of up to 31 feet below grade level. These estimates include work within the off-site improvement areas. The off-site improvements would require trenching depths of approximately 3 to 9 feet below grade level. Excavated soil that would not be reused as fill on-site would be exported to a nearby dump in accordance with applicable regulations. To accommodate utility trenches, Phase 1 would require a maximum depth of excavation reaching approximately 9 feet below grade surface. Construction activities for Phase 1 would result in a maximum of approximately 216 daily construction truck trips during the most intensive construction stage and a maximum of approximately 558 daily construction workers. Construction trucks would primarily travel along the two haul routes described in Section 3.6.2.13 (with a third haul route also considered in this EIR analysis, as described in Section 3.6.2.13). Given that the depth to groundwater at the project site ranges from approximately 8 to 27 feet bgs (see Section 3.3.3, p. 3- 4), dewatering would be required during Phase 1 construction. Refer to Section 3.6.2.13 for details regarding excavation shoring and construction dewatering. For construction and demolition, 100 percent of all inert solids (building materials) and 65 percent of non-inert solids (all other materials) would be recycled as required by the City under Chapter 15.60 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

3.7 Required Governmental Approvals
Implementation of the proposed project requires approval of certain entitlements and approvals from the City and other agencies. Entitlements and approvals subject to City review and approval that are anticipated for implementation of the proposed Specific Plan and off-site improvements include:
⚫ Adoption of the Southline Specific Plan, which will operate as the zoning for the Specific Plan area;
⚫ General Plan amendments to reflect adoption of the Specific Plan, including amending the allowable building height for the Specific Plan area and re-designating the approximately 0.3- acre parcel designated as Parks and Recreation to Office; ⚫ Zoning map and zoning text amendments to reflect adoption of the Specific Plan and to implement the Southline Campus (S-C) District zoning;
⚫ Vesting Tentative Map approval for reconfiguration of the parcels and dedicating public roadways and easements;
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-45 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
⚫ Preliminary TDM Plan approval;
⚫ Development Agreement; and
⚫ Any additional actions or permits deemed necessary to implement the Specific Plan and off-site improvements, including demolition, grading, foundation, and building permits; public encroachment permits; any permits or approvals required for extended construction hours; tree removal permits; and other additional ministerial actions, permits, or approvals from the City that may be required.

Approvals specific to Phase 1, some of which are anticipated to occur concurrently with the projectwide approvals described above or thereafter, include:
⚫ Precise Plan approval subject to the terms and policies of the Specific Plan; ⚫ Final Map approval;
⚫ Design Review approval;
⚫ Master Sign Program approval;
⚫ Final Phase 1 Transportation Demand Management Plan approval; ⚫ Any additional actions or permits deemed necessary to implement Phase 1, including demolition, grading, foundation, and building permits; public encroachment permits; any permits or approvals required for extended construction hours; tree removal permits; and other additional ministerial actions, permits, or approvals from the City that may be required. ⚫ Development of subsequent phases within the Specific Plan area would require certain additional approvals similar to the list provided for Phase 1 above, some of which may depend on the specific nature of the proposed development for that phase (e.g., a use permit for conditionally permitted uses).

This EIR is also intended to provide CEQA clearance for approvals that may be required from the City of San Bruno to implement the off-site improvements, which would be subject to San Bruno’s discretion and could include:
⚫ General Plan Amendment for construction of the Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue intersection;
⚫ Improvement and Maintenance Agreement;
⚫ Encroachment Permit for work performed within the right-of-way; ⚫ Street tree removal permit(s); and
⚫ Any additional actions or permits deemed necessary to implement the off-site improvements within the City of San Bruno’s jurisdiction.

This EIR is also intended to provide CEQA clearance for approvals that may be required from other agencies, which could include:
⚫ Bay Area Rapid Transit District
o Permit to Enter;
o Encroachment permit; and
City of South San Francisco Project Description
Southline Specific Plan EIR 3-46 September 2021
ICF 00082.20
o Any additional actions or permits deemed necessary to implement the off-site improvements on BART property
⚫ Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain owner/operator) for any actions or permits deemed necessary to implement the off-site improvements affecting its facilities ⚫ California Public Utilities Commission for any actions or permits deemed necessary to implement the off-site improvements affecting its facilities ⚫ California Regional Water Quality Control Board
o Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Stormwater Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ⚫ Bay Area Air Quality Management District
o Stationary-source permits (Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate) for generators or similar equipment
⚫ City/County Association of Governments Airport Land Use Commission o Determination of consistency with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
⚫ Federal Aviation Administration
o Notice of Proposed Construction and Alteration and FAA Determination per Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Part 77.9
Figure 3-1
Project Location Map
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects _1\City_of_Sou th_San_Francis co\00082_20_Sou thlineDevelopment\Figu res \Doc\PD_Figu res \Project_Location.mxd ; Us er: 50860; Date: 5/25/2021 San Bruno
South San Francisco
0 0.25
Miles
Specific Plan Area – Phas e 1
Specific Plan Area – Fu tu re Phas es
Off-Site Improvement Areas – Fu tu re Phases
Off-Site Improvement Areas – Phas e 1
Project Site
City Limits
1:10,000
[N
Figure 3-2
Aerial Photograph
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Figures\Doc\PD_Figures\Aerial_Photograph.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 3/29/2021 San Bruno
South San Francisco
Commercial / Industrial
Commercial / Industrial
Commercial / Industrial
Residential
On-Site Future Phase
On-Site Phase 1
(Phase 1 SIte)
Off-Site Phase 1
(Phase 1 Site)
Off-Site Future Phase
Centennial Way Trail
San Bruno Towne Center
San Bruno Caltrain Station
South San Francisco Caltrain Station
The Shops at Tanforan
San Bruno BART Station
Golden Gate National Cemetery
0 0.25
Miles
Off-Site Improvement Areas
Specific Plan Area
City Limits
1:15,000
[
N
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Existing
Building
Tanforan Avenue
Dollar Avenue
Maple Avenue
Specic Plan Area
Specic Plan Area—Phase 1
Specic Plan Area—Future Phases
O
-Site Improvement Areas—Future Phases
O
-Site Improvement Areas—Phase 1
Legend
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

Feet
0 100 200
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (8/4/21) AB
Figure 3-3
Existing Site Plan
Figure 3-4
Existing General Plan Land Use Designation
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Figures\Doc\PD_Figures\Existing_GP_LandUse.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 9/8/2021 San Bruno
South San Francisco
0 0.25
Miles
Specific Plan Area
City Limits
Land Use Designation
Mixed Industrial
Business Commercial
Business and Professional Office
Commercial Mixed Use
Community Commercial
Freeway Commercial
El Camino Real Mixed Use
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Parks and Recreation
Public
1:10,000
[
N
Figure 3-5
Existing Zoning Designation
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Figures\Doc\PD_Figures\Existing_Zoning_Designation.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 9/8/2021 San Bruno
South San Francisco
0 0.25
Miles
Specific Plan Area
City Limits
Zone
Mixed Industrial
Business Commercial
Business Professional Office
Commercial Mixed Use
Community Commercial
Downtown Residential High
El Camino Real Mixed Use
Freeway Commercial
High Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Low Density Residential
Parks and Recreation
Public
Public/ Quasi-Public
1:12,000
[
N
Figure 3-6
Transit Priority Area Map
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Figures\Doc\PD_Figures\Transit_PriorityAreas.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 9/8/2021 San Bruno
South San Francisco
0 0.25
Miles
Specific Plan Area
City Limits
Transit Priority Area
1:12,500
[N
Data source: Transit Priority Areas (2017),
MTC Open Data Layer Library
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-7
Conceptual Site Plan – Office Scenario
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-8
Conceptual Site Plan – Life Sciences Scenario
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-9
Conceptual Phasing Plan
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-10
Proposed Zoning District
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-11
Conceptual Building Heights
5 SOUTHLINE CONCEPTUAL SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD OUT 05.18.20

VIEW FROM HUNTINGTON-SNEATH INTERSECTION
*Rendering of Conceptual Specific Plan Build Out is for illustrative purposes only ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/8/21) AB
Figure 3-12
Conceptual Project Rendering – View from Huntington-Sneath Intersection Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2020.
6 SOUTHLINE CONCEPTUAL SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD OUT 05.18.20 VIEW OF BUILDING 3
*Rendering of Conceptual Specific Plan Build Out is for illustrative purposes only ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/8/21) AB
Figure 3-13
Conceptual Project Rendering – View of Building 3
Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2020.
7 SOUTHLINE CONCEPTUAL SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD OUT 05.18.20

VIEW OF PARKING GARAGE
*Rendering of Conceptual Specific Plan Build Out is for illustrative purposes only ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/8/21) AB
Figure 3-14
Conceptual Project Rendering – View of Parking Garage
Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2020.
8 SOUTHLINE CONCEPTUAL SPECIFIC PLAN BUILD OUT 05.18.20

VIEW OF SOUTHLINE COMMONS
*Rendering of Conceptual Specific Plan Build Out is for illustrative purposes only ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/8/21) AB
Figure 3-15
Conceptual Project Rendering – View of Southline Commons Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2020.

Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-16
Conceptual On-Site Vehicular Circulation Plan
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (4-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-17a
Southline Avenue Roadway – Cross Section A
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (4-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-17b
Southline Avenue Roadway – Cross Section B
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-18
Conceptual Pedestrian Connectivity Plan
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-19
Conceptual Bicycle Connectivity Plan
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-20
Conceptual Off-Site Signal and Pedestrian Crosswalk Improvements Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (4-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-21a
Conceptual Intersection Improvements at the
Southline and Huntington Avenues Intersection - Overview Overhead view View looking northwest
View looking southeast View looking southwest
Figure 3-21b
Conceptual Intersection Improvements at the
Southline and Huntington Avenues Intersection - Renderings ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-22
Tanforan Avenue Improvements
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (9/22/21) AH
Figure 3-23
Conceptual Subterranean Parking Plan
Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

Source: Kimley Horn, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (6-10-2021) JC
Figure 3-24
Conceptual Landscape and Open Space Plan
5 SOUTHLINE PHASE 1 PRECISE PLAN PACKAGE 02.08.21
PHASE 1 SITE PLAN
0’ 30’ 60’ 120’
SCALE: 1” = 120’-0”
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (4-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-25
Phase 1 Conceptual Site Plan
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

Specic Plan
Area Boundary
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-26
Phase 1 Building Sections
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-27
Building 1 Levels 1 and 2 Floor Plans
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-28
Building 1 Elevations (South and East)
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-29
Building 7 Levels 1 and 2 Floor Plans
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-30
Building 7 Elevations (South and East)
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-31
Building 2 Level 1 Floor Plan
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-32
Building 2 Level 3 Floor Plan
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-33
Building 2 Level 4 Floor Plan
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-23-2021) JC
Figure 3-34
Building 2 Elevations
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.
23 SOUTHLINE PHASE 1 PRECISE PLAN PACKAGE 02.08.21
PHASE 1 OPEN SPACE PLAN

LOBBY PLAZA
- Simple Unit Paver Pattern
- Intergrated Landscape Edge
- Tree Grate
LEGEND

SOUTHLINE RETAIL PLAZA
- Terraced seating/decking
- Intergrated Landscape Edge
- Planters/Vertical Landscape

TANFORAN AVENUE COMMUNITY PARKLET

LANDSCAPE EDGE
- Bioretention Area
- Screen Planting

PRIMARY LANDSCAPE GATEWAY
- Future Campus Monument
(Master Signage Package under
Separate Submittal)
- Project Frontage
ICF Graphics … 00082.20 (3-25-2021) JC
Figure 3-35
Phase 1 Conceptual Landscape Plan
Source: DES Architects/Engineers, Lane Partners, 2021.

Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-1
September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Chapter 4
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation

4.1 Approach to Environmental Analysis

4.1.1 Introduction to Analysis
This section describes the type and format of the environmental analysis for the proposed project in each environmental topic section of the chapter; the effect of Public Resources Code Section 21099 on the scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis for the project; and the general approaches to establishing the baseline setting and evaluating project-level and cumulative impacts in this environmental impact report (EIR).

4.1.2 Type of CEQA Analysis
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15161 and 15168, this a combined program-level and projectlevel EIR. Specifically, this EIR provides a program-level analysis of the potential effects on the environment that could occur from implementation of the proposed project, which comprises buildout allowed under the proposed Southline Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and associated off-site improvements. In addition, this EIR provides a project-level analysis of the initial development phase of the Specific Plan (Phase 1) including the related off-site improvements, which is a component of the proposed project. This EIR serves as a single CEQA document that will provide environmental clearance for the proposed project, which includes (i) adoption of the Specific Plan and related discretionary approvals; (ii) approval and implementation of the off-site improvements; and (iii) implementation of Phase 1 including the related off-site improvements. As such, this EIR is intended to provide the environmental review needed under CEQA to support all necessary approvals and entitlements for implementation of Phase 1 and the off-site improvements that would be completed during Phase 1, while also serving as a program-level document that is intended to be used for streamlined environmental review for future phases of development within the Specific Plan area and the remainder of the off-site improvements.

For each CEQA environmental topic evaluated, the EIR presents separate analyses of the impacts of the (i) proposed project and (ii) Phase 1, in order to differentiate project impacts specific to Phase 1 and/or identify any necessary, feasible mitigation measures applicable to Phase 1 as compared to buildout of the proposed project.

For purposes of the program-level EIR analysis, as further described below, and in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project applicant has identified two Specific Plan buildout scenarios that represent the reasonably foreseeable range of development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Sciences Scenario. For the programlevel analysis, each section in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, of this EIR analyzes the buildout scenario – i.e., either the Office Scenario or the Life Sciences Scenario – which is the “worst-case” scenario for the resource area being analyzed. The “worst-case” scenario is the scenario with the greatest potential to result in significant impacts. For example, office uses generate more vehicle trips, on a per square-footage basis, than R&D uses; therefore, the Office Scenario is used to estimate the proposed project’s trip generation in Section 4.15, Transportation and City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Circulation, of this EIR. In some cases, either scenario would present equivalent impacts (e.g., impacts related to construction activities on a maximum activity day). In these cases, the EIR analysis is representative of Specific Plan buildout under any configuration. Table 4.1-1, below, lists the buildout scenario assumed in each resource analysis for the program-level analysis of the Specific Plan buildout scenarios.

Table 4.1-1. Specific Plan Buildout Scenario Analyzed for Each Resource Topic (Programmatic Analysis) Resource Topic Buildout Scenario (Office, Life Sciences, Either) Air Quality Construction Impacts: Either Scenario
Operational Impacts (criteria pollutants): Office
Scenario
Operational Impacts (toxic air contaminants): Life
Sciences Scenario
Biological Resources Office Scenario
Cultural Resources Office Scenario
Energy Construction Impacts: Either Scenario
Operational Impacts: Office Scenario
Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources Office Scenario Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction Impacts: Either Scenario Operational Impacts: Office Scenario
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Handling: Life Sciences Scenario
Subsurface Contamination: Office Scenario
Hydrology and Water Quality Surface Water: Life Sciences Scenario Groundwater: Office Scenario
Land Use and Planning Either Scenario
Noise and Vibration Construction Noise: Either Scenario Stationary Noise: Life Sciences Scenario
Traffic-Related Noise: Office Scenario
Population and Housing Office Scenario
Public Services Office Scenario
Recreation Office Scenario
Transportation and Circulation Office Scenario
Tribal Cultural Resources Office Scenario
Utilities and Service Systems Water: Life Sciences Scenario Wastewater: Office Scenario
Solid Waste: Office Scenario
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications:

Either Scenario
Environmental Topics For Which The Project
Would Have No Impact (Aesthetics (Shading),
Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Mineral
Resources, Wildfire)
Shading: Office Scenarioa
Other topics: Either Scenario
a. As discussed in Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, this EIR does not consider aesthetics in determining the significance of impacts under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099. However, a shading analysis is provided for informational purposes in response to a comment received on the Notice of Preparation (NOP).

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
In December 2015, the California Supreme Court found that “CEQA generally does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users or residents,” unless the project “could exacerbate hazards that are already present.” The Supreme Court identified several exceptions to this general rule in which CEQA could apply to impacts of the environment on the project, all of which are statutory provisions in CEQA that specifically require consideration of impacts of the environment, such as consideration of projects near airports, school construction projects, and statutory exemptions from housing and transit priority projects. (California Building Industry Assoc. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369). None of these exceptions apply to the proposed project; as such, this environmental impact report does not draw significance conclusions for those topics for which the environment could have an effect on the project.

Buildout Scenarios
Section 15126.2 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR focus on the significant “direct and indirect” and “short-term and long-term” effects of a project. To ensure a reasonably conservative approach in analyzing environmental impacts under CEQA, EIRs typically analyze what could be considered a reasonably foreseeable worst-case scenario with respect to potential physical impacts to the environment in order to disclose all potential significant impacts that could occur from implementation of a project. To establish a programmatic evaluation of the proposed Specific Plan, which would allow for development of office and research and development (R&D) uses based on the land use development standards and design guidelines established therein as described in Section 3.6.2.2 in Chapter 3, Project Description, this EIR analysis utilizes “buildout” calculations based on reasonably foreseeable development scenarios.

The term “buildout” refers to the future scenario in which development that would be permitted under the Specific Plan is fully implemented. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to 2,800,000 square feet of the commercial campus as either office or R&D uses, or a combination of both. The buildout of the Specific Plan would depend on a number of factors, including market conditions, availability of financing, and tenancy requirements. Because the exact amount and configuration of future development cannot be forecast with precision, two projected buildout scenarios have been identified which represent the reasonably foreseeable range of future development expected to occur under the Specific Plan: the Office Scenario and the Life Science Scenario.

1. The Office Scenario would develop office uses up to seven stories tall and the four-story amenity building for a total of 2,800,000 square feet of development (FAR of approximately 2.4).

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

Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, provides detailed estimates of the amount of office, and R&D space that could be developed under the two buildout scenarios. The proposed off-site improvements would be the same under both the Office Scenario and Life Sciences Scenario.

Phase 1
As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, this EIR evaluates the Precise Plan proposal submitted by the project applicant to the City of South San Francisco (City) for the first phase of development under the Specific Plan (Phase 1). Under the Precise Plan proposal, Phase 1 would City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
include construction of the new Southline Avenue east-west connection road and the following development, generally located south of the new road: two new office buildings (Buildings 1 and 7), with a total building area of up to 612,715 square feet, the four-story, 88,200-square foot amenities building (Building 2); approximately 2,664 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and the eastern portion of the nine-story parking structure located north of the new Southline Avenue (Parking Structure C) – a portion of which would be utilized for construction parking and future phases; and landscaping and open space amenities. Phase 1 also includes all of the proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure, roadway, and pedestrian improvements within the off-site improvement areas, except for the roadway widening, streetfront improvements, and sewer main upgrades in Maple Avenue. In total, Phase 1 construction would occur on approximately 11.93 acres within the Specific Plan area and 5.03 acres within the off-site improvement areas, totaling approximately 16.96 acres (Phase 1 site).

4.1.3 Format of the Environmental Analysis
Sections 4.2 through 4.18 address the physical environmental effects of the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, on the required CEQA environmental topics, as follows:
• Section 4.2, Air Quality
• Section 4.3, Biological Resources
• Section 4.4, Cultural Resources
• Section 4.5, Energy
• Section 4.6, Geology and Soils
• Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
• Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality
• Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning
• Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration
• Section 4.12, Population and Housing
• Section 4.13, Public Services
• Section 4.14, Recreation
• Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation
• Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources
• Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems
• Section 4.18, Impacts Found Not to be Significant
- 4.18.1, Aesthetics and Vehicular Parking
Analysis
- 4.18.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources
- 4.18.3, Mineral Resources
- 4.18.4, Wildfire
Sections 4.2 through 4.17 each contain the following subsections: Environmental Setting, Regulatory Framework, and Impacts and Mitigation Measures, described below. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, Section 4.18 provides a brief discussion of topics where the proposed project would have no impacts, and therefore are not discussed in detail in this EIR. For each of these topics, Section 4.18 includes a brief description of the Lead Agency’s reasons for determining that there would be no impact.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.1.3.1 Environmental Setting
The Environmental Setting subsections in Sections 4.2 through 4.17 describe the existing conditions at the project site, inclusive of the Phase 1 site, and in the project vicinity as they relate specifically to that environmental topic. The existing conditions that serve as the baseline for the analysis of environmental impacts are described in Section 4.1.5, page 4.1-8.

4.1.3.2 Regulatory Framework
The Regulatory Framework subsections in Sections 4.2 through 4.17 describe federal, state, regional, and local regulatory requirements that are directly applicable to the environmental topic.

4.1.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The Impacts and Mitigation Measures subsections in Sections 4.2 through 4.17 describe the physical environmental impacts of the proposed project for each topic, as well as any mitigation measures that could reduce potentially significant impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts and mitigation measures specific to Phase 1 are called out separately. This subsection begins with a listing of the significance criteria used to assess the severity of the environmental impacts for that particular topic based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist. Environmental topic sections also include a topic-specific “Approach to Analysis” explaining the parameters, assumptions, and data used in the analysis.

Under the “Impact Evaluation” discussion, the program- and project-level impact analysis for each topic begins with an impact statement that reflects the applicable significance criteria. Some significance criteria may be combined in a single impact statement, if appropriate. Each impact statement is keyed to a subject area abbreviation (e.g., AQ for Air Quality) and an impact number (e.g., 1, 2, 3) for a combined alpha-numeric code (e.g., Impact AQ-1, Impact AQ-2, Impact AQ-3).

When potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are presented, if feasible, to avoid, eliminate, or reduce significant adverse impacts of the proposed project and/or Phase 1. Each mitigation measure is numbered according to the impact under which it falls (e.g., Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to mitigate Impact AQ-1, Mitigation Measure AQ-2 to mitigate Impact AQ-2). If more than one mitigation measure is required for an impact, it is numbered consecutively with an alphanumeric code (e.g., Mitigation Measure AQ-1a, Mitigation Measure AQ-1b).

Each impact statement describes the impact that would occur after mitigation (if applicable). The level of significance of the impact is indicated in parentheses at the end of the impact statement based on the following terms:
• No Impact – No adverse physical changes (or impacts) to the environment are expected. • Less than Significant – Impact that does not exceed the defined significance criteria or would be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations.
• Less than Significant with Mitigation – Impact that is reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the identified mitigation measures.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
• Significant and Unavoidable– Impact that exceeds the defined significance criteria and cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations and/or implementation of all feasible mitigation measures.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the potential for the proposed project to result in significant cumulative impacts when combined with other current and future projects is described in a separate subsection following the project analysis. Cumulative impact statements are numbered consecutively for each impact statement with an alpha-numeric code to signify it is a cumulative impact (e.g., Impact C-AQ-1).

4.1.4 Applicability of Public Resources Code Section 21099 (SB 743)
Senate Bill (SB) 743,
1 which was signed into law in 2013 and is codified in Section 21099 of the California Public Resources Code, intends to better align CEQA transportation impact analysis practices and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. SB 743 created several key statewide changes to CEQA, as described in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR, and summarized below.

As required by SB 743, the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) amended CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 to provide an alternative to automobile delay, as described by level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, for evaluating traffic impacts of proposed projects. The new metric, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), measures the total number of miles traveled by vehicles daily on the roadway network and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled (e.g., through GHG emissions). In other words, SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts on drivers to measuring the impact of driving on the environment, particularly as it relates to GHG emissions.

Land use projects with one or more of the following characteristics would generally have lesser VMT impacts relative to projects without these characteristics:
• A mix of project uses;
• Support for a citywide jobs/housing balance;
• Proximity to high-quality transit service; and
• Locations in highly walkable or bikeable areas.

This shift in transportation impact criteria is intended to align transportation impact analysis and mitigation outcomes with state goals to reduce GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. Although OPR provides recommendations for adopting new VMT analysis guidelines, lead agencies retain discretion in designing their methodology. Lead agencies must select their preferred method for estimating and forecasting VMT, their preferred significance thresholds for baseline and cumulative conditions, and the mitigation strategies they consider feasible. Lead agencies must prove that their selected 1 Full text of SB 743 available at: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id= 201320140SB743. Accessed February 25, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
analysis methodology aligns with SB 743’s goals to promote infill development, reduce GHGs, and reduce VMT. To aid in SB 743 implementation, the following state guidance has been produced:
• OPR’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA2 • California Air Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals3
• California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020 Consistent with SB 7434
On June 10, 2020, the City of South San Francisco adopted Resolution 77-2020 establishing VMT thresholds and methodology effective July 1, 2020, as discussed further in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR.

4.1.4.1 Presumption of Less-Than-Significant VMT and Other Impacts for Qualifying Projects
A vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) impact analysis is provided in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, of this EIR. As described in more detail in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, the project meets the criteria set by Public Resources Code Section 21099, City of South San Francisco Resolution 77-2020, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3to qualify for the presumption of a less-than-significant impact on VMT. The VMT metric does not apply to the analysis of impacts on non-automobile modes of travel such as riding transit, walking, and bicycling.

SB 743 also establishes that aesthetics and parking shall not be considered in determining if a project has the potential to result in significant environmental effects, provided the project meets the following criteria established under Public Resources Code Section 21099:
• The project is on an infill site.5
• The project is in a Transit Priority area (TPA).6
• The project is a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment-center project.7 2 Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA.

December. Available: http://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed: October 6, 2020.
3 California Air Resources Board. 2017. 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals. January. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-planidentified-vmt-reductions-and-relationship-state-climate. Accessed: October 6, 2020. 4 California Department of Transportation. 2016. Local Development–Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance, Implementing Caltrans Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020 Consistent with SB 743. November.

Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/transportation-planning/office-of-smart-mobility-climate-change/sb743. Accessed: October 6, 2020. 5 An “infill site” is a lot located within an urban area that has been previously developed, or on a vacant site where at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins, or is separated only by an improved public rightof-way from, parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. (Public Resources Code section 20199(a)(4)) 6 A TPA is an area within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. (Public Resources Code section (a)(7))
7 An “employment center project” is a project located on property zoned for commercial uses with a floor area ratio of no less than 0.75 and that is located within a TPA. (Public Resources Code section (a)(1)) City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The proposed project meets the above criteria as a qualifying employment-center project for purposes of Public Resources Code Section 21099. The Specific Plan area is a qualifying infill site that is currently developed with existing various office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities.

Further, due to the project site’s proximity to the San Bruno BART station and qualifying SamTrans bus routes, the entire project site is located within a TPA. Because the project meets the three criteria above, this EIR does not consider aesthetics or parking in determining the significance of impacts under CEQA.

4.1.5 Approach to Baseline Setting
Project development characteristics are typically compared to the existing physical environment to isolate impacts caused by the project on its surroundings. In other words, the existing condition (also referred to as the environmental setting) is normally the baseline against which the project’s impacts are measured to determine whether impacts are significant. Compliance with existing laws, regulations, and policies, including the City’s standard conditions of approval, are assumed to be part of the baseline setting against which the project’s incremental impacts are assessed. The Environmental Setting subsection of each topic describes existing conditions on and around the project site, including the Phase 1 site. These existing conditions are ordinarily established as of the date that the NOP is published (May 2020). In some circumstances, however, it is appropriate to use a different baseline to identify project impacts to account for circumstances that can change over time during the course of the environmental review, project construction, and operation.

As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation, in the case of the transportation analysis, the existing condition reflects transportation conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Due to the atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data was not collected for the transportation analysis. Instead, to establish an existing condition that is representative of anticipated post-pandemic conditions in which the project is expected to be constructed and operated, the transportation analysis utilized local traffic data collected in 2017 and 2018 and transit service levels prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (including Caltrain service levels of five trains per hour, per direction). This approach enables analysis of an observed realworld condition and no major developments have since been completed in the immediate project area that would substantially affect traffic patterns. The same approach is used in Section 4.11, Noise and Vibration, with respect to transportation-related noise conditions.

4.1.6 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis
Cumulative impacts are two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. Cumulative impacts are impacts of the project, including Phase 1, in combination with other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[a][b]). The following factors are considered to determine the level of cumulative analysis in this EIR:
• Similar Environmental Impacts – A relevant project contributes to effects on resources that are also affected by a proposed project. A relevant future project is defined as one that is “reasonably foreseeable,” such as a proposed project for which an application has been filed with the approving agency or has approved funding.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
• Geographic Scope and Location – A relevant project is located within the geographic area within which effects could combine. The geographic scope varies on a resource-by-resource basis. For example, the geographic scope for evaluating cumulative effects on air quality consists of the affected air basin, while the geographic scope for evaluating cumulative effects on traffic typically consists of the roadways within the region that could carry additional vehicles as a result of net new VMT generated by the proposed project. • Timing and Duration of Implementation – Effects associated with activities for a relevant project (e.g., short-term construction or demolition, or long-term operations) would likely coincide in timing with the related effects of a proposed project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) sets forth two primary approaches to the analysis of cumulative impacts. The analysis can be based on (1) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts that could combine with those of a proposed project or (2) a summary of projections contained in a general plan or related planning document. The cumulative impact analysis in this EIR generally employs either a list-based approach or a projections approach, depending on which approach appropriately captures the cumulative context for the individual resource topic being analyzed. Cumulative analyses for topics that tend to be highly localized (e.g., biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and construction impacts) use a list-based approach that includes nearby future projects anticipated in the project vicinity (i.e., within approximately 0.5 mile of the project site). Other impacts can affect existing conditions on a citywide or regional scale (e.g., air quality, GHG emissions, public services, population growth). These topics employ a projections approach towards evaluating cumulative impacts. The cumulative context for each topic is defined at the beginning of each cumulative analysis, providing a description of the approach utilized for each topic. The City is currently undertaking an update to its 1999 City General Plan, referred to as the Shape SSF 2040 General Plan.
8 The 1999 City General Plan remains active
until completion and adoption of the new general plan. The general plan update is currently in progress, including initial stages of CEQA review, and is not considered in the cumulative analysis as it is anticipated that approval of the general plan update will not occur until Quarter 4 of 2022 or later.

Cumulative Projects Within 0.5-Mile Radius
The projects utilized for the list-based approach are listed below and mapped in Figure 4.1-1, p.

4.1-10. Generally, these are projects for which applications had been filed with the City as of publication of the NOP for the proposed project (May 22, 2020) but construction had not begun by that date , and/or projects that the City has otherwise determined are reasonably foreseeable. No projects under construction were identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Therefore, the list of projects provided below includes projects that have been proposed or approved but not yet constructed.
8 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/. Accessed:

October 6, 2020.

Figure 4.1-1
Cumulative Project Locations
\\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Data\StudyAreas\WS\01_Cumulative_Projects\SouthlineDev_CumulativeProjects_HalfMile.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 3/3/2021 San Bruno
(5
(5
(6
(5
(5a
(7
(1
(2
(4
(3
0 0.25
Miles
Project Site
City Limits
Cumulative Projects (see EIR Section 4.1.6)
1:12,978
[N
Bayhill Specific Plan Project
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The following projects are located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site (the numbers are keyed to Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10):

1. 410 Noor Avenue: Construction of a three- to five-story mixed-use complex with 338 residential units, and below grade parking on a 4.53-acre site. (Entitled December, 2020; construction date to be determined)

2. 180 El Camino Real: Exterior modifications to the existing Safeway Shopping Center and construction of new commercial buildings fronting onto El Camino Real totaling 30,650 square feet. (Entitled December 2017 and October 2018; construction date to be determined)

3. 246 South Spruce Avenue: Demolition and removal of an existing gas station and vehicle washing facility, and the construction of a fully automated vehicle washing facility. (Entitled October, 2019; construction date to be determined)

4. 426 Victory Avenue: Construction of a new 4,263-square foot office and warehouse building on an existing, vacant 7,330-square foot parcel. (Entitled January 2018; construction date to be determined)
Cumulative Projects within City of South San Francisco
For purposes of the cumulative analysis for historic resources, fire protection, police protection, library, and childcare services (see Section 4.13, Public Services, of this EIR), the list of reasonably foreseeable projects has been expanded beyond a 0.5-mile radius to include all reasonably foreseeable projects within the City limits, some of which are not yet approved and some of which are approved but not yet under construction. The list was generally established at the time of the project’s NOP, with minor adjustments made during preparation of the Draft EIR to reflect updated project information. This list does not include those projects already under construction, which are considered part of baseline conditions. These reasonably foreseeable projects include mixed-use, residential, commercial/retail, office/ R&D, and hotel uses. As shown in Table 4.1-2, p. 4.1-12, if all projects are approved and constructed, they would provide a projected 2,926 residential units, 87,815 square feet of commercial/retail space, 5.6 million square feet of office/R&D space, and 443 hotel rooms.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.1-2. City of South San Francisco Projects Contributing to Foreseeable Development Location Type
Residential
(# of units)
Commercial/
Retail
(square feet)
Office/R&D
(square feet)
Hotel
(# of rooms)
494 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D 326,020
328 Roebling Rd. Office/R&D 130,000
475 Eccles Ave. Office/R&D 262,287
426 Victory Ave. Office/warehouse 4,263
Auto-Chlor System Building Office/service center 31,765 499 Forbes Blvd. Office/R&D 128,737
751 Gateway Blvd. Office 208,800
580 Dubuque Ave. Office/R&D 213,000
Genentech Campus Master Plan Office/R&D 4,300,000
Days Inn Hotel 12
180 El Camino Real (Safeway Shopping Center) Commercial 30,650 Best Western Plus Hotel 92
Wyndham Garden Hotel 115
Sing Tao Newspapers Commercial 11,585
701 Airport Blvd. Hotel 131
Camaritas Hotel Hotel 93
150 Airport Blvd. Residential 157
488 Linden Ave. Residential 38
255 Cypress Ave. Mixed-Use 46 6,000
616 Maple Ave. Residential 5
988 El Camino Real Mixed-Use 172 12,000
410 Noor Ave. Mixed-Use 338 1,000
818-824 Linden Ave. Mixed-Use 7 1,650
645 Baden Ave. Residential 8
40 Airport Blvd. Residential 292
423 Commercial Ave. Residential 4
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Location Type
Residential
(# of units)
Commercial/
Retail
(square feet)
Office/R&D
(square feet)
Hotel
(# of rooms)
200 Airport Blvd. Mixed-Use 94 3,630
124 Airport Blvd. and 100 Produce Ave. Residential 480
7 South Linden Ave. Residential 445
SSF PUC Site Development Mixed-Use 800 21,300
458 Railroad Ave. Residential 4
428 Baden Ave. Residential 36
Totals 2,926 87,815 5,604,872 443
Source: South San Francisco Development and Construction Map, https://construction.ssf.net/#, updated October 26, 2020. Accessed November 12, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Other Cumulative Projects
Although it is outside a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, the Bayhill Specific Plan project is a reasonably foreseeable large development project in the City of San Bruno. Given the scale of the Bayhill Specific Plan project, and the potential for both projects to share certain overlapping local and regional transportation infrastructure, the Bayhill Specific Plan project has been added to the cumulative traffic model used in the cumulative transportation analysis in Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation. As such, the Bayhill Specific Plan project is also included in the cumulative analysis of mobile air emissions in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and the cumulative analysis of traffic-generated noise in Section 4.11, Noise, both of which cumulative traffic volumes.

5. Bayhill Specific Plan (marked #5 in Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10): The Specific Plan would allow for the development of up to 2.46 million net new square feet of office uses and up to 573 multifamily residential units on a 92.2-acre site. The first phase of development, referred to as the Phase I development (marked #5a in Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10), would construct two new buildings with 440,000 square feet of office space, as well as a subgrade parking structure, and transportation and circulation improvements. (Draft EIR released for public review in January 2021; Final EIR released for public review in August 2021; construction date has not yet been determined)
In addition to adjusting for the Bayhill Specific Plan project, the forecasts for cumulative transportation conditions were adjusted to reflect other reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect cumulative traffic, including: completion of all approved employment projects in South San Francisco as of May 2020; and the operation of 12 trains per hour in each direction during peak periods along the Caltrain railroad corridor, a reasonably foreseeable condition that could result from the California High-Speed Rail Project (described below) and the Caltrain Business Plan’s adopted service vision (i.e., operating eight trains per hour in each direction during peak periods).

For the purposes of the cumulative noise and vibration analysis in Section 4.11, Noise, two additional projects were considered in the cumulative analysis given their proximity to the project site and their potential to combine with the proposed project and result in cumulative noise and vibration impacts. These projects are the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, which would include cosntruction along the Caltrain right-of-way (ROW) and would increase trains along the ROW, and the California High-Speed Rail Project, which would include installation of four quadrant safety gates at the Linden avenue crossing, approximately 50 feet east of the project site, and would also increase trains along the ROW.

6. Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (marked #6 in Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10):

The project consists of converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to electric multiple unit (EMU) trains for service between the 4th and King Station in the City of San Francisco and the Tamien Station in the City of San Jose, a total distance of approximately 51 miles. The project would require the installation of 130 to 150 single-track miles of overhead contact system for the disribution of electrical power to the new electric rolling stock. The Caltrain electrification project is under construction now and will likely be completed before commencement of Phase 1 construction. (Construction is ongoing)

7. California High-Speed Rail Project (marked #7 in Figure 4.1-1, p. 4.1-10): Phase 1 of the High-Speed Rail system would extend from the City of San Francisco to the City of Los Angeles and is currently scheduled for completion by 2033. Specifically, the section from San Francisco City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Approach to Environmental Analysis
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.1-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
to San Jose, which would be located in proximity to the project site, would include approximately 43 to 49 miles of mixed existing train infrastructure and new high-speed rail infrastructure extending through San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties. This segment would include installation of four quadrant safety gates at the Linden Avenue crossing, approximately 50 feet east of the project site, and would also increase trains along the ROW. (Draft EIR for San Francisco to San Jose segment released for public review in July 2020; anticipated construction date: 2033)
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-1September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.2 Air Quality

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

4.2-1).

Issues identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix 1) were considered in preparing this analysis. No questions or concerns related to air quality were raised in the responses to the NOP.

4.2.2 Environmental Setting

4.2.2.1 Project Site and Phase 1 Site
As described in more detail in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Specific Plan area currently comprises a variety of office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities as well as surface parking spaces. The Phase 1 site is in the southern portion of the Specific Plan area. The off-site improvement areas, adjacent to the Specific Plan area, consist of rights-of-way and easements developed with existing circulation and utility infrastructure improvements. Together, the off-site improvement areas and Specific Plan area comprise the 33-acre project site. Because the project site is inclusive of the Phase 1 site, for purposes of the air quality analysis, the environmental setting for the project site is considered the same as the environmental setting for the Phase 1 site. Both sites are within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB); the SFBAAB comprises the air quality study area for the project. Ambient air quality is affected by climatological conditions, topography, and the types and amounts of pollutants emitted. The sections that follow summarize how air pollution moves through the air basin and how it is chemically changed in the presence of other chemicals and particles. This section also summarizes regional and local climate conditions, existing air quality conditions, and the sensitive receptors that may be affected by project-generated emissions.

4.2.2.2 Pollutants of Concern
Criteria Pollutants
The federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants. Ozone is considered a regional pollutant because its precursors affect air quality on a regional scale. Pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-2September 2021
ICF 0082.20
and lead are considered local pollutants that tend to accumulate in the air locally. Particulate matter (PM) is both a regional and local pollutant. The primary criteria pollutants generated by the project are ozone precursors (i.e., nitrogen oxides [NOX] and reactive organic gases [ROGs]), CO, and PM.1,2,3 All criteria pollutants can have human health effects at certain concentrations. The ambient air quality standards for these pollutants are set to protect public health and the environment with an adequate margin of safety (Clean Air Act [CAA] Section 109). Epidemiological, controlled human exposure, and toxicology studies evaluate potential health and environmental effects of criteria pollutants and form the scientific basis for new and revised ambient air quality standards.

The principal characteristics and possible health and environmental effects from exposure to the primary criteria pollutants generated by the project are discussed below.

Ozone, or smog, is photochemical oxidant that is formed when ROGs and NOX (both byproducts of the internal combustion engine) react with sunlight. ROGs are compounds made up primarily of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Internal combustion associated with motor vehicle use is the major source of hydrocarbons. Other sources of ROGs are emissions associated with the use of paints and solvents, the application of asphalt paving, and the use of household consumer products such as aerosols. The two major forms of NOX are nitric oxide (NO) and NO2. NO is a colorless, odorless gas that forms from atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen when combustion takes place under high temperature and/or high pressure. NO2 is a reddish-brown, irritating gas formed by the combination of NO and oxygen. In addition to serving as an integral participant in ozone formation, NOX also acts as an acute respiratory irritant and increases susceptibility to respiratory pathogens.

Ozone poses a higher risk to those who already suffer from respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma), children, older adults, and people who are active outdoors. Exposure to ozone at certain concentrations can make breathing more difficult, cause shortness of breath and coughing, inflame and damage the airways, aggravate lung diseases, increase the frequency of asthma attacks, and cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies show associations between short-term ozone exposure and non-accidental mortality, including deaths from respiratory issues. Studies also suggest long-term exposure to ozone may increase the risk of respiratory-related deaths. 4 The
concentration of ozone at which health effects are observed depends on an individual’s sensitivity, level of exertion (i.e., breathing rate), and duration of exposure. Studies show large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses, with one study finding no symptoms to the least responsive individual after a 2-hour exposure to 400 parts per billion of ozone and a 50 percent decrease in forced airway volume in the most responsive individual. Although the results vary, evidence suggests that sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics) may be affected on days when 1 As discussed above, there are also ambient air quality standards for SO2, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particulates. However, these pollutants are typically associated with industrial sources, which are not included as part of the project. Accordingly, they are not evaluated further. 2 Most emissions of NOx are in the form of nitric oxide (NO). Conversion to NO2 occurs in the atmosphere as pollutants disperse downwind. Accordingly, NO2 is not considered a local pollutant of concern for the project and is not evaluated further.
3 Reşitoğlu, Ibrahim A. 2018. NOx Pollutants from Diesel Vehicles and Trends in Control Technologies. Published November 5. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.81112. Available: https://www.intechopen.com/books/diesel-andgasoline-engines/no-sub-x-sub-pollutants-from-diesel-vehicles-and-trends-in-the-control-technologies.

Accessed: August 4, 2020.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020a. Ground-level Ozone Basics. Last updated: July 13. Available:
https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution/ground-level-ozone-basics#wwh. Accessed: August 4, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-3September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the 8-hour maximum ozone concentration reaches 80 parts per billion. 5 The average background
level of ozone in the Bay Area is approximately 45 parts per billion. 6 In addition to human health effects, ozone has been tied to crop damage, typically in the form of stunted growth, leaf discoloration, cell damage, and premature death. Ozone can also act as a corrosive and oxidant, resulting in property damage such as the degradation of rubber products and other materials.

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless toxic gas produced by incomplete combustion of carbon substances, such as gasoline or diesel fuel. In the air quality study area, high CO levels are of greatest concern during the winter, when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground-level temperature inversions from evening through early morning. These conditions trap pollutants near the ground, reducing the dispersion of vehicle emissions. Moreover, motor vehicles exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. The primary adverse health effect associated with CO is interference with normal oxygen transfer to the blood, which may result in tissue oxygen deprivation. Exposure to CO at high concentrations can also cause fatigue, headaches, confusion, dizziness, and chest pain. There are no ecological or environmental effects of CO at or near existing background CO levels.7
Particulate matter consists of finely divided solids or liquids such as soot, dust, aerosols, fumes, and mists. Two forms of particulates are now generally considered: inhalable course particles, or PM10, and inhalable fine particles, or PM2.5. Particulate discharge into the atmosphere results primarily from industrial, agricultural, construction, and transportation activities. However, wind on arid landscapes also contributes substantially to local particulate loading.

Particulate pollution can be transported over long distances and may adversely affect humans, especially people who are naturally sensitive or susceptible to breathing problems. Numerous studies have linked PM exposure to premature death in people with preexisting heart or lung disease, nonfatal heart attacks, irregular heartbeat, aggravated asthma, decreased lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms. Studies show that long-term exposure to PM2.5 was associated with increased risk of mortality, ranging from a 6 to 13 percent increased risk per 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) of PM2.5.
8 Every 1 µg/m3 reduction in PM2.5 results in a 1 percent reduction in the mortality rate for individuals over 30 years old. 9 Studies also show an increase in
overall mortality of approximately 0.5 percent for every 10 mg/m3 increase in PM10 measured the day before death.10 PM10 levels have been greatly reduced since 1990. Peak concentrations have 5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2016. Health Effects of Ozone in the General Population. Last updated:

September 2. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution-and-your-patients-health/health-effects-ozonegeneral-population. Accessed: August 4, 2020. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate.

Adopted: April 19. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: November 9, 2020. 7 California Air Resources Board. 2020a. Carbon Monoxide & Health. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/carbon-monoxide-and-health. Accessed: August 4, 2020. 8 California Air Resources Board. 2010. Estimate of Premature Deaths Associated with Fine Particle Pollution (PM2.5) in California Using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Methodology. August 31. 9 Ibid.
10 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Final Report: The National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study – Morbidity and Mortality from Air Pollution in the United States. Available:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/2399/report/F.

Accessed: August 4, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-4September 2021
ICF 0082.20
declined by 60 percent, and annual average values have declined by 50 percent.11 Depending on its composition, both PM10 and PM2.5 can also affect water quality and acidity, deplete soil nutrients, damage sensitive forests and crops, affect ecosystem diversity, and contribute to acid rain.12 Toxic Air Contaminants
Although ambient air quality standards have been established for criteria pollutants, no ambient standards exist for toxic air contaminants (TACs). Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to increase the risk of developing cancer or because of their acute or chronic health risks. For TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has consistently found that there are no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk free.

Individual TACs vary greatly in the risks they present. At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another. TACs are identified and their toxicity is studied by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The primary TACs of concern associated with the project are asbestos and diesel particulate matter (DPM).

Asbestos is the name given to several naturally occurring fibrous silicate minerals. Before the adverse health effects of asbestos were identified, asbestos was widely used as insulation and fireproofing in buildings, and it can still be found in some older buildings. It is also found in its natural state in rock or soil. The inhalation of asbestos fibers into the lungs can result in a variety of adverse health effects, including inflammation of the lungs, respiratory ailments (e.g., asbestosis, which is scarring of lung tissue that results in constricted breathing), and cancer (e.g., lung cancer and mesothelioma, which is cancer of the linings of the lungs and abdomen).

DPM is generated by diesel-fueled equipment and vehicles. Within the Bay Area, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has found that of all controlled TACs, emissions of DPM are responsible for about 82 percent of the total ambient cancer risk.13 Short-term exposure to DPM can cause acute irritation (e.g., eye, throat, and bronchial), neurophysiological symptoms (e.g., lightheadedness and nausea), and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough and phlegm). The U.S. Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) has determined that diesel exhaust is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.”
14 Odors
Offensive odors can be unpleasant and lead to citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. According to CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, 15 land uses associated with odor
complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, manufacturing facilities, and agricultural activities. CARB provides recommended screening distances for siting new receptors near existing odor sources.
11 Ibid.
12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020b. Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM). Last updated: April. Available: https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulatematter-pm. Accessed: August 4, 2020. 13 Ibid.
14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Diesel Engine Exhaust; CASRN N.A. February 28. Available:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0642_summary.pdf#nameddest=woe.

Accessed: November 9, 2020.
15 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

April. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-5September 2021
ICF 0082.20

4.2.2.3 Climate and Meteorology
Although the primary factors that determine air quality are the locations of air pollutant sources and the amount of pollutants emitted from those sources, meteorological conditions and topography are also important factors. Atmospheric conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants. Unique geographic features throughout the state define 15 individual air basins, each with distinctive regional climates.

The air quality study area for the project is the San Francisco Peninsula in the SFBAAB. 16 The
Peninsula subregion extends from northwest of San José to the Golden Gate Bridge. The Santa Cruz Mountains run along the center of the peninsula, with elevations above 2,000 feet at the southern end but decreasing to 500 feet in South San Francisco. Coastal towns experience a high incidence of cool, foggy weather in the summer. San Francisco lies at the northern end of the peninsula. Because most of San Francisco’s topography is below 200 feet, marine air can flow easily across most of the city, making its climate cool and windy. Cities in the southeastern peninsula experience warmer temperatures and fewer foggy days because the marine layer is blocked by the ridgeline to the west.

The regional climate within the SFBAAB is considered semi-arid and characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate onshore breezes in the daytime, and moderate humidity. A wide range of meteorological and emissions-related sources, such as the dense population centers, heavy vehicular traffic, and industrial activity, influence air quality in the SFBAAB.

Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula.

The tendency is for the higher wind speeds to be found along the western coast. However, winds on the east side of the peninsula can also be high in certain locales because low-lying areas in the mountains, at San Bruno Gap and Crystal Springs Gap, commonly allow the marine layer to pass across the peninsula.

The prevailing winds are westerly along the peninsula's west coast. Individual sites can show significant differences, however. For example, Fort Funston in western San Francisco County shows a southwest wind pattern, while Pillar Point in San Mateo County, to the south, shows a northwest wind pattern. Sites on the east side of the mountains also show a westerly pattern, although their wind patterns are influenced by local topographic features. That is, a rise in elevation of a few hundred feet will induce a flow around a feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric conditions. This can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 degrees over short distances. On mornings without a strong pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flows in the surface layer, induced by upslope flows on the east-facing slopes and by the bay breeze. The bay breeze is rarely seen after noon because a stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern.

On the peninsula, there are two important gaps in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The larger of the two is the San Bruno Gap, extending from Fort Funston on the ocean side to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) on the bay side. Because the gap is oriented in the same northwest-to-southeast direction as the prevailing winds, and because elevations along the gap are less than 200 feet, marine air is easily able to penetrate into the bay.
16 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines.

May. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 4, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-6September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The other gap in the Santa Cruz Mountains is Crystal Springs Gap, located along State Route 92 between Half Moon Bay and San Carlos. The low point is 900 feet, but elevations reach 1,500 feet north and south of the gap. As the sea breeze strengthens on summer afternoons, the gap permits maritime air to pass across the mountains. Its cooling effect is commonly seen from San Mateo to Redwood City.

There are no monitors for wind, rainfall, and temperature at or in the immediate vicinity of the project site; therefore, conditions at the project site are assumed to be similar to those reported from the nearest monitor located at SFO, which is less than 1 mile south of the southeastern boundary of the project site. Annual average wind speeds at SFO are similar to what has been observed along the peninsula’s west coast (i.e., 9 mph, with winds predominately blowing from the west).
17 Rainfall amounts and temperatures at SFO are also consistent with the rest of the peninsula.

Rainfall amounts at SFO average 20.8 inches per year. The average maximum daily summertime and wintertime temperatures at SFO are in the mid-70s and high 40s, respectively. The average minimum daily summertime and wintertime temperatures at SFO are in the mid-60s and mid-40s, respectively.
18 4.2.2.4 Existing Air Quality Conditions
Ambient Criteria Pollutant Concentrations
A number of ambient air quality monitoring stations are located in the SFBAAB to monitor progress toward air quality standards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The NAAQS and CAAQS are discussed further under Regulatory Framework. There are no monitoring stations in the city. The nearest monitoring station to the proposed project is the San Francisco-Arkansas Street monitoring station, located approximately 8.5 miles northeast of the project site.

Table 4.2-1, p. 4.2-6, summarizes the data for criteria air pollutant levels from the San FranciscoArkansas Street monitoring station for the last 3 years with complete data available (2017 to 2019). Table 4.2-1 shows the monitoring station experienced violations of the federal Table 4.2-1. Ambient Air Quality Data at the San Francisco-Arkansas Street Monitoring Station (2017–2019)
Pollutant Standards 2017 2018 2019
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.09 0.07 0.09
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.054 0.049 0.073
Number of days standard exceededa
CAAQS 1-hour standard (> 0.09 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 8-hour standard (> 0.070 ppm) 0 0 1
NAAQS 8-hour standard (> 0.070 ppm) 0 0 1
17 Willy Weather. 2020. South San Francisco Wind Forecast. Available: https://wind.willyweather.com/ca/sanmateo-county/south-san-francisco.html. Accessed: November 8, 2020. 18 Weather Channel. 2020. South San Francisco, CA Monthly Weather. Available: https://weather.com/weather/ monthly/l/58e3526471350bc59bfa920168f6bd001aa43f998b0af74fe60bea4e7ce80a23. Accessed: November 8, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-7September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Pollutant Standards 2017 2018 2019
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.4 1.7 1.0
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 2.5 2.5 1.2
Number of days standard exceededa
NAAQS 8-hour standard (> 9 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 8-hour standard (> 9.0 ppm) 0 0 0
NAAQS 1-hour standard (> 35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour standard (> 20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
State maximum 1-hour concentration (ppb) 73 69 61
State second-highest 1-hour concentration (ppb) 67 66 54 Annual average concentration (ppb) 11 11 10
Number of days standard exceededa
CAAQS 1-hour standard (180 ppb) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter (PM10)
Nationalb maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 75.9 40.9 42.1 Nationalb second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 52.7 35.7 34.2 Statec maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 77.0 43.0 42.0 Statec second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 53.0 37.0 35.0 National annual average concentration (g/m3) 11.0 10.0 7.5 State annual average concentration (g/m3)
d 22.1 * 14.8
Measured number of days standard exceededa,e
NAAQS 24-hour standard (> 150 g/m3) 0 0 0
CAAQS 24-hour standard (> 50 g/m3) 2 0 0
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
Nationalf maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 49.9 177.4 25.4 Nationalf second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 49.7 145.4 22.0 Stateg maximum 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 49.9 177.4 25.4 Stateg second-highest 24-hour concentration (g/m3) 49.7 145.4 22.0 National annual average concentration (g/m3) 9.7 11.6 7.6 State annual average concentration (g/m3) 9.7 11.7 7.7 Measured number of days standard exceededa
NAAQS 24-hour standard (> 35 g/m3) 7 14 0
Sources:

California Air Resources Board. 2020b. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics – Top 4 Summary (2017–2019, San Francisco County, Arkansas Street). Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php.

Accessed: November 8, 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. Outdoor Air Quality Data. Monitor Values Reports (Carbon Monoxide, 2016–2018, San Francisco County, Arkansas Street). Last updated July 31. Available: https:// www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/monitor-values-report. Accessed: November 9, 2020.

Notes:
ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter, * = insufficient data available to determine the value.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-8September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Pollutant Standards 2017 2018 2019
a. An exceedance is not necessarily related to a violation of the standard because an exceedance may be the result of a highly irregular or infrequent event, which is then excluded from the designation process. b. National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods.
c. State statistics are based on approved local samplers and local conditions data. d. State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than the national criteria.
e. Measurements usually are collected every 6 days.
f. National statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods. g. State statistics are based on local approved samplers. and state 8-hour ozone standard in 2019, the federal PM2.5 standard in 2017 and 2018, and the state PM10 in 2017. Federal and state standards for other pollutants were not exceeded. The 2017 and 2018 monitoring results recorded the effects of smoke and ash from the wildfires that occurred in these years. Violations of ambient air quality standards indicate that certain individuals who were exposed to this pollutant may experience health effects, including an increased incidence of cardiovascular and respiratory ailments.

Existing TAC Sources and Health Risks
BAAQMD maintains an inventory of health risks associated with all permitted stationary sources within the SFBAAB. The inventory was last updated in 2020 and is publicly available online. There are 29 stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. This includes 20 auto body coating shops, three surface coating shops, two generators, one coffee roaster, one fish smoker, one asphalt concrete plant, and one concrete supply facility.
19 Figure 4.2-1, p. 4.2-10, shows the existing
stationary emission sources within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Aside from stationary sources, emissions of TACs in and around the project site are also generated from mobile sources on roadways and railways. BAAQMD considers roadways with average daily traffic (ADT) levels greater than 10,000 as “high volume roadways” and recommends they be included in the analysis of health risks.20 Currently, there are no major roadways or highways in the immediate vicinity of the project site (i.e., within 1,000 feet) with ADT levels greater than 10,000.

However, there is one major roadway, Westborough Boulevard, which is approximately 1.2 miles northwest of the project site. There are also four highways nearby, U.S. 101 (0.4 mile to the east), State Route 82 (0.2 mile to the west), Interstate 380 (0.4 mile to the south), and Interstate 280 (1.2 miles to the west). Although these roadways are not within 1,000 feet of the project site, they would all be considered “high volume roadways” that contribute to TAC emissions at the project site and therefore were included in the impact analysis.21 There are also two railways within 1,000 feet of the project site. The underground Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) is adjacent to the western boundary of the project site; however, this is an electrically powered railway and therefore not a 19 Flores, Areana. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 19, 2020—email to Elliott Wezerek of ICF regarding stationary-source inquiry form for the Southline Specific Plan. 20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/riskmodeling-approach-may-2012.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2020. 21 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Traffic Volumes AADT. Caltrans GIS Data. Available:
https://gisdata-caltrans.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/f71f49fb87b3426e9688fe66039170bc_0?geometry=- 122.503%2C37.626%2C-122.340%2C37.649. Accessed: February 4, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-9September 2021
ICF 0082.20
source of DPM. The other railway, adjacent to the eastern boundary of the project site, is owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. It carries diesel-powered freight trains and Caltrain passenger trains.

Figure 4.2-1, p. 4.2-10, shows the existing mobile sources within 1,000 feet of the project site.

Regional Attainment Status
Local monitoring data are used to designate areas as nonattainment, maintenance, attainment, or unclassified areas for the ambient air quality standards. The four designations are defined below.

Table 4.2-2, p. 4.2-9, summarizes the attainment status of San Mateo County. • Nonattainment: Assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations consistently violate the standard in question.
• Maintenance: Assigned to areas where monitored pollutant concentrations exceeded the standard in question in the past but are no longer in violation of that standard. • Attainment: Assigned to areas where pollutant concentrations meet the standard in question over a designated period of time.
• Unclassified: Assigned to areas where data are insufficient to determine whether a pollutant is violating the standard in question.

Table 4.2-2. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for San Mateo County Criteria Pollutant Federal Designation State Designation Ozone (8-hour standard) Marginal Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment
Particulate matter (PM10) Attainment Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Nonattainment Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment
Lead Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment
Hydrogen sulfide (no federal standard) Unclassified
Visibility-reducing particles (no federal standard) Unclassified Sources: California Air Resources Board. 2020c. Summaries of Historical Area Designations for State Standards (San Mateo County). Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/state-and-federalarea-designations/state-area-designations/summary-tables. Accessed: August 4, 2020.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2020c. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book) (San Mateo County). Available: https://www.epa.gov/green-book. Accessed: August 4, 2020.

Figure 4.2-1
Existing Air Quality Sensitive Receptors and Emission Sources in the Vicinity of the Project Site \\PDCCITRDSGIS1\Projects_1\City_of_South_San_Francisco\00082_20_SouthlineDevelopment\Data\ResourceData\WS\AirQuality\AQ_SensitiveReceptors_ProjectArea.mxd; User: 50860; Date: 11/20/2020 Legend
Off-Site Improvement Area
Specific Plan Area
Project Site Buffer (1,000 feet)
Stationary Sources
Auto Body Coating
Generators
") Surface Coating
#* Material Handling
#*Miscellaneous
Mobile Sources
Highways/Interstates
Major Roadways
Railroads
BART
Land Uses with Sensitive Receptors
Residential Uses
Parks and Open Space
Imagery: Bing 2020
Note: The off-site improvements area
shown in this figure is a rough approximation
of where construction activity will occur for
these proposed improvements.
0 500 1,000
Feet [
N 1:12,500
City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-11 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Locations of Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive land uses are defined as locations where human populations, especially children, seniors, and sick persons, are located and where there is reasonable expectation of continuous human exposure, according to the averaging period for the air quality standards (i.e., 24-hour or 8-hour standard). Per BAAQMD, typical sensitive land uses are residences, hospitals, and schools. Parks and playgrounds where sensitive receptors (e.g., children and seniors) are present are considered sensitive land uses.
22 Currently, the proposed Specific Plan area consists of office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities and the off-site improvement areas consist of circulation and utility improvements. Places of employment (e.g., at industrial uses) are not considered sensitive land uses because healthsensitive individuals (e.g., children and seniors) are not present for a significant amount of time.

Thus, the project site does not contain any sensitive receptors. There are sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, including approximately 100 residential uses in the City of San Bruno and a recreational trail in the City of South San Francisco. Residential uses in the City of San Bruno are located southeast of the Specific Plan area, along Montgomery Avenue, and south of the Specific Plan area, along the south side of Tanforan Avenue, Pacific Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, and Bayshore Circle. The closest sensitive receptors are the residential uses on the south side of Tanforan Avenue, which are adjacent to the Tanforan Avenue improvements proposed as part of Phase 1. Centennial Way Trail, conservatively assumed to be a sensitive land use, is adjacent, north of the off-site improvement area at the Huntington Avenue intersection. Figure 4.2-1, p. 4.2-10, shows sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the Specific Plan area.

4.2.3 Regulatory Framework
The federal CAA and its subsequent amendments form the basis for the nation’s air pollution control effort. EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the CAA. A key element of the CAA is the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. The CAA delegates enforcement of the NAAQS to the states. In California, CARB is responsible for enforcing air pollution regulations and ensuring the NAAQS and CAAQS are met. CARB, in turn, delegates regulatory authority for stationary sources and other air quality management responsibilities to local air agencies. BAAQMD is the local air agency for the project area.

This section provides a summary of the air quality plans and policies of federal, state, and local agencies that have policy and regulatory control over the project site.

4.2.3.1 Federal
Clean Air Act and National Ambient Air Quality Standards The CAA, first enacted in 1963, has been amended in 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990. The CAA establishes federal air quality standards, known as NAAQS, for six criteria pollutants and specifies future dates for achieving compliance. The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for local areas that fail to meet those standards. The plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. 22 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-12 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The 1990 CAA amendments identify specific emissions-reduction goals for areas that fail to meet the NAAQS. These amendments require both a demonstration of reasonable further progress toward attainment and incorporation of additional sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones.

Table 4.2-3, p. 4.2-12, shows the NAAQS currently in effect for each criteria pollutant as well as the CAAQS (discussed further below).

Table 4.2-3. Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Criteria Pollutant Average Time
California
Standards
National Standardsa
Primary Secondary
Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm Noneb Noneb
8 hours 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm 0.070 ppm
CO 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm None
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm None
PM10 24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 150 g/m3
Annual mean 20 g/m3 None None
PM2.5 24 hours None 35 g/m3 35 g/m3
Annual mean 12 g/m3 12.0 g/m3 15 g/m3
NO2 Annual mean 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm None
SO2
c Annual mean None 0.030 ppm None
24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm None
3 hours None None 0.5 ppm
1 hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm None
Lead 30-day average 1.5 g/m3 None None
Calendar quarter None 1.5 g/m3 1.5 g/m3
3-month average None 0.15 g/m3 0.15 g/m3
Sulfates 24 hours 25 g/m3 None None
Visibility-reducing particles 8 hours —d None None
Hydrogen sulfide 1 hour 0.03 ppm None None
Vinyl chloride 24 hours 0.01 ppm None None
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2016a. Ambient Air Quality Standards. May 4. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2020.

Notes:
ppm = parts per million; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a. National standards are divided into primary and secondary standards. Primary standards are intended to protect public health, whereas secondary standards are intended to protect public welfare and the environment. b. The federal 1-hour standard of 12 parts per hundred million was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced because it was employed for such a long period and is a benchmark for SIPs. c. The annual and 24-hour NAAQS for SO2 apply for only 1 year after designation of the new 1-hour standard to those areas that were previously in nonattainment for the 24-hour and annual NAAQS. d. The CAAQS for visibility-reducing particles is defined by an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer, which equates to visibility of 10 miles or more due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 percent.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-13 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Non-road Diesel Rule
EPA has established a series of increasingly strict emissions standards for new non-road (off-road) diesel equipment, on-road diesel trucks, and locomotives. New equipment, including heavy-duty trucks and off-road construction equipment, is required to comply with these emissions standards.

Engine manufacturers must produce engines with advanced emission-control technologies similar to those for highway trucks and buses. Closely linked to these engine provisions are fuel requirements that decreased the allowable levels of sulfur in fuel used in nonroad diesel engines.

Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000; Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001 to 2006; Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008; and Tier 4 standards, which may require add-on emission control equipment, were phased in from 2008 to 2015. For each tier, the phase-in schedule is driven by engine size. The Tier 4 standards require that emissions of PM and NOx be further reduced by about 90 percent below Tier 3 standards. The emission standards for each engine tier by horsepower can be viewed at the footnoted hyperlink.23 Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) were first enacted in 1975 to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light-duty trucks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) sets the CAFE standards, which are regulatory updated to require additional improvements in fuel economy. The standards were updated in October 2012 to apply to new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2017 through 2025. The standards are equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon.

On August 2, 2018, NHTSA and EPA proposed to amend the fuel efficiency standards for passenger cars and light-duty trucks and establish new standards, covering model years 2021 through 2026, by maintaining the current model year 2020 standards through 2026 (i.e., Safer Affordable FuelEfficient [SAFE] Vehicles Rule). The Clean Air Act allows California to seek a waiver of the preemption which prohibits states from enacting emission standards for new motor vehicles. EPA had granted California waivers for decades based on its long-standing determination that California’s standards are at least as protective as federal standards, are needed to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, and are not inconsistent with Clean Air Act provisions related to technical feasibility and lead time to manufacturers. However, EPA and NHTSA published their decisions to withdraw California’s waiver and finalize regulatory text related to the preemption on September 27, 2019 (84 Federal Register 51310). Part One of the SAFE Vehicles Rule went into effect on November 26, 2019, and Part Two went into effect on March 30, 2020.

The SAFE Vehicles Rule will decrease the stringency of the previously adopted CAFE standards by

1.5 percent each year through model year 2026 compared with the standards issued in 2012, which would have required about 5 percent annual increases. California, 22 other states, the District of Columbia, and two cities filed suit against the proposed One National Program Rule on September 20, 2019 (California et al. v. United States Department of Transportation et al., 1:19-cv02826, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). The lawsuit requests a “permanent injunction prohibiting defendants from implementing or relying on the preemption regulation” but does not stay its implementation during legal deliberations. 23 DieselNet. 2017. United States: Nonroad Diesel Engines. Available:
https://dieselnet.com/standards/us/nonroad.php. Accessed: February 4, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-14 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
On February 11, 2020, California et al. v. United States Department of Transportation et al. was stayed pending resolution of the related litigation of Union of Concerned Scientists v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (19-1230, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba Circuit). The Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund, and other groups filed a protective petition for review after the federal government sought to dismiss or transfer to the D.C. Circuit a case filed in federal court in D.C. challenging NHTSA’s final rule withdrawing California’s waiver for its GHG and zero-emission vehicle program and preempting state programs that regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions or create ZEV mandates. On February 8, 2021, the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order holding the cases in abeyance pending regulatory review.

On January 20, 2021, President Biden released Executive Order No. 13990, which, among other things, calls for agency review for Part One of the SAFE Vehicles Rule by April 2021 and Part Two by July 2021. The order states that agencies shall consider whether to propose, suspend, revise or rescind these rules. On April 22, 2021, NHTSA proposed a rule to repeal Part One of the SAFE rule and restore California’s waiver to set its own vehicle standards. The fates of the proposed rules are uncertain, given the pending court deliberations, executive order and pending rule change.

4.2.3.2 State
California Clean Air Act and California Ambient Air Quality Standards In 1988, the state legislature adopted the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which established a statewide air pollution control program. The CCAA requires all air districts in the state to endeavor to meet the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. Unlike the CAA, the CCAA does not set precise attainment deadlines. Instead, the CCAA establishes increasingly stringent requirements for areas that will require more time to achieve the standards. CAAQS are generally more stringent than NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, visibility-reducing particles, and vinyl chloride. The CAAQS and NAAQS are shown in Table 4.2-3, p. 4.2-12.

CARB and local air districts bear responsibility for meeting the CAAQS, which are to be achieved through district-level air quality management plans that have been incorporated into a SIP. In California, EPA has delegated authority to prepare SIPs to CARB, which, in turn, has delegated that authority to individual air districts. CARB traditionally has established state air quality standards, maintaining oversight authority in air quality planning, developing programs for reducing emissions from motor vehicles, developing air emission inventories, collecting air quality and meteorological data, and approving SIPs.

The CCAA substantially adds to the authority and responsibilities of air districts. The CCAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts authority to implement transportation control measures. The CCAA also emphasizes the control of “indirect and area-wide sources” of air pollutant emissions. The CCAA gives local air pollution control districts explicit authority to regulate indirect sources of air pollution.

Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation
Originally adopted in 2005, the on-road truck and bus regulation requires heavy trucks to be retrofitted with PM filters. The regulation applies to privately and federally owned diesel-fueled trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. Compliance with the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-15 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
regulation can be reached through one of two paths: 1) vehicle retrofits according to engine year or 2) a phased-in schedule. The compliance paths ensure that nearly all trucks and buses will have 2010 model year engines or newer by January 2023.

State Tailpipe Emission Standards
Like EPA at the federal level, CARB has established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new off-road diesel equipment and on-road diesel trucks operating in California. For off-road diesel equipment, CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation reduces PM and NOx emissions from in-use (existing) off-road heavy-duty diesel vehicles in California. Among other things, the regulation requires fleets to reduce their emissions by retiring, replacing, or repowering older engines, or installing Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. The requirements and compliance dates vary by fleet size. More information on compliance requirements can be viewed at the footnoted hyperlink.24
For on-road diesel trucks, CARB’s Heavy-Duty Low-NOx Omnibus rulemaking was adopted by CARB’s Board in August 2020 and includes a very low NOx engine standard that will be phased in starting in 2024. The Advanced Clean Trucks Rule was adopted by the CARB Board in June 2020 and will implement manufacturer sales requirements beginning in 2024. The stringency of the requirements would increase gradually each year, with the goal of putting 300,000 electric trucks on California’s roads by 2035 and phasing out diesel trucks by 2045. These rules, along with the HeavyDuty Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance Program, would reduce criteria pollutants. New equipment used to construct the proposed project would be required to comply with the standards.

Carl Moyer Program
The Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) is a voluntary program that offers grants to owners of heavy-duty vehicles and equipment. The program is a partnership between CARB and the local air districts throughout the state to reduce air pollution emissions from heavy-duty engines. Locally, the air districts administer the Carl Moyer Program.

Toxic Air Contaminant Regulation
California regulates TACs primarily through the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act (Tanner Act) and the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (“Hot Spots” Act). In the early 1980s, CARB established a statewide comprehensive air toxics program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The Tanner Act created California’s program to reduce exposure to air toxics. The “Hot Spots” Act supplements the Tanner Act by requiring a statewide air toxics inventory, notification of people exposed to a significant health risk, and facility plans to reduce these risks.
24 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2016b. In-Use Off Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation Overview.

Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/ordiesel/faq/overview_fact_sheet_dec_2010- final.pdf. Accessed: September 14, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-16 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
CARB has identified DPM as a TAC and approved a comprehensive Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce emissions from both new and existing diesel-fueled engines and vehicles. 25 The goal of the plan is to reduce DPM emissions and the associated health risk by 75 percent by 2010 and by 85 percent by 2020. The plan identifies 14 measures that CARB will implement over the next several years. The project would be required to comply with any applicable diesel control measures from the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan.

4.2.3.3 Local
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
At the local level, responsibilities of air quality districts include overseeing stationary-source emissions, approving permits, maintaining emissions inventories, maintaining air quality stations, overseeing agricultural burning permits, and reviewing air quality–related sections of environmental documents required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The air quality districts are also responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws and for ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met.

The project site falls under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD, which has local air quality jurisdiction over projects in the SFBAAB, including San Mateo County. BAAQMD developed advisory emissions thresholds to assist CEQA lead agencies in determining the level of significance of a project’s emissions, which are outlined in its California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines).
26 BAAQMD has also adopted air quality plans to improve air quality, protect public health, and protect the climate, including the Final 2017 Clean Air Plan: Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 Clean Air Plan).
27 The 2017 Clean Air Plan, adopted by BAAQMD on April 19, 2017, updates the prior 2010 Bay Area ozone plan and outlines feasible measures to reduce ozone; provides a control strategy to reduce PM, air toxics, and GHGs in a single, integrated plan; and establishes the emission control measures to be adopted or implemented. The 2017 Clean Air Plan is the most current applicable air quality plan for the air basin. Consistency with this plan is the basis for determining whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an air quality plan. The 2017 Clean Air Plan contains the following primary goals, consistency with which is evaluated in this section:
⚫ Protect Air Quality and Health at the Regional and Local Scale: Attain all state and national air quality standards and eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities regarding the cancer health risk from TACs
⚫ Protect the Climate: Reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
25 California Air Resources Board. 2000a. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from DieselFueled Engine and Vehicles. October. Available: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.

Accessed: August 4, 2020.
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines.

May. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 4, 2020. 27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017a. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, Spare the Air, Cool the Climate.

Adopted: April 19. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017- clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: November 9, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-17 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ In addition to air quality plans, BAAQMD also adopts rules and regulations to improve existing and future air quality. The project may be subject to the following district rules:
⚫ Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review): This regulation contains requirements for best available control technology (BACT) and emission offsets for stationary sources of air emissions.

This regulation requires BACT for all new and modified sources if the source has the potential to emit any of the “District BACT Pollutants” (i.e., precursor organic compounds (POC), nonprecursor organic compounds (NPOC) NOx, SO2, PM, and CO) in an amount of 10.0 or more pounds on any day.
 If the stationary source will have the potential to emit more than 10 tons per year but less than 35 tons per year of NOx or POC or 100 tons per year of PM or SO2, then offsets (i.e., banked emission reduction credits) must be provided at a 1:1 ratio for any un-offset cumulative increase in emissions at the facility.
⚫ Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review of TACs): This regulation outlines guidance for evaluating TAC emissions and their potential health risks. ⚫ Regulation 6, Rule 1 (PM): This regulation restricts emissions of PM darker than a 1 on the Ringlemann Chart to less than 3 minutes in any 1 hour.
⚫ Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances): This regulation establishes general odor limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. ⚫ Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings): This regulation limits the quantity of ROG in architectural coatings.
⚫ Regulation 9, Rule 6 (NOX Emission from Natural Gas–Fired Boilers and Water Heaters):

This regulation limits emissions of NOX generated by natural gas–fired boilers. ⚫ Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines): This regulation limits emissions of NOX and CO from stationary internal combustion engines of more than 50 horsepower.
⚫ Regulation 11, Rule (Hazardous Pollutants – Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and Manufacturing): This regulation, which incorporates EPA’s asbestos National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations, controls emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during demolition, renovation, and transport activities.

South San Francisco General Plan
The 1999 South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan) provides a vision for long-range physical and economic development of the City, provides strategies and specific implementing actions, and establishes a basis for judging whether specific development proposals and public projects are consistent with City plans and policy standards.28 The City is currently engaged in the “Shape SSF 2040” process to update the General Plan .29 However, the 1999 General Plan remains active until completion and adoption of the new general plan. The General Plan contains an Open Space and Conservation Element, which outlines policies related to biological resources, water quality, air 28 City of South San Francisco. 1999. South San Francisco General Plan. Available:
https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/planning-division/general-plan.

Accessed: November 9, 2020.
29 City of South San Francisco. 2020. Shape SSF 2040 General Plan. Available: https://shapessf.com/. Accessed:

November 9, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-18 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
quality, GHG emissions, and historic and cultural resources. It also includes the following policies that are applicable to air quality:
⚫ Guiding Principle 7.3-G-1: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and state ambient air quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. ⚫ Guiding Principle 7.3-G-4: Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote the use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
⚫ Guiding Principle 7.3-G-5: Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and vehicles.
⚫ Guiding Principle 7.3-G-6: Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another.
⚫ Implementing Policy 7.3-I-1: Cooperate with BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including CO, ozone, and PM10, by implementation of air pollution control measures, as required by state and federal statutes. ⚫ Implementing Policy 7.3-I-2: Use the City’s development review process and CEQA regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality and GHG emissions.
⚫ Implementing Policy 7.3-I-3: Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines.
⚫ Implementing Policy 7.3-I-9: Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high-density housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit infrastructure.
⚫ Implementing Policy 7.3-I-13: Encourage efficient, clean energy and fuel use through collaborative programs, award programs, and incentives while removing barriers to the expansion of alternative-fuel facilities and infrastructure. ⚫ Implementing Policy 7.3-I-14: Ensure that design guidelines and standards support operation of alternative-fuel facilities, vehicles, and equipment.

San Bruno Plans and Policies
As further described in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project proposes certain circulation and infrastructure improvements that are located within the City of San Bruno (San Bruno) but would not develop any new structures or new land uses in San Bruno. The improvements would occur on areas that are already developed with existing circulation improvements. The specific off-site improvements located within San Bruno include: constructing a new signalized intersection at Huntington Avenue/Sneath Lane/Southline Avenue/Maple Avenue; improving Huntington Avenue from Southline Avenue south to the existing BART garage intersection located west of Pacific Avenue; converting Tanforan Avenue to a cul-de-sac adjacent to Huntington Avenue; and realigning the existing storm drain main within Huntington Avenue to conform to the proposed intersection improvements at Huntington Avenue/Southline Avenue. This section identifies and evaluates the proposed project’s consistency with relevant policies from the San Bruno General Plan related to air quality as related to the portions of the off-site improvements located within San Bruno’s jurisdiction. For additional discussion of the proposed project’s City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-19 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
consistency with San Bruno land use plans and policies, refer to Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning, and Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation.

San Bruno General Plan
The City of Bruno General Plan, adopted in 2009, includes goals and policies that relate to air quality and emission reduction. These goals and policies include continuing to improve air quality by reducing emissions from construction activities, coordinating air quality planning efforts locally and regionally, and focusing improvements on non-motorized modes of transportation. The General Plan includes the following policies applicable to air quality that are relevant to the proposed off-site improvements in San Bruno’s jurisdiction:
⚫ ERC-E: Contribute to regional attainment by improving ambient air quality levels within San Bruno.
⚫ ERC-26: Require dust abatement actions for all new construction and redevelopment projects. ⚫ ERC-33: Require all large construction projects to mitigate diesel exhaust emissions through use of alternate fuels and control devices.

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

4.2.4.1 Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant air quality impact if it would:
⚫ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ⚫ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the project region is classified as a nonattainment area under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
⚫ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ⚫ Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

As discussed above, all pollutants that would be generated by the proposed project are associated with some form of health risk (e.g., asthma, lower respiratory problems). Criteria pollutants can be classified as either regional or localized pollutants. Regional pollutants can be transported over long distances and affect ambient air quality far from the emissions source. Localized pollutants affect ambient air quality near the emissions source. As discussed above, the primary pollutants of concern generated by the project are ozone precursors (ROG and NOX), CO, PM, and TACs (including DPM and asbestos).

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-20 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
The following sections discuss thresholds and analysis considerations for regional and local projectgenerated criteria pollutants with respect to their human health implications. Thresholds and guidance for evaluating potential odors associated with the project area are also presented.

Regional Project-Generated Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Ozone Precursors and Regional Particulate Matter)
This analysis evaluates the impacts of regional emissions generated by the project using the projectlevel guidance recommended by BAAQMD in its CEQA Guidelines. 30 While BAAQMD provides planlevel guidance for general plans, community plans, specific plans, regional plans, and congestion management plans, the City has deemed the project-level guidance more appropriate for the proposed project given that (1) the level of detail known about development under future phases allows for the quantification of regional operational emissions, and (2) the footprint of the proposed project is smaller than the typical footprints of the types of plans identified by BAAQMD (e.g., general plans, community plans, regional plans, etc.).

For Impact AQ-1, this analysis considers whether the project would conflict with the most recent air quality plan (this requirement applies to project-level as well as plan-level analyses). 31 The impact
analysis evaluates whether the project supports the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, including applicable control measures from the plan, and whether it would disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. BAAQMD recommends that the determination of consistency with the Clean Air Plan goals be based on whether the project is consistent with BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. These thresholds are also the basis for determining significance under Impact AQ-2a and Impact AQ-2b (discussed below). To avoid double-counting impacts, the City as the lead agency has chosen to determine the significance of Impact AQ-1 by evaluating whether the amount of growth associated with the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan and also whether the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan’s relevant policies and control measures, rather than strictly basing the assessment on project emissions in relation to BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds.

For Impact AQ-2a and Impact AQ-2b, calculated regional criteria pollutant emissions are compared to BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds are summarized in Table

4.2-4, p. 4.2-21, and recommended by the air district to evaluate the significance of a project’s regional criteria pollutant emissions.
32 According to BAAQMD, projects with emissions in excess of the thresholds, as shown in Table 4.2-4, p. 4.2-21, would be expected to have a significant cumulative impact on regional air quality because an exceedance of the thresholds is anticipated to contribute to CAAQS and NAAQS violations.
30 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines.

May. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 4, 2020. 31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-21 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.2-4. BAAQMD Project-Level Regional Criteria Pollutant Emission Thresholds Analysis Thresholds (Daily Average Emissions)
Regional criteria pollutants
(construction)
⚫ Reactive organic gases: 54 pounds/day
⚫ Nitrogen oxides: 54 pounds/day
⚫ Particulate matter: 82 pounds/day (exhaust only); compliance with best management practices (fugitive dust)
⚫ Fine particulate matter: 54 pounds/day (exhaust only); compliance with best management practices (fugitive dust)
Regional criteria pollutants
(operations)
⚫ Reactive organic gases: 54 pounds/day
⚫ Nitrogen oxides: 54 pounds/day
⚫ Particulate matter: 82 pounds/day (exhaust only)
⚫ Fine particulate matter: 54 pounds/day (exhaust only) Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 4, 2020.

As discussed previously, air districts develop region-specific CEQA thresholds of significance in consideration of existing air quality concentrations and attainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates that there are known, safe concentrations of criteria pollutants. Accordingly, the proposed project would expose receptors to substantial regional pollution if any of the thresholds summarized in Table 4.2-4, p. 4.2-21, are exceeded.

Localized Project-Generated Criteria Pollutant Emissions (CO and PM) and Air Toxics (DPM)
Localized pollutants generated by a project are deposited near the emissions source and potentially affect the population near that source. Although these pollutants dissipate with distance, emissions from individual projects can result in direct and material health impacts on adjacent sensitive receptors. The localized pollutants of concern that would be generated by the project are CO, PM, and DPM. The applicable thresholds for each pollutant, grouped under Impact AQ-3, are described below.

Carbon Monoxide
Heavy traffic congestion can contribute to high levels of CO. Individuals who are exposed to such “hot spots” may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. Hot spots are assumed to be 10 feet from the roadway, per modeling practices.33 BAAQMD has adopted screening criteria that provide a conservative indication of whether project-generated traffic would cause a potential CO hot spot. If the screening criteria are not met, then a quantitative analysis, through sitespecific dispersion modeling of project-related CO concentrations, would not be necessary and the 33 Garza, V. J., P. Graney, and D. Sperling. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. December.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-22 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
project would not cause localized violations of the CAAQS for CO. BAAQMD’s CO screening criteria are summarized below.
34 ⚫ Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
⚫ Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway) ⚫ The project would be consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, the regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans.

BAAQMD does not consider construction-generated CO a significant pollutant of concern because construction activities typically do not generate substantial quantities of this pollutant.35 Particulate Matter
BAAQMD adopted an incremental PM2.5 concentration-based significance threshold under which a “substantial” contribution at the project level for an individual source is defined as the total (i.e., exhaust and fugitive) PM2.5 concentration exceeding 0.3 μg/m3. In addition, BAAQMD considers projects to have a cumulatively considerate PM2.5 impact if sensitive receptors are exposed to PM2.5 concentrations from local sources within 1,000 feet, including existing sources, projectrelated sources, and reasonably foreseeable future sources, that exceed 0.8 μg/m3. 36 BAAQMD has not established PM10 thresholds of significance. Although BAAQMD’s PM2.5 thresholds apply to both new receptors and new sources, BAAQMD considers fugitive PM10 from earthmoving to be less than significant with applicable of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures.

Diesel Particle Matter
DPM, which has been identified as a TAC, is particularly concerning because long-term exposure can lead to cancer, birth defects, and damage to the brain and nervous systems. BAAQMD has adopted incremental cancer and hazard thresholds to evaluate receptor exposures to single sources of DPM emissions. The “substantial” DPM threshold defined by BAAQMD is exposure of a sensitive receptor (generally within 1,000 feet) to an individual emissions source, resulting in an excess cancer risk level of more than 10 in 1 million or a non-cancer (i.e., chronic or acute) hazard index greater than

1.0.37 The air district also considers projects to have a cumulative considerable DPM impact if they contribute to DPM emissions that, when combined with cumulative sources within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, result in excess cancer risk levels of more than 100 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 10.0.
34 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act. Air Quality Guidelines.

May. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 4, 2020. 35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-23 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Asbestos
BAAQMD considers projects that do not comply with the applicable regulatory requirements outlined in BAAQMD’s Regulation 11, Rule 2, to be projects with significant impacts.

Odors
For Impact AQ-4, BAAQMD38 and CARB39 have identified several types of land uses as being commonly associated with odors, such as landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, and animal processing centers. BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines recommend that project analyses should identify the location of existing and planned odor sources and include policies to reduce potential odor impacts in the project area.

4.2.4.2 Approach to Analysis
Air quality impacts associated with construction and operation of the project, including Phase 1, were assessed and quantified (where applicable) using standard and accepted software tools, techniques, and emission factors. A summary of the methodology is provided below. A full list of assumptions can be found in Appendix 4.2-1.

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

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

The types of construction-related emissions are anticipated to be similar for the two buildout scenarios, but as described below, they cannot be precisely determined at this time. Therefore, either buildout scenario represents the worst-case scenario in terms of the air quality impacts associated with construction.

On the other hand, the differences between gross square footage and land uses would influence long-term operational emissions. The R&D buildings under the Life Sciences Scenario would have a 38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-24 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
higher energy consumption rate (in terms of kilowatt-hours per square foot of space) and higherhorsepower emergency diesel generators, which are more emissions-intensive. The Life Sciences Scenario also includes the unique emission source of up to six compressed natural gas (CNG) process boilers, which could be used to generate steam for a range of applications (e.g., intensive cleaning of manufactured equipment). However, the Office Scenario would involve more building development than the Life Sciences Scenario (i.e., an additional 774,950 square feet). Although the Office Scenario would have a lower building energy consumption rate per square foot and lowerhorsepower generators and no process boilers, the increased square footage would result in higher total energy consumption compared to the Life Sciences Scenario. Furthermore, the Office Scenario would generate nearly twice as many vehicle trips by commuters compared with the Life Sciences Scenario (11,200 employees versus 5,786); mobile-source emissions typically make up the largest portion of a project’s operational emissions profile. Therefore, for the analysis of criteria pollutant emissions associated with operation, the worst-case scenario is assumed to be the Office Scenario, and that scenario is evaluated in this section.

There is one exception: The Life Sciences Scenario would be the worst-case scenario for human health risks (Impact AQ-3) because the R&D buildings would be constructed with wet laboratory facilities and process boilers that would produce TACs at greater levels than office buildings. TACs would potentially expose sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations. This is qualitatively analyzed in Impact AQ-3.

Construction Emissions
The land uses that could be developed under the proposed project would generate constructionrelated emissions from mobile and stationary construction equipment, employee vehicles and haul trucks, land clearing and material movement, paving, and the application of architectural coatings.

The construction techniques and scheduling for each development project in the Specific Plan area are not currently known. With an anticipated buildout year of 2030, development of the various land uses associated with the Specific Plan would occur over an extended period of time. As such, without specific project-level details, with the exception of Phase 1, which is described below, it is not possible to develop a refined construction emissions inventory.40 Consequently, the determination of construction air quality impacts for each individual development project, or a combination of these projects, is not reasonably foreseeable and would require speculation regarding potential future project-level environmental impacts. Therefore, in the absence of the necessary construction information required to provide an informative and meaningful analysis, the evaluation of potential construction-related impacts resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan is conducted qualitatively in this EIR. However, emissions-generating activities as well as the types of emissions are described, and additional details regarding timing and phasing are provided for context.

Operational Mobile-Source Emissions
Air quality impacts from motor vehicles associated with the project were evaluated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2; vehicle emission factors from CARB’s EMFAC2017 emissions model; and daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) estimates. 41Daily VMT
under existing conditions (2018) in the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) that contains the project site was 40 Project-level information includes details such as the construction schedule, equipment fleet, and construction worker crew estimates.
41 Fehr & Peers. 2021. Southline Transportation Impact Analysis. June.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-25 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
estimated to be 258,452 miles.42 Specific Plan (2040) daily VMT in the TAZ was estimated to be 566,750 miles.43 VMT estimates were based on the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County travel demand model and then modified to account for 1) the VMT reduction associated with Southline Avenue expansion (see Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation) and (2) the VMT reduction associated with the City’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, under which the project would be required to achieve an alternative mode share of 45 percent. Daily VMT was annualized using a factor of 347 days, consistent with CARB guidance.44 Mobile emissions from gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles (e.g., vehicles for employee commuting) were adjusted to account for the impact of implementation of Part One of the SAFE Vehicles Rule. Consistent with the capabilities of CalEEMod, this analysis does not quantify the emissions benefit from vehicle fuel switching that could be induced by electric vehicle chargers in parking spaces. See Appendix 4.2-1 for the EMFAC2017 emission factors and traffic data utilized in this analysis.

Operational Area- and Energy- Source Emissions
Area and energy emissions were estimated in 2030 using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2. Area-source emissions are generated when buildings are repainted or landscape equipment and consumer products are used. Energy sources include the combustion of natural gas for heating. For all other sources, CalEEMod default values were assumed, based on the anticipated land uses of the proposed project. Consistent with the capabilities of CalEEMod, the analysis does not quantify the emissions benefit that would occur with implementation of the Specific Plan’s range of non-transportationrelated sustainability features: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver rating for buildings, high-efficiency natural gas appliances, and a 10 percent improvement in energy performance compared with an American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90.1-2010 reference baseline building. These emissions benefits are qualitatively described in the impact analysis where applicable. See Appendix 4.2-1 for the CalEEMod output files.

Operational Stationary-Source Emissions
Stationary source emissions quantified in the project-level analysis only include the five emergency diesel generators that would be installed under Phase 1. Project-level emissions can be fully quantified for the other project-level operational sources (i.e., mobile, area, and energy) based on the known project-level building type, building square footage, and VMT. However, project-level stationary source emissions cannot be fully quantified because the specific location and number of generators that would be installed as part of future Precise Plans is unknown at this time. The emissions from Phase 1 generators, the locations and technical specifications of which are known, are included in the project-level emissions inventory for informational purposes. Actual projectlevel stationary source emissions would be higher, as it is expected that future Precise Plans will 42 The existing conditions reflect transportation conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to the atypical travel patterns and transit service levels during the COVID-19 pandemic, new data was not collected for this analysis.
43 Ibid.
44 California Air Resources Board. 2018. EMFAC2017 Volume III – Technical Documentation. Available:
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/downloads/emfac2017-volume-iii-technical-documentation.pdf. Accessed:

November 11, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-26 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
also include emergency generators. Phase 1 generators are described further under the Phase 1 approach to analysis.

While the Life Sciences Scenario could include up to six CNG process boilers, without specific details regarding their locations, a quantitative evaluation of potential health risk impacts from the boilers is not possible. They are described qualitatively, where applicable (Impact AQ-3). Further, while these boilers would emit more criteria pollutants than the stationary sources identified in the Office Scenario, due to its much higher VMT and increased building square footage, the Office Scenario as a whole would emit more criteria pollutants than the Life Sciences Scenario and thus was used as the worst case analysis. Therefore, the mass emissions from operation of the six CNG process boilers, where applicable, are not analyzed (Impact AQ-2b).

Carbon Monoxide Hot-Spots Modeling
Continuous engine exhaust may elevate localized CO concentrations, resulting in “hot spots.” Receptors who are exposed to these CO hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. CO hot spots are typically observed at heavily congested intersections where a substantial number of gasoline-powered vehicles idle for prolonged durations throughout the day.

The analysis of CO impacts was conducted using CARB’s EMFAC2017 model, the CALINE4 dispersion model, and PM peak-hour turning movement data provided by Fehr & Peers for the San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real intersection, located approximately 0.7 mile from the project site. This intersection did not meet BAAQMD’s CO screening criteria discussed above in Section 4.2.4.1, Significance Criteria. Emissions from gasoline-powered light-duty vehicles were adjusted to account for the impact of implementation of the SAFE Vehicles Rule.

Traffic conditions for the proposed project were modeled to evaluate CO hot-spot concentrations at the San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real intersection. Receptors were placed at each intersection corner and at a standard receptor elevation of 5.9 feet.45 Worst-case wind angles and meteorological conditions were modeled to estimate conservative CO concentrations at each receptor. CO concentrations from the nearest monitoring station to the project area (i.e., San Francisco-Arkansas Street, San Francisco) for 2017 through 2019 (i.e., most recent years with complete data available) were gathered and converted to a 3-year average to represent background CO levels. The output files are provided in Appendix 4.2-1.

Selection of Future Year Baseline Conditions
The CEQA Guidelines provide that existing conditions at the time a Notice of Preparation is released or when environmental review begins “normally” constitute the baseline for environmental analysis. (Guidelines Section 15125). In 2010, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion holding that while lead agencies have some flexibility in determining what constitutes the baseline, relying on “hypothetical allowable conditions” when those conditions are not a realistic description of the conditions without the project would be an illusory basis for a finding of no significant impact from the project and, therefore, a violation of CEQA (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310).

On August 5, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued another baseline decision in Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (57 Cal.4th 439). This latest decision has 45 Garza, V. J., P. Graney, and D. Sperling. 1997. Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. December.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-27 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
clarified that, under certain circumstances, a baseline may reflect future, rather than existing, conditions. The rule specifies that factual circumstances can justify an agency departing from that norm in the following circumstances, when such reasons are supported by substantial evidence:
⚫ When necessary to prevent misinforming or misleading the public and decision makers; and ⚫ When their use in place of existing conditions is justified by unusual aspects of the project or surrounding conditions.

With respect to the proposed project, utilizing existing conditions to evaluate criteria pollutant impacts would potentially misrepresent and mislead the public and decision makers with respect to potential air quality and impacts for two reasons: 1) natural vehicle fleet mix turnover, and 2) changes in on-road emission factors, each as described below.

1. The fleet mix in San Mateo County will be different by the time the proposed project is fully implemented in 2030, as the percentage of truck traffic to all vehicle traffic changes. Per CTEMFAC 2017, in 2018, 5.4 percent of the San Mateo County fleet mix was made up of trucks, while in 2030 it is forecasted to increase to 7 percent.46 Trucks have different emission profiles and are generally more emission-intensive than passenger vehicles. Quantifying emissions under existing conditions would therefore misrepresent vehicle emissions associated with the vehicle fleet that will be in place once the proposed project is fully operational.

2. On-road vehicle emissions rates are anticipated to lessen in the future due to continuing engine advancements and more stringent air quality regulations. Analyzing existing conditions (2018) and quantifying emissions utilizing 2018 vehicle emissions rates instead of the reduced 2030 vehicle emission rates would not only represent a factitious scenario but would also overestimate emissions reductions and potential air quality benefits achieved by the proposed project.

Accordingly, the CEQA baseline for the purposes of the project air quality analysis is defined as buildout year (2030) conditions. Evaluating 2030-With-Project conditions against 2030-Without Project conditions ensures that future fleet changes and engine exhaust emission factors are appropriately attributed to baseline conditions and not misrepresented as a project-related effect.

Utilizing the project buildout year conditions as the CEQA baseline is most appropriate to inform the public and decision makers with respect to air quality impacts, consistent with current CEQA case law. Where appropriate, emissions under existing conditions (2018) are also presented for informational purposes.

Phase 1
Construction Emissions
Construction-related emissions sources similar to those described above for the proposed project are anticipated with construction of Phase 1. Criteria pollutants were estimated using the emissions calculation methods provided in CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2, and its technical support documentation. The construction schedule, operating details for equipment, trip numbers, trip lengths, and material quantities for Phase 1, which includes the majority of the off-site 46 California Department of Transportation. 2017. CT-EMFAC 2017. Available:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/environmental-analysis/air-quality/project-level-air-quality-analysis. Accessed:

February 3, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-28 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
improvements, were provided by the project applicant’s construction contractor.47, 48 Daily construction emissions were estimated using these estimates. Please refer to Appendix 4.2-1 for the construction modeling inputs and outputs.

Diesel Particulate Matter Analysis
Diesel-fueled off-road equipment and trucks used during construction and emergency generators used during project operations would emit DPM that could expose nearby sensitive receptors to increased cancer and non-cancer risks. Given that Phase 1 would introduce DPM emissions to an area near existing sensitive receptors, a human health risk assessment (HRA) was performed using EPA’s most recent dispersion model, AERMOD, version 191901; chronic risk assessment values presented by OEHHA; and other assumptions for model inputs from BAAQMD’s Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines and Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. 49,50 Note
that the HRA takes into account OEHHA’s most recent guidance and calculation methods from the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Risk Assessments.
51 The HRA analyzes health risks for nearby sensitive receptors from construction activities and the testing of emergency diesel-powered generators during project operation. The HRA consists of three parts: a DPM inventory, air dispersion modeling, and risk calculations. A description of each of these parts follows.

DPM Inventory
The DPM inventory includes emissions associated with short-term construction activity (i.e., on-site equipment and off-site vehicles) and emissions from the testing of emergency backup generators.

The amount of DPM emissions generated during construction was assumed to be equal to the construction mass emissions quantities for PM2.5 exhaust from diesel vehicles. The amount of PM2.5 emissions generated during construction was assumed to be equal to the sum of PM2.5 exhaust and fugitive dust. Off-site construction vehicle emissions were apportioned to roadways and based on the percentage of total trip distance traveled within 1,000 feet of the Phase 1 site. The 47 McKinley, Jerry. DPR Construction. October 13, 2020—email to Devan Attenberry of ICF regarding Southline call to discuss outstanding data needs.
48 At the time when the EIR analysis was originally conducted, the Phase 1 applicant considered three haul truck route options. The route that passed by the most sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site was modeled as a worst-case scenario for health risk impacts (See Air Dispersion Modeling below). Since conducting the EIR analysis, the Phase 1 applicant has removed this route from the list of potential haul route options. The incremental difference in total route length between the worst-case scenario analysis and the remaining options does not influence the air quality impact analysis for the construction mass emissions analysis.

Therefore, the worst-case scenario route was retained in the construction mass emissions quantification. 49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.

December. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 50 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2020. Health Risk Assessment Modeling Protocol. August. Available:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/facility-risk-reduction/documents/ baaqmd_hra_modeling_protocol_august_2020-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: November 9, 2020. 51 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Risk Assessments. February. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/ media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: March 31, 2020.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-29 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
amount of DPM emissions generated during operations is assumed to be equal to the CalEEMod output results for diesel PM2.5 exhaust from the generators.

Air Dispersion Modeling
The HRA uses EPA’s AERMOD to model annual average DPM and PM2.5 concentrations at nearby receptors. Modeling inputs, including emissions rates (in grams of pollutant emitted per second) and source characteristics (e.g., release height, stack diameter, plume width), were based on guidance provided by OEHHA and BAAQMD. Meteorological data were obtained from CARB for the SFO location, which is the nearest monitoring station and less than 1 mile southeast of the Phase 1 site.

Emissions from on-site construction equipment were characterized as an area source (AREAPOLY) with a release height of 0.9 meter for fugitive dust emissions and 4.1 meter for all other emissions.

Nine construction area sources were modeled, which include the three discrete locations associated with the off-site improvement areas, the three buildings and parking structure, and other locations of construction activity identified by the Phase 1 applicant.

Haul and vendor truck (i.e., concrete loading trucks) emissions were characterized as line/area sources (LINEAREA) drawn onto the extent of the designated haul routes that occurred within 1,000 feet of the project site. The haul and vendor truck release heights were modeled as 0.9 meter for fugitive dust emissions and 3.4 meters for all other emissions. At the time when the EIR analysis was originally conducted, the Phase 1 applicant considered three haul truck route options. The route that passed by the most sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site was modeled as a worstcase scenario. This route includes a 0.4-mile vehicle loop that exits the Phase 1 site at the intersection of Huntington Avenue and South Maple Avenue, travels west along Sneath Lane, and then turns south onto El Camino to access I-380. This route is in the vicinity of sensitive receptor land uses (i.e., residences) along Tanforan Avenue just east of Huntington Avenue. As discussed in Section 3.6.2.13 in Chapter 2, Project Description, since conducting the AERMOD run for this worstcase scenario haul route, the Phase 1 applicant has removed this route from the list of potential haul route options. The remaining haul route options do not travel past any more sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of the project site, and do not travel at a higher frequency past the previously identified sensitive receptors along Tanforan Avenue. Therefore, the use of the worst-case scenario haul route is conservative in that the reported DPM and PM2.5 concentrations from haul trucks in this analysis are higher than what would occur using the other haul truck route options.

The concrete loading truck route is unaffected by changes to the haul truck route options. Concrete loading trucks would use the same 0.4-mile vehicle loop that exits the Phase 1 site at the intersection of Huntington Avenue and South Maple Avenue, and then they would continue onto Sneath Lane, turn right onto Huntington Avenue, and travel outside the 1,000-foot Phase 1 site buffer. The concrete loading trucks would then return within 1,000 feet of the Phase 1 site buffer on the east side, along South Linden Avenue, to load concrete from the concrete batch plant approximately 350 feet east of the Phase 1 site’s eastern boundary.

The modeling of emissions from construction activities for Phase 1 was based on the number of construction hours and days from 2021 through 2024 (7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., six days per week, excluding Sundays). To account for plume rise associated with mechanically generated construction emissions sources during the AERMOD run, the initial vertical dimension of the area source was modeled at 3.81 meters; for the line/area sources, it was modeled at 3.16 meters. The urban dispersion option was based on Phase 1 site characteristics. Off-site sensitive receptors were placed at the individual homes south of the Phase 1 site and at Centennial Way Trail, the recreational trail City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-30 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
adjacent to and north of the off-site improvement area at the Huntington Avenue intersection. A 20- by 20-meter receptor grid was used to place receptors. All receptors were assumed to have a height of 1.5 meters.

Operational emissions from testing of the new diesel emergency backup generators were characterized as a separate vertical point source (POINT). The location of the generators was estimated, based on the project site plan, and the urban dispersion option was assumed. The modeling of emissions from generator activities utilized a 12-hour testing window per day (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) because testing was assumed to occur during daytime hours. Variables, including release height (from 2.85 to 3.73 meters) and stack diameter (from 0.178 to 0.353 meter), were based on the horsepower of the generators (from 500 to 1,250 horsepower), taken from comprehensive modeling information provided by CARB for a range of different generators they tested.
52 A complete list of dispersion modeling inputs is provided in Appendix 4.2-1.

Risk Calculations
The risk calculations incorporate OEHHA’s age-specific factors, which account for increased sensitivity to carcinogens during early-in-life exposure. The approach for estimating cancer risk from long-term inhalation, with exposure to carcinogens, requires calculating a range of potential doses and multiplying by cancer potency factors in units corresponding to the inverse dose to obtain a range of cancer risks. For cancer risk, the risk for each age group is calculated using the appropriate daily breathing rates, age sensitivity factors, and exposure durations. The cancer risks calculated for individual age groups are summed to estimate the cancer risk for each receptor.

Chronic cancer and hazard risks were calculated using OEHHA’s 2015 HRA guidance.53 According to BAAQMD guidance, residential cancer risks assume a 30-year exposure at 24 hours per day for 350 days per year.
54 The risk calculations and additional assumptions are provided in Appendix 4.2-1.

Operational Mobile-Source Emissions
Air quality impacts from motor vehicles associated with Phase 1 were evaluated using the same method and models (e.g., EMFAC2017, CalEEMod) described above for the Specific Plan. Phase 1 (2024) daily VMT was estimated to be 335,006 miles.55
Operational Area- and Energy-Source Emissions
Air quality impacts from other operational sources associated with buildout of Phase 1 were evaluated using the same methods and models (e.g., CalEEMod) described above for the Specific Plan.
52 California Air Resources Board. 2000b. Risk Management Guidance for the Permitting of New Stationary DieselFueled Engines. Available: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//diesel/documents/rmgfinal.pdf.

Accessed: November 9, 2020.
53 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program, Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Risk Assessments. February. Available:
https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 54 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2016. Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines.

December. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/permitmodeling/hra_guidelines_12_7_2016_clean-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: March 31, 2020. 55 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-31 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Operational Stationary-Source Emissions
Sources of stationary emissions under Phase 1 include five emergency diesel generators. Daily and annual stationary source emissions were estimated in 2030 using CalEEMod, version 2016.3.2.

Generator emissions factors were based on the makes and models identified by the project applicant.56, 57, 58 The generator horsepower and hours of use were also based on information provided by the Phase 1 applicant.59 Per the National Fire Protection Association (NFTA) 110 code/standard for emergency and standby power systems, each generator is required to be tested a minimum of 30 minutes per month. It was assumed that all generators would be run on the same day of the month. Additionally, every 36 months (3 years), each generator would run a 4-hour continuous full load test. It was assumed that generators would run under full load, which is the most emissions-intensive load. Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31, summarizes the generator equipment specifications and testing schedule. Note that only the maximum daily generator activity is relevant to Impact AQ-2b, discussed further below, given the BAAQMD emission thresholds are on a daily timescale. See Appendix 4.2-1 for the CalEEMod output files and generator emissions factors.

Table 4.2-5. Phase 1 Emergency Generator Technical Specifications and Testing Schedules Generator Building1 HP Bin2
Max Hours per
Testing Day (Normal
Testing Scenario)
3 Max Hours per
Testing Day (Full
Load Testing
Scenario)
4 Max
Hours per
Year5
1 1 1,700 0.5 4 50
2 1 1,700 0.5 4 50
3 2 700 0.5 4 50
4 7 1,700 0.5 4 50
5 7 1,700 0.5 4 50
Total 2.5 20 250
HP = horsepower; max = maximum
1 Generators listed include only those known for the buildings constructed as part of Phase 1. Additional generators may be installed as part of development constructed under future Specific Plans, but their locations and specifications are unknown at this time.
2The project applicant provided the kilowattage (kW) of each generator. The kW was converted into HP and then conservatively rounded up into the appropriate HP bin used by CalEEMod for calculating generator emissions. 3During the normal testing scenario, each generator would be tested for 30 minutes on the same day. The normal testing scenario would occur once a month.
4 During the full load testing scenario, each generator would be tested for 4 hours on the same day. The full load testing scenario would occur once every 36 months (3 years). 5 CARB’s Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines and Section 330.3 of BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8, restricts annual generator operation to 50 hours per year. 56 Cummins, Inc. 2017a. Exhaust Emission Data Sheet 1250DQGAE. Available: https://powersuite.cummins.com/ PS5/PS5Content/SiteContent/en/Binary_Asset/pdf/Commercial/Datasheets/Emissions/eds-1110.pdf.

Accessed: November 11, 2020.
57 Cummins, Inc. 2017b. Exhaust Emission Data Sheet 1500DQGAF. Available: https://powersuite.cummins.com/ PS5/PS5Content/SiteContent/en/Binary_Asset/pdf/Commercial/Datasheets/Emissions/eds-1111.pdf.

Accessed: November 11, 2020.
58 Cummins, Inc. 2018. Exhaust Emission Data Sheet 500DFEK. Available: https://powersuite.cummins.com/ PS5/PS5Content/SiteContent/en/Binary_Asset/pdf/Commercial/Datasheets/Emissions/eds-173.pdf. Accessed:

November 11, 2020.
59 Meyers+ Engineers. 2020. Southline CEQA Response. May.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-32 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
CO Hot-Spots Modeling
CO hot-spot concentrations at the San Bruno Avenue and El Camino Real intersection associated with buildout of Phase 1 were evaluated using the same methods and models (e.g., EMFAC2017, CALINE4) described above for the Specific Plan.

Selection of Future Year Baseline Conditions
Similar to the project air quality analysis, utilizing existing conditions to evaluate criteria pollutant impacts of Phase 1 would potentially misrepresent and mislead the public and decision makers with respect to potential air quality impacts for two reasons: 1) natural vehicle fleet mix turnover, and 2) changes in on-road emission factors (detailed further above for the project, p. 4.2-26). Accordingly, the CEQA baseline for the purposes of this air quality analysis is defined as Phase 1 buildout year (2024) conditions. Where appropriate, emissions under existing conditions (2018) are also presented for informational purposes.

4.2.4.3 Impacts Evaluation
Impact AQ-1: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Project: Less than Significant; Phase 1: Less than Significant) Project and Phase 1
The CAA requires a SIP or an air quality control plan to be prepared for areas with air quality that violates the NAAQS. The SIP sets forth the strategies and pollution control measures that states will use to attain the NAAQS. The CCAA requires attainment plans to demonstrate a 5 percent per year reduction in nonattainment air pollutants or their precursors, as averaged every consecutive 3-year period, unless an approved alternative measure of progress is developed. Air quality attainment plans (AQAPs) outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date. The current AQAP for the SFBAAB is the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
60 According to BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the determination of 2017 Clean Air Plan consistency should consider the following for both project-level and plan-level analyses:
61 ⚫ Does the plan support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan? ⚫ Does the plan include applicable control measures from the 2017 Clean Air Plan? ⚫ Does the plan disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2017 Clean Air Plan control measure? BAAQMD recommends that the determination of consistency with the Clean Air Plan goals be based on whether the project is consistent with BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. These thresholds are also the basis for determining significance under Impact AQ-2a and Impact AQ-2b (discussed below). To avoid double-counting impacts (i.e., using a redundant significance determination criterion in both Impact AQ-1 and Impacts AQ-2a AQ-2b), the City as the lead agency has chosen to determine the significance of Impact AQ-1 by evaluating whether the amount of growth associated with the project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan and also whether the project is consistent with 60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-33 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the Clean Air Plan’s relevant policies and control measures, rather than strictly basing the assessment on project emissions in relation to BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds.

Each of these questions is addressed below for the proposed project.

Support of 2017 Clean Air Plan Goals
The primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan are to 1) attain the CAAQS and NAAQS, 2) eliminate disparities among Bay Area communities in the cancer health risk from TACs, and 3) reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. As discussed below, the Specific Plan includes numerous objectives and design features that will support regional attainment of the CAAQS and NAAQS and, therefore, would not prevent attainment of the state and national air quality standards. For example, the design and location of the project would decrease regional VMT per service population and corresponding mobile emissions per service population because the project site would be an infill site (i.e., not contributing to sprawl), a transit-oriented site (i.e., near multiple rail and bus transit stations), and in proximity to a mix of uses (i.e., a diversity of land use types). All of these project features promote alternative transportation options not only for the proposed project but for existing and future development in the surrounding area (e.g., residents and business would have access to nearby retail options with construction of the amenities building). Alternative transportation options are less emissions-intensive compared to single occupied vehicles. Also, several objectives of the Specific Plan would support a decrease in VMT per service population and corresponding mobile emissions. These objectives are to provide an extensive pedestrian network, promote alternatives to automobile transportation, and create pedestrian and bicycle access to surrounding transit stations. Additional objectives call for the incorporation of energy conservation features in building designs. Project features that would decrease reliance on fossilfueled vehicles by users of the project site include a TDM Plan, aimed to achieve a mode share of 45 percent; mobility hubs with shuttles; electric vehicle charging spaces; bicycle lanes; and shortand long-term bicycle parking supported by on-site showers and lockers. All buildings would meet the United States Green Building Council’s LEED, version 4, Silver rating requirements; improve energy performance by 10 percent compared with an ASHRAE 90.1-2010 reference baseline building; and be encouraged to be designed as all-electric buildings or use highefficiency natural gas appliances, all of which would decrease the on-site consumption of natural gas. Lastly, area-source emissions from maintenance equipment would be reduced by the provision of exterior electrical power infrastructure to support electric landscaping equipment in place of gasoline-fueled equipment.

The Specific Plan objectives and design features would not only reduce the Specific Plan’s contribution to regional criteria pollutant emissions per service population, but would also reduce emissions of GHGs per service population as well. Additional design features that would reduce emissions of GHGs include a Specific Plan requirement that calls for the project to utilize 100 percent carbon-free electricity for all operational electricity needs through participation in programs such as PG&E Solar Choice or Peninsula Clean Energy, measures that support indoor and outdoor water conservation, the use of drought-tolerant landscaping, the provision of extensive recycling and composting facilities, and increased carbon sequestration from a net increase in trees and vegetation.

Similar to the Specific Plan, Phase 1 would incorporate the above sustainability features that support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Specifically, Phase 1 would result in the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-34 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
addition of 83 electric vehicle charging spaces, 18 short-term bicycle parking spaces, 176 long-term bicycle parking spaces, 149 net new trees, and increased vegetation at the Tanforan Avenue Community Parklet. Furthermore, Phase 1 would comply with all applicable City and state measures, including the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Title 24, Part 6; California Energy Code baseline standard requirements for energy efficiency, based on the 2019 Energy Efficiency Standards; and the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as CALGreen.

Based on the above analysis, the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, would support the primary goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Support Applicable Control Measures and Their Implementation To meet the primary goals, the 2017 Clean Air Plan recommends specific control measures and actions. These control measures are grouped into various categories and include stationary-source measures, mobile-source measures, and transportation control measures. The 2017 Clean Air Plan recognizes that community design dictates individual travel mode and that a key long-term control strategy to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, air toxics, and GHGs from motor vehicles is to channel future Bay Area growth into vibrant urban communities where goods and services are close at hand and people have a range of viable transportation options. To this end, the 2017 Clean Air Plan includes control measures that are aimed at reducing air pollution in the SFBAAB.

The measures most applicable to the proposed project are related to transportation, energy, green buildings, waste management, water, and stationary-source controls. These measures include the following:
⚫ TR1: Clean Air Teleworking Initiative – Develop teleworking best practices for employers and develop additional strategies to promote telecommuting. Promote teleworking on “Spare the Air” days.
⚫ TR2: Trip Reduction Programs – Implement the regional Commuter Benefits Program (Rule 14-1), which requires employers with 50 or more Bay Area employees to provide commuter benefits. Encourage trip reduction policies and programs in local plans (e.g., general and specific plans) while providing grants to support trip reduction efforts. Encourage local governments to require mitigation of vehicle travel as part of new development approval, adopt transit benefit ordinances to reduce transit costs for employees, and develop innovative ways to encourage rideshare, transit, cycling, and walking for work trips. Fund various employer-based trip reduction programs.
⚫ TR8: Ridesharing, Last-Mile Connection – Promote carpooling and vanpooling by providing funding to continue regional and local ridesharing programs and support the expansion of carsharing programs. Provide incentive funding for pilot projects to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of innovative ridesharing and other last-mile solution trip reduction strategies. Encourage employers to promote ridesharing and carsharing to their employees. ⚫ TR9: Bicycle and Pedestrian Access and Facilities – Encourage planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans (e.g., general and specific plans) and fund bicycle lanes, routes, paths, and parking facilities.
⚫ TR13: Parking Policies – Encourage parking policies and programs in local plans (e.g., reduce minimum parking requirements), limit the supply of off-street parking in transit-oriented areas, City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-35 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
unbundle the price of parking spaces, and support implementation of demand-based pricing (such as “SF Park”) in high-traffic areas.
⚫ TR14: Cars and Light Trucks – Commit regional clean air funds toward qualifying vehicle purchases and infrastructure development. Partner with private, local, state, and federal programs to promote the purchase and lease of battery-electric and plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles.
⚫ TR15: Public Outreach and Education – Implement the Spare the Air Every Day Campaign, including Spare the Air alerts, employer programs, community resource teams, a plug-in electric vehicle outreach campaign, and the Spare the Air Youth Program. ⚫ TR23: Lawn and Garden Equipment – Seek additional funding to expand the Commercial Lawn and Garden Equipment Replacement Program into all nine Bay Area counties. Explore options to expand the program to cover shredders, stump grinders, and commercial turf equipment. ⚫ EN2: Decrease Electricity Demand – Work with local governments to adopt additional energy efficiency policies and programs. Support local government energy efficiency programs through best practices, model ordinances, and technical support. Work with partners to develop messaging to decrease electricity demand during peak times. ⚫ BL1: Green Buildings – Collaborate with partners such as KyotoUSA to identify energy-related improvements and opportunities for on-site renewable energy systems in school districts; investigate funding strategies to implement upgrades. Identify barriers to effective local implementation of the CALGreen (Title 24) statewide building energy code; develop solutions to improve implementation/enforcement. Work with the Association of Bay Area Governments’ BayREN program to make additional funding available for energy-related projects in the buildings sector. Engage with additional partners to target reducing emissions from specific types of buildings.
⚫ BL2: Decarbonize Buildings – Explore potential air district rulemaking options regarding the sale of fossil fuel–based space and water heating systems for both residential and commercial use. Explore incentives for property owners to replace their furnaces, water heaters, or natural gas–powered appliances with zero-carbon alternatives. Update air district guidance documents to recommend that commercial and multi-family developments install ground-source heat pumps and solar hot water heaters.
⚫ NW2: Urban Tree Planting – Develop or identify an existing model municipal tree planting ordinance and encourage local governments to adopt such an ordinance. Include tree planting recommendations, the air district’s technical guidance, best practices for local plans, and CEQA review.
⚫ WA3: Green Waste Diversion – Develop model policies to facilitate local adoption of ordinances and programs to reduce the amount of green waste going to landfills. ⚫ WA4: Recycle and Waste Reduction – Develop or identify and promote model ordinances on community-wide zero-waste goals and the recycling of construction and demolition materials in commercial and public construction projects.
⚫ WR2: Support Water Conservation – Develop a list of best practices that reduce water consumption and increase on-site water recycling in new and existing buildings; incorporate into local planning guidance.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-36 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
⚫ SS32: Emergency Backup Generators – Reduce emissions of DPM and black carbon from backup generators through Draft Rule 11-18, resulting in reduced health risks for affected individuals and climate protection benefits.

The proposed project would include design features that would support emissions reductions in the transportation sector. For instance, the proposed project’s TDM Plan would promote transit and pedestrian connectivity and support transit priority measures (Measure TR9). The proposed project would improve connections to existing transit infrastructure (Measures TR2 and TR8). Other improvements, such as electric charging stations and bicycle parking, would support alternative modes of transportation within the Specific Plan area (Measures TR8, TR9, and TR14). The proposed project, through its TDM Plan, would implement on-site TDM measures and programs aimed at trip reduction, such as on-site mobility hubs. (Measures TR1, TR13, and TR15). In addition, the proposed project would implement a number of sustainability features, such as buildings with a LEED Silver rating and buildings that would be supplied with 100 percent carbon-free electricity (Measures BL1, BL2, and EN2); green infrastructure (e.g., biotreatment areas and other low-impact development) (Measures BL1 and NW2); low-flow shower heads, aerators, and toilets (Measure WR2); and recycling and compost facilities to reduce resource consumption as well as GHG emissions (Measures WA3 and WA4). The proposed project would be designed to meet the standards of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and CALGreen building code (Measures BL2 and EN2).

Furthermore, it would result in a net tree gain (approximately 419 trees) (Measure NW2). Shrubs and biotreatment plantings, as opposed to grass areas, would be installed to reduce emissions associated with the use of lawn and garden equipment (Measure TR23). To reduce associated health risks and air quality impacts, the proposed emergency generators would be subject to the permit authority of BAAQMD (Measure SS32).

Based on the above analysis, the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, would generally support the applicable control measures and their implementation, as identified in the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Disrupt or Hinder Implementation of 2017 Clean Air Plan Control Measures As discussed above, the objectives and sustainable design features of the Specific Plan would address issues related to transportation, energy, green building, waste management, water, and stationary-source controls. It would not disrupt, delay, or otherwise hinder implementation of any applicable control measure from the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Rather, the proposed project would support and facilitate implementation of control measures.

Based on the above analysis, the proposed project, inclusive of Phase 1, would support implementation of applicable 2017 Clean Air Plan control measures. Therefore, the Specific Plan and Phase 1 would not fundamentally conflict with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and would have a less-thansignificant air quality impact. No mitigation is required.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-37 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
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 PM) ambient air quality standard during construction. (Project:

Significant and Unavoidable; Phase 1: Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project
Under both the Life Sciences Scenario and Office Scenario, construction associated with the new land use developments that would be permitted under the proposed Specific Plan would result in the temporary generation of ozone precursors (ROG, NOX), CO, and PM emissions that could result in short-term impacts on ambient air quality within the project site. Emissions would originate from construction equipment exhaust, employee and haul truck vehicle exhaust, land clearing, architectural coatings, and asphalt paving. Construction-related emissions would vary substantially, depending on the level of activity, length of the construction period, specific construction operations, types of equipment, number of personnel, wind and precipitation conditions, and soil moisture content.

By its nature as a specific plan, the project does not propose any specific development. At this time, the Phase 1 Precise Plan is the only development proposal under the Specific Plan. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, of this EIR, the project applicant has identified additional phases for future development permitted under the Specific Plan. Because the timing and intensity of future development projects are not known at this time, the precise effects of construction activities associated with buildout of the Specific Plan area cannot be accurately quantified. Although the construction emission impacts associated with each new individual development would be short term in nature and limited to the period of time when construction activity is taking place for that particular development, concurrent construction of a multitude of individual development projects under the Specific Plan would generate combined criteria pollutant emissions on a daily basis that could exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds for ROG, NOx, and PM exhaust. 62 In addition,
depending on the size and scale of an individual development project, along with its construction schedule and other parameters, there may also be instances in which daily construction emissions generated by a single development project within the Specific Plan area could exceed BAAQMD’s criteria pollutant thresholds. (See quantification of estimated Phase 1 construction emissions below for an indicative example). As such, construction emissions generated by implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact on air quality. These emissions could contribute to ozone formation and other air pollution in the SFBAAB, which, at certain concentrations, could contribute to short- and long-term human health effects if left unmitigated.

In addition, BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines consider fugitive dust impacts to be potentially significant without application of best management practices (BMPs). If left unmitigated, implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a potentially significant impact related to construction-related fugitive dust emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact on air quality to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of BAAQMD’s BMPs to reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions, including any cumulative impacts.
62 BAAQMD does not have mass emission thresholds for PM dust or CO.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-38 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
During construction of a development project, the activity that typically generates the highest NOX and PM exhaust emissions is the operation of off-road equipment, whereas the activity that typically generates the highest ROG emissions is the application of architectural coatings. Per Mitigation Measures AQ-2 through AQ-5, the use of at least Tier 4 engines and renewable diesel, which is commercially available in the San Francisco Bay Area, for off-road equipment and newer trucks to reduce NOX and PM exhaust emission levels as well as the use of paints with a low VOC content to reduce ROG emissions levels would be required during construction at the project site. However, there could be foreseeable conditions under the Specific Plan in which the amount of construction activity for an individual development project, or combination of projects, could result in the generation of pollutant emissions that would exceed their respective BAAQMD significance thresholds. Moreover, even with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-2 through AQ-5, in addition to the sustainability design features and Specific Plan objectives described under Impact AQ-1, emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 may not be reduced to levels below BAAQMD’s thresholds. Accordingly, additional mitigation would be required to reduce the emissions impacts to a less-than-significant level.
63 Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AQ-6, applicants of future Precise Plans (not including Phase 1) would be required 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 review and approval), and work with a third-party or governmental entity to fund emissions reduction projects to offset pollutant emissions, as necessary to reduce emissions below BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds. Example offset projects include electrification of stationary internal combustion engines; replacing old trucks with new, cleaner, more efficient trucks; and other stationary and mobile source emissions-reducing projects.

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. Should offset programs be available for future development, Mitigation Measure AQ-6 would ensure that construction-related emissions would not contribute to a significant level of air pollution such that regional air quality within the SFBAAB would be degraded; project impacts on air quality 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 under the Specific Plan, for the purposes of this EIR analysis, construction air quality impacts related to emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

Health Impacts of Regional Criteria Pollutants (Construction) The California Supreme Court, in Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (6 Cal. 5th 502), reviewed the longterm regional air quality analysis contained in the EIR for the proposed Friant Ranch Specific Plan (Friant Ranch Project). The Friant Ranch Project is a 942-acre master plan development in unincorporated Fresno County, which is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, an area that is currently in nonattainment status under the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. The California 63 This analysis considered a mitigation measure requiring the staggering of activity schedules for concurrent construction activities to avoid triggering daily exceedances of the BAAQMD thresholds. This mitigation was deemed infeasible given the complexity of coordination required between multiple developers and the anticipated financial implications from delaying project schedules.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-39 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Supreme Court found that the Friant Ranch Project EIR’s air quality analysis was inadequate because, although it disclosed that air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable, it failed to provide enough detail “for the public to translate the bare [criteria pollutant emissions] numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such a translation is not possible at this time.” The court’s decision provides that environmental documents must attempt to connect a project’s significant regional air quality impacts to specific health effects or explain why it is not technically feasible to perform such an analysis.

Adverse health effects induced by regional criteria pollutant emissions (e.g., ozone precursors and PM) generated by the project would be highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, the number and character of exposed individuals [e.g., age, gender]). For these reasons, ozone precursors (i.e., ROG and NOX) contribute to the formation of ground-borne ozone on a regional scale. Emissions of ROG and NOX generated in one area may not equate to a specific ozone concentration in that same area.

Similarly, some types of particulate pollution may be transported over long distances or formed through atmospheric reactions. As such, the magnitude and locations of specific health effects from exposure to increased ozone or regional PM concentrations are the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region, as opposed to a single individual project. Moreover, exposure to regional air pollution does not guarantee that an individual will experience an adverse health effect—as discussed above, there are large individual differences in the intensity of symptomatic responses to air pollutants. These differences are influenced, in part, by the underlying health condition of an individual, which cannot be known or extrapolated across regional populations.

Models and tools have been developed to correlate regional criteria pollutant emissions to potential community health impacts. Although there are models capable of quantifying ozone and secondary PM formation and associated health effects, these tools were developed to support regional planning and policy analysis and have limited sensitivity to relatively small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations induced by individual projects. Therefore, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to the locations where specific health effects could occur or the resultant number of additional days of nonattainment cannot be achieved with any degree of accuracy for relatively small projects (relative to the size of the regional air basin).

The technical limitations of existing models for correlating project-level regional emissions to specific health consequences are recognized by air quality management districts throughout the state, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which provided amici curiae briefs for the Friant Ranch legal proceedings. In its brief, the SJVAPCD acknowledged that, although Health Risk Assessments for localized air toxics, such as DPM, are commonly prepared, “it is not feasible to conduct a similar analysis for criteria air pollutants because currently available computer modeling tools are not equipped for this task.” 64, 65
64 SJVAPCD further noted that emissions solely from the Friant Ranch Project, which equate to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total NOx and VOC in the San Joaquin Valley, “are not likely to yield valid information” and that any such information would not be “accurate when applied at the local level.” 65 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2015. Final Staff Report. Update to District’s Risk Management Policy to Address OEHHAA’s Revised Risk Assessment Guidance Document. May 28. Available:
https://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/staff-report-5-28-15.pdf. Accessed: September 2, 2021.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-40 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
As discussed above, BAAQMD’s regional thresholds, as presented in Table 4.2-4, p. 4.2-21, consider existing air quality concentrations and attainment or nonattainment designations under the NAAQS and CAAQS. The NAAQS and CAAQS are informed by a wide range of scientific evidence that demonstrates that there are known, safe concentrations of criteria pollutants below these thresholds. While recognizing that air quality is a cumulative problem, BAAQMD considers projects that generate criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions below these thresholds to be minor in nature; therefore, they would not adversely affect air quality to the extent that the healthprotective NAAQS or CAAQS would be exceeded. Regional emissions generated by a project could increase photochemical reactions and the formation of tropospheric ozone and secondary PM, which, at certain concentrations, could lead to an increased incidence of specific health consequences. Although these health effects are associated with ozone and particulate pollution, the effects are a result of cumulative and regional emissions. Therefore, the project’s incremental contribution cannot be traced to specific health outcomes on a regional scale, and a quantitative correlation of project-generated regional criteria pollutant emissions to specific human health impacts is not included in this analysis. All feasible mitigation is being applied to reduce construction-period of ozone precursors and PM to below BAAQMD thresholds, where feasible.

Phase 1
Construction of Phase 1 is scheduled to commence in late 2021 and end in early 2024. The types of construction emissions generated by Phase 1 would be similar to those described above for the project. Construction activities would include demolition of structures and parking lots throughout the Specific Plan area (i.e., extending beyond the boundary of the Phase 1 site), the removal of trees, excavation, grading, paving, utility installations, construction of the majority of the off-site improvements, construction of three new buildings and a parking structure, and public realm improvements including landscaping. Estimated unmitigated criteria pollutant emissions are presented in Table 4.2-6, p. 4.2-40.

Table 4.2-6. Estimated Unmitigated Criteria Pollutant Average Daily Emissions from Construction of Phase 1 (pounds/day)
Construction Year ROG NOx CO
PM10 PM2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2021 6 55 35 11 2 3 2
2022 13 127 97 20 5 8 5
2023 37 37 48 14 1 4 1
2024 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 None BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceed Threshold? No Yes N/A — No — No
Source: See Appendix 4.2-1 for construction modeling outputs.

Notes:

Exceedances of BAAQMD thresholds are underlined.

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BMPs = best management practices.

As shown in Table 4.2-6, p. 4.2-40, construction of Phase 1 would generate NOx emissions in excess of BAAQMD’s significance threshold during construction and result in a potentially significant air City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-41 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
quality impact. These emissions, if left unmitigated, could contribute to a ground-level formation of ozone in the SFBAAB, which, at certain concentrations, could contribute to short- and long-term human health effects. San Mateo County does not currently attain the ozone CAAQS and NAAQS (see Table 4.2-2, p. 4.2-9). Certain individuals residing in areas that do not meet the ambient air quality standards, including South San Francisco, could be exposed to pollutant concentrations that could cause or aggravate acute and/or chronic health conditions (e.g., asthma, premature mortality).

Although construction of Phase 1 would contribute to future NOX emissions, daily constructiongenerated emissions represent approximately 0.02 percent of total NOX in the SFBAAB.66 As previously discussed, the magnitude and location of any potential change in ambient air quality, and therefore health consequences, from additional emissions cannot be quantified with a high level of certainty because of the dynamic and complex nature of pollutant formation and distribution.

However, it is known that public health will continue to be affected in South San Francisco so long as the region does not attain the CAAQS or NAAQS. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce this potentially significant impact on air quality to a less-than-significant level by requiring Tier 4 Final engines in construction equipment, thereby reducing Phase 1 construction NOx emissions to below BAAQMD’s significance threshold, as shown in Table 4.2-7, p. 4.2-41.

Table 4.2-7. Estimated Mitigated Criteria Pollutant Average Daily Emissions from Construction of Phase 1 (pounds/day)
Construction Year ROG NOx CO
PM10 PM2.5
Dust Exhaust Dust Exhaust
2021 2 27 32 8 < 1 2 < 1
2022 4 47 82 14 1 5 1
2023 33 22 43 14 < 1 4 < 1
2024 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 None BMPs 82 BMPs 54
Exceed Threshold? No No N/A — No — No
Source: See Appendix 4.2-1 for construction modeling outputs.

Notes:

ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxide; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; BMPs = best management practices.

BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines consider fugitive dust impacts to be potentially significant without application of BMPs. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce this potentially significant impact on air quality to a less-than-significant level by requiring implementation of BAAQMD’s BMPs to reduce construction-related fugitive dust emissions, including any cumulative impacts. As such, construction of Phase 1 would not be expected to contribute a significant level of air pollution such that air quality within the SFBAAB would be degraded. Consequently, the impact from construction-generated criteria pollutant emissions for Phase 1 would be less than significant with mitigation.
66 NOX emissions reported in the 2017 Clean Air Plan totaled 300 tons per day. Unmitigated project-generated NOX emissions would be 107 pounds per day, which equates to 0.0535 ton per day.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-42 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Health Impacts of Regional Criteria Pollutants (Construction) See discussion of health impacts related to project construction emissions above.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Require Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices (All Phases) All applicants proposing development of projects within the project site, including the Phase 1 applicant, shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce constructionrelated fugitive dust by implementing BAAQMD’s basic control measures at all construction and staging areas. The following measures are to be required as such contract conditions and are based on BAAQMD’s current CEQA guidelines:
⚫ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
⚫ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. ⚫ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet-power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping shall be prohibited.
⚫ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
⚫ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
⚫ A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of BAAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Require at Least Tier 4 Final Engines on Construction Equipment (All Phases)
All applicants proposing development of projects within the project site, including the Phase 1 applicant, shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce constructionrelated exhaust emissions by ensuring that all off-road equipment operates with at least EPAapproved Tier 4 Final or newer engines. Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment when Tier 4 engines are not commercially available within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must identify these pieces of equipment, document their unavailability, and ensure that they operate on no less than an EPA-approved Tier 3 engine. At least 95 percent of off-road equipment must operate with at least an EPA-approved Tier 4 Final or newer engine.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Require Use of Diesel Trucks with 2010-Compliant Model Year Engines (Future Phases Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to use diesel trucks that have 2010 model year or newer engines but no less than the average fleet mix for the current calendar year, as set forth in CARB’s EMFAC2017 database. In the event that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained, the City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-43 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that it is not feasible to locate such engines following a good-faith effort.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Require Construction Fleet to Use Renewable Diesel (Future Phases Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related exhaust emissions by ensuring that all offroad equipment greater than 50 horsepower operates on renewable diesel (such as highperformance renewable diesel). Exemptions can be made for specialized equipment that cannot operate with renewable diesel or if renewable diesel is not commercially available. The contractor must provide documentation to the City showing that specialized equipment cannot use renewable diesel and that a good-faith effort to obtain renewable diesel was conducted.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Require Low-VOC Coatings during Construction (Future Phases Only)
Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related fugitive ROG emissions by ensuring that low-VOC coatings with a VOC content of 10 grams/liter or less are used during construction. The applicant shall submit evidence of the use of low-VOC coatings to BAAQMD prior to the start of construction.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Purchase of Mitigation Credits for Construction Emissions Exceeding BAAQMD’s Daily Pollutant Thresholds (Future Phases Only) Applicants of future Precise Plans other than Phase 1 shall compare their project size with the BAAQMD screening sizes appropriate to their project for construction criteria pollutants, as found in Table 3-1 in BAAQMD’s current CEQA Guidelines (2017). The screening limit for general office buildings, an office park, or a government office building is 277,000 square feet.

The screening limit for general light industrial buildings, including Research and Development uses, is 259,000 square feet. If the project is less than the screening limit for its project type, the applicant shall disclose to the City whether construction-related activities would include any of the following:
⚫ Demolition,
⚫ Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction) or simultaneous occurrence of construction with other Specific Plan development,
⚫ Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type, ⚫ Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the CalEEMod model for grading, cut and fill, or earth movement), or ⚫ Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export), requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity.

If the project is less than the screening limit for the project type and construction would involve none of the five conditions above, then no further action shall be required. Project applicants not excluded by the conditions above shall estimate annual average emissions for each year of City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-44 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
construction and compare the annual average emissions for each year of construction to the BAAQMD thresholds used in the EIR for criteria pollutants. The emissions estimate shall be provided as part of the project’s initial Precise Plan application to the City. The City will review the estimate and confirm whether offsets are required for construction. If the City-confirmed estimate indicates that the proposed development estimate would not result in construction emissions exceeding BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds, no further action shall be required.

For proposed developments that are estimated to result in exceedances of thresholds, prior to start of construction the applicants shall coordinate with a third-party or governmental entity to pay for criteria pollutant offsets for every year in which construction emissions are estimated to exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. If the estimate shows exceedances of multiple criteria pollutants above the BAAQMD thresholds, then offsets must be obtained to reduce each pollutant that is above the threshold to below the threshold. Emission reduction projects and fees will be determined in consultation with the applicant and the third-party (e.g., Bay Area Clean Air Foundation) or governmental entity and include administrative costs for the offset provider (e.g., five percent of the fee amount). The agreement that specifies fees and the timing of payment shall be provided to the City for review and signed by the applicant and the thirdparty or governmental entity. The emission reductions shall be secured prior to any construction activity which is estimated to result in an exceedance for the year. The payment for the emissions can either be on an annual basis or made once upfront prior to construction.

To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction project(s) must result in emission reductions in the SFBAAB that are real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements or any other legal requirement.

During construction, construction contractors shall provide annual construction activity monitoring data to estimate actual construction emissions. Applicants shall submit the annual construction activity monitoring data and an estimate of actual annual criteria pollutant emissions to the City and BAAQMD for review by February 1 of each year for the prior construction year. The annual report shall reconcile paid fees for the prior year relative to actual emissions. If more emissions were generated than fees paid, the applicant shall submit payment to the third-party or governmental entity for the deficient amount. If more fees were paid than emissions generated, the third-party or governmental entity shall either issue the applicant a refund for the surplus or issue a credit that can be applied to future fee payments.

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
Operation of the project has the potential to result in air quality impacts from area, energy, mobile, and stationary sources. Area sources would include landscaping equipment, off-gassing during the reapplication of architectural coatings, and consumer products (e.g., solvents, cleaning supplies, cosmetics, toiletries). Energy sources would include on-site natural gas combustion for space and water heating. Mobile sources would include vehicle trips generated by land uses proposed within City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-45 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
the Specific Plan area. Stationary sources would include the testing of emergency generators. Each of these sources was taken into account in calculating the project’s long-term operational emissions.

The project daily VMT in the TAZ was estimated and then modified to account for 1) the VMT reduction associated with the Southline Avenue expansion (see Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation) and 2) the VMT reduction associated with the City’s TDM Ordinance, under which the project would be required to achieve an alternative mode share of 45 percent. Consistent with the capabilities of CalEEMod, the analysis does not quantify the emissions benefit to area, energy, and mobile sources from the Specific Plan’s sustainability design features (i.e., exterior electrical power infrastructure to support electric landscaping equipment, electric vehicle chargers in parking spaces, buildings with a LEED Silver rating, high-efficiency natural gas appliances, 10 percent better energy performance compared to an ASHRAE 90.1-2010 reference baseline building).

It is noted that stationary source emissions for the project cannot be fully quantified at this time because the number and types of emergency generators under future Precise Plans, other than Phase 1, are not known. Emissions associated with the five generators proposed under Phase 1 are included in the project-level stationary source emissions estimates in Table 4.2-8, p. 4.2-46, because Phase 1 is a component of the project. The total stationary source emissions under full buildout of the project would be expected to be higher than what is shown in Table 4.2-8, p. 4.2-46.

The generator emissions estimate for Phase 1 conservatively assumes the full load testing scenario described in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31.

Table 4.2-8, p. 4.2-46, summarizes daily area-, energy-, mobile-, and stationary-source emissions generated under existing conditions (2018) and 2030 conditions with and without the project under the Office Scenario, which, as described above, would be a worst-case analysis. To evaluate the magnitude of the change in the air quality environment due to implementation of the project, emissions under project buildout in 2030 are compared to 2030 emissions without the project.

As shown in Table 4.2-8, p. 4.2-46, buildout of the project would result in a net increase in criteria pollutants that could contribute to ozone formation and other air pollution in the SFBAAB, which, at certain concentrations, could contribute to short- and long-term human health effects if left unmitigated.

As discussed above, BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds were developed to analyze emissions generated by a single project and, as such, offer an extremely conservative evaluation of emissions from an entire specific plan.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-46 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.2-8. Estimated Average Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions from the Project (pounds/day)
Condition/Source ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Existing (2018)
Area Sources 7 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Energy Sources < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Mobile Sources 157 240 1,226 269 75
Stationary Sourcesa — — — — —
Total Existingb 164 240 1,227 269 75
2030 Without Project
Area Sources 7 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Energy Sources < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Mobile Sources 75 90 677 266 72
Stationary Sourcesa — — — — —
Total 2030 Without Projectb 82 90 677 266 72
2030 With Project
Area Sources 69 < 1 1 < 1 < 1
Energy Sources 2 15 13 1 1
Mobile Sources 176 228 1,549 580 157
Stationary Sourcesc, d 67 309 50 3 3
Total 2030 With Projectb 314 552 1613 584 161
Net Increase with Project
2030 With Project v. 2030 Without
Projectb
232 462 936 318 89
Thresholds 54 54 — 82 54
Source: See Appendix 4.2-1 for operations modeling outputs.

Notes:
a. No stationary sources were identified as part of existing conditions. b. Values may not add up because of rounding.
c. Does not include emissions from generators under future Precise Plans (other than Phase 1), which are unknown at this time. Conservatively assumes the full load testing scenario for Phase 1 shown in Table 4.2-5, p.4.2-31. d. Conservatively assumes the full load testing scenario for Phase 1 shown in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31.

The Specific Plan includes numerous sustainability design features and objectives to reduce operational emissions, including exterior electrical power infrastructure to support electric landscaping equipment, active and shared transportation infrastructure and services, electric vehicle chargers in parking spaces, a TDM Plan to achieve an alternative mode share of 45 percent, infill and transit-oriented development, LEED Silver rating for buildings, high-efficiency natural gas appliances, and 10 percent better energy performance compared to an ASHRAE 90.1-2010 reference baseline building. The emissions benefit of the TDM Plan was quantified for mobile sources in Table

4.2-8, p. 4.2-46, while all other sustainability design features and objectives would result in emissions reductions that could not be quantified. Nonetheless, it is reasonably foreseeable that projects developed under the Specific Plan may still generate emissions in excess of BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds, based on the initial emissions estimates presented in Table 4.2-8, p. 4.2-

46. Accordingly, operational criteria pollutant emissions associated with development under the Specific Plan are conservatively identified as significant.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-47 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Mitigation Measure AQ-7 is required to offset operational criteria pollutant emissions resulting from development under the Specific Plan. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-7, applicants of future Precise Plans proposing development that exceeds BAAQMD screening criteria would determine the estimated total emissions for operational activities and pay mitigation fees for any operational emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s daily pollutant thresholds. Offsetting emissions to a level below BAAQMD’s threshold levels would ensure that future development under the Specific Plan 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 emissions can be reduced to levels below threshold levels, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. 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 are conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable.

While not related to the significance determination of this impact, note that NOx and CO emissions from stationary sources would be more than 10 pounds per day of testing and would therefore be subject to the BACT requirements of BAAQMD under their New Source Review regulation. Annual NOx emissions would be approximately two tons per year, 67 less than the BAAQMD minimum
threshold of 10 tons per year that, if reached, would subject the project to the NOx offset requirements of BAAQMD under the New Source Review regulation.

Health Impacts of Regional Criteria Pollutants (Operation) See discussion in Impact AQ-2a above. All feasible mitigation is being applied to reduce operationperiod ozone precursors and PM to the extent feasible.

Phase 1
The types of operational criteria pollutants emissions for Phase 1 would be similar to those described above for the project. Operational criteria pollutant emissions were evaluated under existing year (2018) and Phase 1 buildout-year (2024) conditions. The estimate of Phase 1 daily VMT in the TAZ accounts for 1) the VMT reduction associated with the Southline Avenue expansion, which would be completed during Phase 1 (see Section 4.15, Transportation and Circulation), and 2) the VMT reduction associated with the City’s TDM Ordinance, under which Phase 1 would be required to achieve an alternative mode share of 45 percent. Consistent with the capabilities of CalEEMod, the analysis does not quantify the emissions benefit to area, energy, and mobile sources from the other sustainability features applicable to Phase 1, such as exterior electrical power infrastructure to support electric landscaping equipment, electric vehicle chargers in parking spaces, buildings with a LEED Silver rating, high-efficiency natural gas appliances, and 10 percent better energy performance compared to an ASHRAE 90.1-2010 reference baseline building.

Table 4.2-9, p. 4.2-48, summarizes daily area-, energy-, mobile-, and stationary-source emissions generated under existing conditions (2018) and 2024 conditions with and without Phase 1.

Stationary source emissions include emissions from the testing of Phase 1’s five generators and are conservatively based on the full load testing scenario of 20 hours per day (which would occur once 67 309 pounds of NOx per 4-hour testing day per generator multiplied by 50 hours of testing per year allowed by BAAQMD divided by 4 hours and converted from pounds to tons.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-48 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
every 36 months, as shown in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31). To evaluate the magnitude of the change in the air quality environment due to implementation of Phase 1, emissions in 2024 under Phase 1 buildout in are compared to emissions in 2024 without Phase 1. As shown in Table 4.2-9, p. 4.2-48, operation of Phase 1 under the full load (20-hour per day) generator testing scenario would result in a net increase of ROG and NOx emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds.

Table 4.2-10, p. 4.2-49, compares daily operational emissions from Phase 1 under the different generator testing scenarios presented in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31, to assist in understanding the role of generator testing in Phase 1’s operational emissions profile. Table 4.2-10, p. 4.2-49, also shows Phase 1 emissions without stationary source emissions; this scenario accounts for the majority of operations days when no generator testing would occur (29 days out of a 30-day month and 1,058 days out of a 1,095-day three-year period).

Table 4.2-9. Estimated Average Daily Unmitigated Operational Emissions from Phase 1 (pounds/day)
Condition/Source ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Existing (2018)
Area Sources 7 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Energy Sources < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Mobile Sources 157 240 1,226 269 75
Stationary Sourcesa — — — — —
Total Existingb 164 240 1,227 269 75
2024 Without Phase 1
Area Sources 7 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Energy Sources < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Mobile Sourcesc 96 114 821 267 72
Stationary Sourcesa — — — — —
Total 2024 without Phase 1b 103 114 821 267 72
2024 With Phase 1
Area Sources 18 < 1 < 1 < 1 < 1
Energy Sources < 1 4 4 < 1 < 1
Mobile Sources 131 161 1,098 345 93
Stationary Sources, d 67 309 50 3 3
Total 2024 with Phase 1b 216 475 1,153 348 97
Net Increase with Phase 1
2024 With Phase 1 v. 2024 Without
Phase 1b
113 360 332 82 25
Threshold 54 54 — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No
Source: See Appendix 4.2-1 for operation modeling outputs.

Notes:
a. No stationary sources were identified as part of existing conditions. b. Values may not add up because of rounding.
c. Mobile source emissions in 2024 are lower than those in 2018 due to forecasted improvements in vehicle engine technologies and emission standards.
d. Conservatively assumes the full load testing scenario for Phase 1 shown in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31.

City of South San Francisco
Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
Air Quality
Southline Specific Plan EIR 4.2-49 September 2021
ICF 0082.20
Table 4.2-10. Unmitigated Operational Average Daily Emissions from Phase 1 – Comparison of Generator Testing Scenarios (pounds/day)
Condition/Source ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
2024 Without Phase 1
Total 2024 Without Phase 1 a 103 114 821 267 72
2024 With Phase 1 – Full Load Testing Scenario (20 hours/day)b Non-Stationary Sources 149 166 1,103 345 94
Stationary Sources 67 309 50 3 3
Total 2024 With Phase 1 (20-hour)a 216 475 1,153 348 97 2024 With Phase 1 v. 2024 Without Phase 1 (20-hour) a 113 360 332 82 25 Threshold 54 54 — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No
2024 With Phase 1 – Normal Testing Scenario (2.5 hours/day)c Non-Stationary Sources 149 166 1,103 345 94
Stationary Sources 8 39 6 < 1 < 1
Total 2024 With Phase 1 (2.5-hour)a 157 205 1,109 345 94 2024 With Phase 1 v. 2024 Without Phase 1 (2.5-hour) a 54 90 288 79 22 Threshold 54 54 — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No Yes No No
2024 With Phase 1 – No Generator Testing
Non-Stationary Sources 149 166 1,103 345 94
Stationary Sources — — — — —
Total 2024 With Phase 1 (0-hour)a 149 166 1,103 345 94
2024 With Phase 1 v. 2024 Without Phase 1 (0-hour) a 46 51 282 79 22 Threshold 54 54 — 82 54
Exceeds Threshold? No No No No
Source: See Appendix 4.2-1 for operations modeling outputs.

Notes:
a. Values may not add up because of rounding.
b. As shown in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31, the full load testing scenario would occur once every three years. c. As shown in Table 4.2-5, p. 4.2-31, the normal testing scenario would occur once a month.

As shown in Table 4.2-10, p. 4.2-49, operation of Phase 1 under the full load (20-hour per day) generator testing scenario would result in a net increase of ROG and NOx emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. Under the normal (2.5-hour per day) generator testing scenario, operation of Phase 1 would result in a net increase of NOx emissions that would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. For days when no generator testing would occur, BAAQMD’s thresholds would not be exceeded. Nonetheless, on the infrequent days when generator testing would occur, operation of Phase 1 would exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds, and operational criteria pollutant emissions would be significant.