HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix 1, NOP and Comments Received on the NOP (1)Appendix 1:
Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments Received
on the NOP
17620.001 4832-0008-6460.2
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF AN EIR AND SCOPING MEETING FOR THE PROPOSED
SOUTHLINE SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED OFFSITE
IMPROVEMENTS
To: Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties
From: City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development Department
Subject: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in Compliance with Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, and 15375 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR; Title 14, Chapter 3 of the CCR is described herein as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines). The City of South San Francisco (City) is the Lead Agency under CEQA for the proposed project identified below. The City will prepare an EIR for the proposed project identified below:
Project Title: Southline Specific Plan. The project location and a summary of the project description are included below and on the following pages.
Current Environmental Review: To ensure that the proposed project is fully analyzed under CEQA, a combined program-level and project-level EIR will be prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. An Initial
Study has not been prepared. The EIR will address all applicable environmental topic areas described in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
As discussed below, the proposed project consists of buildout of the proposed Southline Specific Plan (Specific Plan)
in addition to proposed off-site transportation and circulation improvements, some of which are located within the City of San Bruno (collectively, the proposed project). The EIR will provide a program-level analysis of the potential effects on the environment that could occur from implementation of the proposed project, pursuant to Section 15168 of
the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR will also provide a project-level analysis of the initial development phase of the Specific Plan (Phase 1), which is a component of the proposed project. If certified by the City, the EIR will be used to provide CEQA clearance for adoption of the Specific Plan and entitlement of Phase 1, including certain offsite improvements. The EIR may be relied on by other agencies, including the City of San Bruno as a Responsible Agency pursuant to Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines, for purposes of approving aspects of the proposed project within those agencies’ respective jurisdictions. The proposed project, including Phase 1, is described below.
Agency/Public Comments: The City requests your comments regarding the scope and content of the environmental review to be conducted for the proposed project. Normally, State law requires that your response be received no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of this notice. However, due to current shelter-in-place mandates related to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), the City will accept written comments on this NOP between May 22, 2020 and July 6, 2020, a period of forty-five (45) days. Please send your comments by email to [email protected] or by mail to:
City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development Attn: Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
315 Maple Street South San Francisco, CA 94080
Scoping Meeting: Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and Sections 15206 and 15082 of the CEQA
Guidelines, the Lead Agency also hereby gives notice of a public scoping meeting on this project to receive comments on the scope of the EIR. In accordance with current shelter-in-place mandates related to COVID-19, the Lead Agency will conduct a virtual scoping meeting on Thursday, June 11, 2020, beginning at 4:00 PM, via webinar and telephone
17620.001 4832-0008-6460.2
conference line. During the scoping meeting, agencies, organizations, and the public will have an opportunity to submit comments. The scoping meeting will include a presentation providing an overview of the project and the
CEQA process, followed by a question and answer session for online and phone attendees. Please note that comments are limited to three minutes per speaker.
To access the scoping meeting webinar, please use this link from your computer, tablet or smartphone:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/961008925
You may need to install the Goto Meeting app on your device prior to the meeting:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/install/961008925
You can also dial in to the meeting using your phone:
United States (Toll Free): 1 (866) 899-4679
Access Code: 961-008-925
Please note that there are three ways to comment during the meeting:
1. Send a comment via email to [email protected]. City staff will monitor emails during the meeting and an email comment received during the meeting will be read into the record. Your email should be limited so that
it complies with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. 2. Call the Planning Division Hotline at (650) 829-4669. Voice Messages will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. Your voicemail should be limited so that it complies with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. 3. Submit a comment via the “chat” function in the GoTo meeting app. City staff will monitor the chat, and will read comments and questions into the record.
EIR Process: Following the close of the NOP comment period, a Draft EIR will be prepared that will consider all applicable environmental topic areas in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and take into consideration NOP comments. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(a), the Draft EIR will be released for public review and comment for the required 45-day review period. Following the close of the public review period, the City will
prepare a Final EIR that will include responses to all substantive comments received on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR and Final EIR will be considered by City decisionmakers in making the decision to certify the EIR and to approve or deny the components of the proposed project subject to review and approval by the City. If certified by the City, the
EIR may be relied on by other agencies for purposes of carrying out portions of the proposed project within their respective jurisdictions. The certified EIR may also be relied upon by the City and other agencies in connection with subsequent activities within the Specific Plan to determine the nature and scope of subsequent environmental review,
if any, pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Project Location & Existing Conditions: The project site consists of an approximately 26.5-acre site located on the City’s southern boundary with the City of San Bruno, at the intersection of South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue, approximately 0.1 mile from the San Bruno BART Station (see Figure 1, Project Location) and approximately 0.75 miles from the San Bruno Caltrain Station. The project site encompasses 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.
The majority of the project site (approximately 26.5 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 majority of project site is currently within the Business and Professional Office (BPO) zoning district, and is occupied by a variety of office, industrial, warehouse, and storage facilities. A small, approximately 0.3-acre portion of the project site currently is designated under the General Plan and zoned as Parks and Recreation. A General Plan Amendment is anticipated as part of the Specific Plan process to ensure policy consistency.
17620.001 4832-0008-6460.2
No housing units are present on the project site. Surrounding land uses include predominantly single-family residences to the south of the project site, the San Bruno BART Station and the Shops at Tanforan and San Bruno Towne Center
located west of the project site, all of which are located in the City of San Bruno. Commercial, industrial, and warehouse facilities are located to the north and east of the project site within the City of South San Francisco. The Centennial Way Trail, a multi-use path, runs generally parallel to Maple Avenue to the west of the project site.
Project Description:
Specific Plan. The proposed project includes a new office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of up to 2.8 million square feet. The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site
uses and construct commercial buildings, a four-story supportive amenities building totaling approximately 88,200 square feet, approximately 3,075 underground parking spaces at various locations throughout the project site, a 9-story parking structure with approximately 2,500 spaces, a new east-west connection road (Southline Avenue), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and approximately 369,000 square feet of open space. Commercial building heights would range from four to seven stories subject to a maximum height of 120 feet. 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 project site. A phased development process for buildout of the Specific Plan is anticipated. The EIR will also evaluate an optional reduced development scenario focused on life science and R&D uses that would include buildings ranging in heights up to six-stories and totaling approximately 2.0 million square feet, with a floor area ratio (FAR) of approximately 1.75. The Specific Plan would allow for development of either the office or R&D scenarios, or a hybrid of the two development scenarios combining office/R&D uses, up to the maximum intensity studied in the EIR.
Off-Site Improvements. Off-site improvements associated with the proposed project that will be evaluated in the EIR include the following, located within 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 South Maple Avenue; and signalization of intersections at Southline Avenue and the main Southline campus entry point, and Dollar Avenue and Southline Avenue. The EIR will also evaluate proposed improvements located within
San Bruno, which are subject to separate application, review, and approval requirements: a new intersection reconfiguring Huntington Avenue and connecting it with the new Southline Avenue, and signalization of the intersection at Sneath Lane and Huntington Avenue. Additionally, the EIR will evaluate construction of related improvements within South San Francisco and San Bruno including removal, installation, or relocation of aboveground and/or underground utilities, sidewalks, curbs, and streetscape improvements. Refer to Figure 2, Specific Plan Area Site Plan for a depiction of the proposed site layout and general locations of the proposed off-site
improvements.
Phase 1 Development Program. Phase 1 would include construction of the new Southline Avenue east-west connection road described above and the following development south of the new road: three buildings totaling approximately 613,800 square feet of office space; the four-story supportive amenity building totaling approximately 88,200 square feet; approximately 2,800 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and the eastern portion of the 9-story parking structure; and landscaping and open space amenities. As described below, Phase 1 would require approval of a detailed Precise Plan; future development phases would be approved as subsequent precise plans pursuant to the Specific Plan. Refer to Figure 2, Specific Plan Area Site Plan for a depiction of the
proposed site layout.
Anticipated Entitlements. The anticipated entitlements required by the City of South San Francisco for implementation of the Project would include the following: Southline Specific Plan (to be followed by Precise Plans for individual phases of development); General Plan amendment and zoning map and zoning text amendments to reflect adoption of the Southline Specific Plan; Precise Plan approval for Phase 1 development subject to the terms and policies of the Southline Specific Plan; Conditional Use Permit approval for a parking reduction; Design Review;
Transportation Demand Management program approval; and Tentative Map approval to reconfigure the existing project site parcels. The Applicant also intends to seek City approval of a Development Agreement.
In addition to the approvals by the City of South San Francisco, review and/or approvals or actions by other agencies
or entities may be required, including approvals by the City of San Bruno for offsite improvements located within its jurisdiction.
17620.001 4832-0008-6460.2
Probable Environmental Impacts:
Each of the following CEQA environmental issue areas will be addressed in the EIR: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems, and Wildfire.
Senate Bill (SB) 743, which became effective on January 1, 2014, eliminated the requirement to evaluate impacts related to aesthetics under CEQA for certain urban infill projects located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA),
including employment centers. The proposed project meets the criteria set forth in SB 743; therefore, the EIR will not evaluate impacts related to Aesthetics. There is reasonable potential that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Mineral Resources, or Wildfire. Therefore, these topics will not be evaluated in detail in the EIR. The EIR will provide a discussion indicating the reasons why these topics are not evaluated in detail in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128. The City anticipates that all other topics listed above will be evaluated in detail in the EIR.
In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR will evaluate cumulative impacts of the project, including the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity. Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR will also identify and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, including a No Project Alternative.
Date: May 22, 2020
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Telephone: (650) 877-8535
Email: [email protected]
17620.001 4832-0008-6460.2
Figure 1: Project Location
Project Site
17620.001 4832-0008-6460.2
Figure 2: Specific Plan Area Site Plan
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613
For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Appendix C
SCH#
Project Title: Southline Specilic Plan
Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Contact Person: ..:.A::d::.en:.::a:..:F:..:r.::ie:..:d:..:.m:..:a:..:.n _______ _
Mailing Address: _3_15_M_a_pl_e_S_tre_e_t _________________ _ Phone: (650) 877-8535
City: South San Francisco Zip: 94080 County: San Mateo
--------------------------------------------------------------Project Location: County:_S_a_n_M_a_te_o __________ City/Nearest Community: ..:S::.o:;ul::.:h..:S::a:..:.n.:..F:.:ra::.:n.:.:ci.:.:sc:.:0:__ ________ _
Cross Streets: South Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue Zip Code: _9_40_8_o __ _
Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): E.__0 ~• 28.74" N / ~0 ~• 59.22" W Total Acres: ..:2:..:.6 _______ _
Assessor's Parcel No.: See attached Section: eu,i Buri 11so Twp.: NIA Range: NIA Base: Mt. Diablo
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy#: US 101, 1-280, 1-380, SA-82 Waterways: San Francisco Bay, Colma Creek, San Bruno Canal
Airports: San Francisco International Airport Railways: BART, Caltrain, UPRR Schools: Ponderosa Elementary, St. Veronica's
-------------------------------------------------------------Document Type:
CEQA: [ii NOP
D EarlyCons
D Neg Dec D MitNegDec
0 DraftElR
D Supplement/Subsequent EIR
(Prior SCH No.) _____ _
Other: ----------
NEPA: • NOi Other:
0 EA 0 Draft EIS • FONS!
D Joint Document
D Final Document D Other: ______ _
--------------------------------------------------------------Local Action Type:
D General Plan Update
!i] General Plan Amendment
D General Plan Element
D Community Plan
!i] Specific Plan
D Master Plan
D Planned Unit Development
D Site Plan
[j] Rezone
D Prezone
D Use Permit D Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)
D Annexation
D Redevelopment
D Coastal Permit D Other: ---------------------------------------------------------------------Development Type:
D Residential: Units ---Acres __ _
[i] Office: Sq.ft. 28million
D Commercial:Sq.ft.
Acres __ _ Employees __ _ D Transportation: Type ______________ _
---Acres __ _ Employees __ _ D Mining: Mineral --------------• Industrial: Sq.ft. D Educational: ---
Acres __ _ Employees __ _ • Power: Type _______ MW ____ _
-------------------D Recreational:
D Waste Treatment:Type MGD ____ _
D Hazardous Waste:Type ----------------------------------• Water Facilities:Type -------MGD -----•Other: _________________ _
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
D AestheticNisual D Fiscal !i] Recreation/Parks
D Agricultural Land [i] Flood Plain/Flooding [i] Schools/Universities
[j] Air Quality D Forest Land/Fire Hazard D Septic Systems
[j] Archeological/Historical [i] Geologic/Seismic [i] Sewer Capacity
!i] Biological Resources D Minerals [i] Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading
D Coastal Zone [i] Noise [i] Solid Waste
!i] Drainage/Absorption [i] Population/Housing Balance [i] Toxic/Hazardous
Iii Economic/Jobs [i] Public Services/Facilities [i] Traffic/Circulation
~ Vegetation
~ Water Quality
[i] Water Supply/Groundwater
D Wetland/Riparian
~ Growth Inducement
~ Land Use
~ Cumulative Effects
[ii Other: Energy/GHG
--------------------------------------------------------------Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
Business and Professional Office Space
Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary)
See attached.
Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or
previous draft document) please fill in.
Revised 20 I 0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I i
I
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
~ead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X".
you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".
s
s
X
s
X
s
s
Air Resources Board
Boating & Waterways, Department of
California Emergency Management Agency
California Highway Patrol
Caltrans District # 4
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics
Caltrans Planning
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy
Coastal Commission
Colorado River Board
Conservation, Department of
Corrections, Department of
Delta Protection Commission
Education, Department of
Energy Commission
Fish & Game Region # _3 __
Food & Agriculture, Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of
General Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Housing & Community Development
s Native American Heritage Commission
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date ..:.M:.:.:a~y~2=2:.:.., .=2.:.:02:..:0 ___________ _
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):
Consulting Firm: ..:.IC:::.,:_F ____________ _
Address: 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500
City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA, 94105
Contact: Heidi Mekkelson
Phone: (415) 677-7116
x Office of Historic Preservation
Office of Public School Construction
__ Parks & Recreation, Department of
__ Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Public Utilities Commission
_s __ Regional WQCB #_2 __
__ Resources Agency
_s __ Resources Recycling and Recovery, Department of
_s__ S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm.
San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy
__ San Joaquin River Conservancy
s
s
s
s
X
s
s
Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy
State Lands Commission
SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
SWRCB: Water Quality
SWRCB: Water Rights
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Toxic Substances Control, Department of
Water Resources, Department of
Other: City/County Association of Governments, San Francisco Bay Ferry
Other: Metropolitan Transportation Commission, SamTrans, BART
Ending Date ..:J.:.ul:!.y..:6.:...., 2:..:0:.:2:.:o ______________ _
Applicant: Marcus Gilmour, Lane Partners
Address: 644 Menlo Avenue, 2nd Floor
City/State/Zip: Menlo Park, CA, 94025
Phone: (650) 665-7085
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~::::~~~=~~~=~~:,.:::~:-!iii,;,,~1J,i~l~;----------~~~,5}17ii;-I
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.
I
I
Revised 20 I 0
Assessor’s Parcel No.: 014-250-090, 014-250-080, 014-250-050, 014-241-030, 014-241-040, and 014-232-030
Project Description: The proposed project consists of buildout of the proposed Southline Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The EIR will provide a program-level analysis of the potential effects on the environment that could occur from implementation of the proposed project. The EIR will also provide a project-level analysis of the initial development phase of the Specific Plan (Phase 1), which is a component of the proposed project. The EIR will be used to provide CEQA clearance for adoption of the Specific Plan and entitlement of Phase 1. Following is a brief description of the proposed project, including Phase 1. The proposed project includes a new office/research and development (R&D) campus with a maximum anticipated building area of up to 2.8 million square feet. The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct seven office buildings, an amenities building, underground parking throughout the site, a parking structure, a new east-west connection road, and approximately 369,000 square feet of open space. Building heights would range from four to seven stories. 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 project site. A phased development process with three phases is anticipated. Phase 1 would include construction of the new east-west connection road described above and the following development south of the new road: three buildings totaling approximately 972,700 square feet of office, amenity, and retail space; approximately 2,000 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and a temporary surface lot; and landscaping and open space amenities. Phase 1 would require approval of a detailed Precise Plan; future development phases would be approved as subsequent precise plans.
Your project is published and is available for review. Note: the review ‘start’ and ‘end’ period.
Please use the “navigation” and select “published document” to view your project with attachments
on CEQAnet.
NOTE: Closing Letters to Lead Agency: The State Clearinghouse (SCH) would like to inform you that
our office will transition from providing close of review period acknowledgement on your CEQA
environmental document, at this time. During the phase of not receiving notice on the close of
review period, comments submitted by State Agencies at the close of review period (and after) are
available on CEQAnet.
Please visit: https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/Search/Advanced
Filter for the SCH# of your project OR your “Lead Agency”If filtering by “Lead Agency”Select the correct project
Only State Agency comments will be available in the “attachments” section: boldand highlighted
Thank you for using CEQA Submit.
To view your submission, use the following link.
https://ceqasubmit.opr.ca.gov/Document/Index/261946/2
From: Kenneth Morando <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 1:06 PM
To: Friedman, Adena <[email protected]>
Cc: Bart Howard <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Steve Rossa
<[email protected]>
Subject: Southline Specific Plan- 80 Tanforan Ave
Adeana, I received your Notice of Preparation letter today regarding this future plan, as an owner in
80 Tanforan Ave complex which will be surrounded by this project I have many concerns . This
project will be a big interruption to our businesses , causing traffic delays, dust. dirt, safety issues ,
noise issues and an all-out disruption of our building and the eleven business operating out of this
location. The plan also talks of additional 5500 parking spaces which will turn the area in to a
gridlock of vehicles. The plan does nothing to address the burden this development puts on existing
businesses or the costs which will be incurred by them. I ask that you address these in writing and
show 80 Tanforan Building Association how this can be effectively completed with little disruption
and who will be liable for all the costs from the effects of it. Thank you
Kenneth J. Morando CEO / Owner
80 Tanforan Ave. #7
South San Francisco, CA 94080
p (650) 583-8222
f (650) 583-4761
c (650)-333-0041
[email protected]
www.innovativemech.com
Please follow us on and on
P please consider the environment before printing
1
Subject:RE: Southline Specific Plan Project NOP
From: PGE Plan Review <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2020 1:28 PM
To: Friedman, Adena <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Southline Specific Plan Project NOP
Dear Adena Friedman,
Thank you for submitting the Southline Specific Plans. The PG&E Plan Review Team is currently reviewing
the information provided. Should we find the possibility this project may interfere with our facilities, we will respond to you with project specific comments on or prior to the provided deadline. Attached is general information regarding PG&E facilities for your reference. If you do not hear from us, within 45 days, you can assume we have no comments at this time.
This email and attachment does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any purpose not previously conveyed. If there are subsequent modifications made to your design, we ask that you resubmit the plans to the email address listed below.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact the PG&E Plan Review Team at (877) 259-
8314 or [email protected].
Thank you,
Plan Review Team
6111 Bollinger Canyon Rd., 3rd Floor Mail Code BR1Y3A San Ramon, CA 94583 [email protected]
**This is a notification email only. Please do not reply to this message.
From: Friedman, Adena <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2020 2:46 PM
To: Friedman, Adena <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Southline Specific Plan Project NOP
*****CAUTION: This email was sent from an EXTERNAL source. Think before clicking links or opening
attachments.*****
Good afternoon,
Attached is the Notice of Preparation for an EIR and Notice of Scoping Meeting for the Southline Specific Plan in South San Francisco. Thank you,
Adena
2
Adena Friedman | Senior Planner City of South San Francisco | Economic & Community Development Department PO Box 711 | South San Francisco, CA 94083-0711
Main (650) 877-8535 | [email protected]
Plan Review Team Land Management
[email protected] 6111 Bollinger Canyon Road 3370A San Ramon, CA 94583
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 1
June 2, 2020
Adena Friedman
City of South San Francisco PO Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083 Ref: Gas and Electric Transmission and Distribution
Dear Adena Friedman,
Thank you for submitting the Southline Specific Plans for our review. PG&E will review the submitted plans in relationship to any existing Gas and Electric facilities within the project area.
If the proposed project is adjacent/or within PG&E owned property and/or easements, we will be
working with you to ensure compatible uses and activities near our facilities.
Attached you will find information and requirements as it relates to Gas facilities (Attachment 1)
and Electric facilities (Attachment 2). Please review these in detail, as it is critical to ensure your safety and to protect PG&E’s facilities and its existing rights.
Below is additional information for your review:
1. This plan review process does not replace the application process for PG&E gas or electric service your project may require. For these requests, please continue to work with PG&E Service Planning: https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/services/building-
and-renovation/overview/overview.page.
2. If the project being submitted is part of a larger project, please include the entire scope
of your project, and not just a portion of it. PG&E’s facilities are to be incorporated within any CEQA document. PG&E needs to verify that the CEQA document will identify any required future PG&E services.
3. An engineering deposit may be required to review plans for a project depending on the
size, scope, and location of the project and as it relates to any rearrangement or new
installation of PG&E facilities.
Any proposed uses within the PG&E fee strip and/or easement, may include a California Public
Utility Commission (CPUC) Section 851 filing. This requires the CPUC to render approval for a conveyance of rights for specific uses on PG&E’s fee strip or easement. PG&E will advise if the
necessity to incorporate a CPUC Section 851filing is required. This letter does not constitute PG&E’s consent to use any portion of its easement for any
purpose not previously conveyed. PG&E will provide a project specific response as required.
Sincerely,
Plan Review Team
Land Management
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
Attachment 1 – Gas Facilities
There could be gas transmission pipelines in this area which would be considered critical facilities for PG&E and a high priority subsurface installation under California law. Care must be
taken to ensure safety and accessibility. So, please ensure that if PG&E approves work near
gas transmission pipelines it is done in adherence with the below stipulations. Additionally, the following link provides additional information regarding legal requirements under California
excavation laws: https://www.usanorth811.org/images/pdfs/CA-LAW-2018.pdf
1. Standby Inspection: A PG&E Gas Transmission Standby Inspector must be present
during any demolition or construction activity that comes within 10 feet of the gas pipeline. This includes all grading, trenching, substructure depth verifications (potholes), asphalt or concrete
demolition/removal, removal of trees, signs, light poles, etc. This inspection can be coordinated
through the Underground Service Alert (USA) service at 811. A minimum notice of 48 hours is required. Ensure the USA markings and notifications are maintained throughout the duration of
your work. 2. Access: At any time, PG&E may need to access, excavate, and perform work on the gas
pipeline. Any construction equipment, materials, or spoils may need to be removed upon notice. Any temporary construction fencing installed within PG&E’s easement would also need to be capable of being removed at any time upon notice. Any plans to cut temporary slopes
exceeding a 1:4 grade within 10 feet of a gas transmission pipeline need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
3. Wheel Loads: To prevent damage to the buried gas pipeline, there are weight limits that must be enforced whenever any equipment gets within 10 feet of traversing the pipe.
Ensure a list of the axle weights of all equipment being used is available for PG&E’s Standby Inspector. To confirm the depth of cover, the pipeline may need to be potholed by hand in a few
areas.
Due to the complex variability of tracked equipment, vibratory compaction equipment, and
cranes, PG&E must evaluate those items on a case-by-case basis prior to use over the gas pipeline (provide a list of any proposed equipment of this type noting model numbers and specific attachments).
No equipment may be set up over the gas pipeline while operating. Ensure crane outriggers are
at least 10 feet from the centerline of the gas pipeline. Transport trucks must not be parked over
the gas pipeline while being loaded or unloaded.
4. Grading: PG&E requires a minimum of 36 inches of cover over gas pipelines (or existing
grade if less) and a maximum of 7 feet of cover at all locations. The graded surface cannot exceed a cross slope of 1:4.
5. Excavating: Any digging within 2 feet of a gas pipeline must be dug by hand. Note that while the minimum clearance is only 12 inches, any excavation work within 24 inches of the
edge of a pipeline must be done with hand tools. So to avoid having to dig a trench entirely with hand tools, the edge of the trench must be over 24 inches away. (Doing the math for a 24 inch
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 3
wide trench being dug along a 36 inch pipeline, the centerline of the trench would need to be at least 54 inches [24/2 + 24 + 36/2 = 54] away, or be entirely dug by hand.)
Water jetting to assist vacuum excavating must be limited to 1000 psig and directed at a 40°
angle to the pipe. All pile driving must be kept a minimum of 3 feet away.
Any plans to expose and support a PG&E gas transmission pipeline across an open excavation
need to be approved by PG&E Pipeline Services in writing PRIOR to performing the work.
6. Boring/Trenchless Installations: PG&E Pipeline Services must review and approve all
plans to bore across or parallel to (within 10 feet) a gas transmission pipeline. There are
stringent criteria to pothole the gas transmission facility at regular intervals for all parallel bore installations.
For bore paths that cross gas transmission pipelines perpendicularly, the pipeline must be potholed a minimum of 2 feet in the horizontal direction of the bore path and a minimum of 12
inches in the vertical direction from the bottom of the pipe with minimum clearances measured from the edge of the pipe in both directions. Standby personnel must watch the locator trace (and every ream pass) the path of the bore as it approaches the pipeline and visually monitor
the pothole (with the exposed transmission pipe) as the bore traverses the pipeline to ensure adequate clearance with the pipeline. The pothole width must account for the inaccuracy of the
locating equipment.
7. Substructures: All utility crossings of a gas pipeline should be made as close to
perpendicular as feasible (90° +/- 15°). All utility lines crossing the gas pipeline must have a
minimum of 12 inches of separation from the gas pipeline. Parallel utilities, pole bases, water line ‘kicker blocks’, storm drain inlets, water meters, valves, back pressure devices or other
utility substructures are not allowed in the PG&E gas pipeline easement.
If previously retired PG&E facilities are in conflict with proposed substructures, PG&E must
verify they are safe prior to removal. This includes verification testing of the contents of the
facilities, as well as environmental testing of the coating and internal surfaces. Timelines for PG&E completion of this verification will vary depending on the type and location of facilities in
conflict. 8. Structures: No structures are to be built within the PG&E gas pipeline easement. This
includes buildings, retaining walls, fences, decks, patios, carports, septic tanks, storage sheds, tanks, loading ramps, or any structure that could limit PG&E’s ability to access its facilities.
9. Fencing: Permanent fencing is not allowed within PG&E easements except for perpendicular crossings which must include a 16 foot wide gate for vehicular access. Gates will
be secured with PG&E corporation locks.
10. Landscaping: Landscaping must be designed to allow PG&E to access the pipeline for
maintenance and not interfere with pipeline coatings or other cathodic protection systems. No
trees, shrubs, brush, vines, and other vegetation may be planted within the easement area. Only those plants, ground covers, grasses, flowers, and low-growing plants that grow
unsupported to a maximum of four feet (4’) in height at maturity may be planted within the easement area.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 4
11. Cathodic Protection: PG&E pipelines are protected from corrosion with an “Impressed Current” cathodic protection system. Any proposed facilities, such as metal conduit, pipes,
service lines, ground rods, anodes, wires, etc. that might affect the pipeline cathodic protection system must be reviewed and approved by PG&E Corrosion Engineering.
12. Pipeline Marker Signs: PG&E needs to maintain pipeline marker signs for gas transmission pipelines in order to ensure public awareness of the presence of the pipelines.
With prior written approval from PG&E Pipeline Services, an existing PG&E pipeline marker sign
that is in direct conflict with proposed developments may be temporarily relocated to accommodate construction work. The pipeline marker must be moved back once construction is
complete.
13. PG&E is also the provider of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within
the state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and
approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs which may endanger the safe operation of its facilities.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 5
Attachment 2 – Electric Facilities
It is PG&E’s policy to permit certain uses on a case by case basis within its electric
transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) provided such uses and manner in which they are exercised, will not interfere with PG&E’s rights or endanger its facilities. Some
examples/restrictions are as follows:
1. Buildings and Other Structures: No buildings or other structures including the foot print and
eave of any buildings, swimming pools, wells or similar structures will be permitted within fee
strip(s) and/or easement(s) areas. PG&E’s transmission easement shall be designated on subdivision/parcel maps as “RESTRICTED USE AREA – NO BUILDING.”
2. Grading: Cuts, trenches or excavations may not be made within 25 feet of our towers. Developers must submit grading plans and site development plans (including geotechnical
reports if applicable), signed and dated, for PG&E’s review. PG&E engineers must review grade changes in the vicinity of our towers. No fills will be allowed which would impair ground-to-conductor clearances. Towers shall not be left on mounds without adequate road access to
base of tower or structure.
3. Fences: Walls, fences, and other structures must be installed at locations that do not affect
the safe operation of PG&’s facilities. Heavy equipment access to our facilities must be maintained at all times. Metal fences are to be grounded to PG&E specifications. No wall, fence
or other like structure is to be installed within 10 feet of tower footings and unrestricted access
must be maintained from a tower structure to the nearest street. Walls, fences and other structures proposed along or within the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) will require PG&E
review; submit plans to PG&E Centralized Review Team for review and comment.
4. Landscaping: Vegetation may be allowed; subject to review of plans. On overhead electric
transmission fee strip(s) and/or easement(s), trees and shrubs are limited to those varieties that
do not exceed 15 feet in height at maturity. PG&E must have access to its facilities at all times, including access by heavy equipment. No planting is to occur within the footprint of the tower
legs. Greenbelts are encouraged. 5. Reservoirs, Sumps, Drainage Basins, and Ponds: Prohibited within PG&E’s fee strip(s)
and/or easement(s) for electric transmission lines.
6. Automobile Parking: Short term parking of movable passenger vehicles and light trucks
(pickups, vans, etc.) is allowed. The lighting within these parking areas will need to be reviewed by PG&E; approval will be on a case by case basis. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities
is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by at least 10 feet.
Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications. Blocked-up vehicles are not allowed. Carports, canopies, or awnings
are not allowed.
7. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Corrosive Materials: There shall be no storage of fuel or
combustibles and no fueling of vehicles within PG&E’s easement. No trash bins or incinerators are allowed.
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 6
8. Streets and Roads: Access to facilities must be maintained at all times. Street lights may be allowed in the fee strip(s) and/or easement(s) but in all cases must be reviewed by PG&E for
proper clearance. Roads and utilities should cross the transmission easement as nearly at right angles as possible. Road intersections will not be allowed within the transmission easement.
9. Pipelines: Pipelines may be allowed provided crossings are held to a minimum and to be as nearly perpendicular as possible. Pipelines within 25 feet of PG&E structures require review by
PG&E. Sprinklers systems may be allowed; subject to review. Leach fields and septic tanks are
not allowed. Construction plans must be submitted to PG&E for review and approval prior to the commencement of any construction.
10. Signs: Signs are not allowed except in rare cases subject to individual review by PG&E.
11. Recreation Areas: Playgrounds, parks, tennis courts, basketball courts, barbecue and light
trucks (pickups, vans, etc.) may be allowed; subject to review of plans. Heavy equipment access to PG&E facilities is to be maintained at all times. Parking is to clear PG&E structures by
at least 10 feet. Protection of PG&E facilities from vehicular traffic is to be provided at developer’s expense AND to PG&E specifications.
12. Construction Activity: Since construction activity will take place near PG&E’s overhead electric lines, please be advised it is the contractor’s responsibility to be aware of, and observe
the minimum clearances for both workers and equipment operating near high voltage electric
lines set out in the High-Voltage Electrical Safety Orders of the California Division of Industrial
Safety (https://www.dir.ca.gov/Title8/sb5g2.html), as well as any other safety regulations.
Contractors shall comply with California Public Utilities Commission General Order 95
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/gos/GO95/go_95_startup_page.html) and all other safety rules. No
construction may occur within 25 feet of PG&E’s towers. All excavation activities may only commence after 811 protocols has been followed.
Contractor shall ensure the protection of PG&E’s towers and poles from vehicular damage by (installing protective barriers) Plans for protection barriers must be approved by PG&E prior to
construction.
13. PG&E is also the owner of distribution facilities throughout many of the areas within the
state of California. Therefore, any plans that impact PG&E’s facilities must be reviewed and approved by PG&E to ensure that no impact occurs that may endanger the safe and reliable operation of its facilities.
1
Subject:RE: Questions about Southline project
-----Original Message-----
From: Mehra, Sailesh <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2020 4:29 PM
To: Victor Santellan <[email protected]>
Cc: Friedman, Adena <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Questions about Southline project
No problem. I’ll read this additional comment into the record.
> On Jun 11, 2020, at 4:27 PM, Victor Santellan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I forgot to add one question
>
> With taller buildings being put up. How is the privacy to the homes going to be addressed. Such as being able to see
into the homes , front yard and backyard of the homes from the new buildings.
>
>> On Jun 11, 2020, at 4:21 PM, Mehra, Sailesh <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you for your comment, Mr. Santellan; we will read it into the record.
>>
>>>> On Jun 11, 2020, at 4:17 PM, Victor Santellan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi my name is Victor as resident near the southline project.
>>>
>>> 1. With a lot of homes around the southline project once the construction starts and the ground starts to be
disturbed what is the plan about the rodents and other animals migrating to the surrounding homes for shelter ?
>>> 2. A lot of buildings are going to go up in front of residential areas is there going to be a shade analysis regarding
the impact residents will have by losing their sunlight due to bigger buildings being erected.
>>> 3. will there be a parking and vehicle trip analysis such as cars queuing to enter area, back ups it may cause, and
debris construction vehicles can leave on the road while transporting materials.
>>> 4. What is the plan to limit the noise of construction? What time of day will the construction company be working ?
Will they be doing night work ?
>>> 5. What is the plan to contain dust? How are hazardous materials going to be stored/ used around the residents.
>>> 6. Is there going to be land monitoring for the surrounding residential homes ? Such as vibration that can damage
the homes due to land movement?
>> <https://cmo.smcgov.org/census-2020-san-mateo-county/>
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director
Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
June 18, 2020
Ms. Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco, Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
[email protected]
Subject: Southline Specific Plan, Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report, SCH #2020050452, City of South San Francisco,
San Mateo County
Dear Ms. Friedman:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) prepared by the City of South San Francisco for the Southline
Specific Plan (Project) located in the County of San Mateo. CDFW is submitting
comments on the NOP regarding potentially significant impacts to biological resources
associated with the Project.
CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and
wildlife resources (e.g., biological resources). CDFW is also considered a Responsible
Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under
the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Native Plant Protection Act, the
Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, and other provisions of the Fish and
Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located at an approximately 26.5-acre site located on South San
Francisco’s southern boundary with the City of San Bruno, at the intersection of South
Maple Avenue and Tanforan Avenue, approximately 0.1 mile from the San Bruno BART
Station and approximately 0.75 miles from the San Bruno Caltrain Station. The Project
site includes 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: D6398EA4-1C3C-4D6B-82F8-93CFD8CDCB8F
Ms. Adena Friedman
City of South San Francisco
June 18, 2020
Page 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
The Project involves constructing a new office/research development campus with
maximum building area of up to 2.8 million square feet. The Project involves
demolishing all existing on-site buildings and constructing the following: seven office
buildings, an amenities building totaling 88,200 square feet, underground parking, a
nine-story parking structure, a connection road, supporting utilities, and approximately
369,000 square feet of open space. Building height will reach a maximum of 120 feet.
Off-site improvements will involve the following: reconfiguration of South Linden Avenue
and Dollar Avenue intersection as well as the existing at-grade rail crossing at South
Linden Avenue, roadway widening of South Maple Avenue, and the signalization of
multiple intersections within the Project boundary.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The special-status species that have the potential to occur in or near the Project area,
include, but are not limited to:
hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus)
Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula); Species of Special
Concern
common birds
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations to assist the City of South
San Francisco in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or
potentially significant, direct, and indirect impacts on biological resources.
COMMENT 1: Full Project Description of Project Features
The CEQA Guidelines (§§15124 and 15378) require that the draft EIR incorporate a
full Project description, including reasonably foreseeable future phases of the
Project, and require that it contain sufficient information to evaluate and review the
Project’s environmental impact.
To fully address the Project’s impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Please include
complete descriptions of the following features within the draft EIR, if applicable:
Detailed description of all vegetation that will be removed, including the DBH and
species of all trees that will be removed.
Introduction of sources of light and glare into habitat areas;
Stormwater or effluent drainage outlet systems; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: D6398EA4-1C3C-4D6B-82F8-93CFD8CDCB8F
Ms. Adena Friedman
City of South San Francisco
June 18, 2020
Page 3
Detailed description of all proposed work (e.g., crossing improvements, repairs,
etc.) at and within stream crossings (if applicable).
COMMENT 2: Nesting Birds
If there will be impacts and/or disturbances to vegetation on-site, CDFW encourages
Project implementation outside of the bird nesting season, which extends from
February through early September. However, if ground-disturbing or vegetation-
disturbing activities must occur during the nesting season, the Project applicant is
responsible for ensuring that implementation of the Project does not result in
violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or Fish and Game Code.
To evaluate and avoid for potential impacts to nesting bird species, CDFW
recommends incorporating the following mitigation measures into the draft EIR, and
that these measures be made conditions of approval for the Project.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 1: Nesting Bird Surveys
CDFW recommends that a qualified avian biologist conduct pre-activity surveys for
active nests no more than seven (7) days prior to the start of ground or vegetation
disturbance and every fourteen (14) days during Project activities to maximize the
probability that nests that could potentially be impacted are detected. CDFW also
recommends that surveys cover a sufficient area around the Project site to identify
nests and determine their status. A sufficient area means any area potentially
affected by the Project. Prior to initiation of ground or vegetation disturbance, CDFW
recommends that a qualified biologist conduct a survey to establish a behavioral
baseline of all identified nests. Once Project activities begins, CDFW recommends
having the qualified biologist continuously monitor nests to detect behavioral
changes resulting from the Project. If behavioral changes occur, CDFW
recommends halting the work causing that change and consulting with CDFW for
additional avoidance and minimization measures.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 2: Nesting Bird Buffers
If continuous monitoring of identified nests by a qualified avian biologist is not
feasible, CDFW recommends a minimum no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet around
active nests of non-listed bird species and a 500-foot no-disturbance buffer around
active nests of non-listed raptors. These buffers are advised to remain in place until
the breeding season has ended or until a qualified biologist has determined that the
birds have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or on-site parental care
for survival. Variance from these no-disturbance buffers is possible when there is
compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as when the Project site
DocuSign Envelope ID: D6398EA4-1C3C-4D6B-82F8-93CFD8CDCB8F
Ms. Adena Friedman
City of South San Francisco
June 18, 2020
Page 4
would be concealed from a nest site by topography. CDFW recommends that a
qualified avian biologist advise and support any variance from these buffers.
Comment 3: Roosting Bats
Hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus) are known to potentially occur within and surrounding
the Project site. To evaluate and avoid potential impacts to bat species, CDFW
recommends incorporating the following mitigation measures into the Project’s draft
EIR and requiring these measures as conditions of approval for the Project.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 3: Bat Habitat Assessment
To evaluate Project impacts to bats, a qualified bat biologist should conduct a habitat
assessment for bats at work sites seven (7) days prior to the start of Project
activities and every 14 days during Project activities. The habitat assessment shall
include a visual inspection of features within 50 feet of the work area for potential
roosting features (bats need not be present). Habitat features found during the
survey shall be flagged or marked.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 4: Bat Habitat Monitoring
If any habitat features identified in the habitat assessment will be altered or disturbed
by Project activities, the qualified bat biologist should monitor the feature daily to
ensure bats are not disturb, impacted, or fatalities are caused by the Project.
Recommended Mitigation Measure 5: Bat Project Avoidance
If bat colonies are observed at the Project site, at any time, all Project activities
should stop until the qualified bat biologist develops a bat avoidance plan to be
implement at the Project site. Once the plan is implemented, Project activities may
recommence.
Lake and Streambed Alteration Program
Notification is required, pursuant to CDFW’s LSA Program (Fish and Game Code
section 1600 et. seq.) for any Project-related activities that will substantially divert or
obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank
including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material
where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes,
watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are subject to notification
requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA
document for the Project. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has
DocuSign Envelope ID: D6398EA4-1C3C-4D6B-82F8-93CFD8CDCB8F
Ms. Adena Friedman
City of South San Francisco
June 18, 2020
Page 5
complied with CEQA (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.) as the responsible
agency.
FILING FEES
CDFW anticipates that the Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and
assessment of filing fees is necessary (Fish and Game Code, Section 711.4; Pub.
Resources Code, section 21089). Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of
Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental
review by CDFW.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Project’s NOP. If you have any questions
regarding this letter or for further coordination with CDFW, please contact Ms. Mia Bianchi,
Environmental Scientist, at (707) 210-4531 or [email protected]; or
Ms. Randi Adair, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 576-2786 or
[email protected].
Sincerely,
Gregg Erickson
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
cc: State Clearinghouse # 2020050452
DocuSign Envelope ID: D6398EA4-1C3C-4D6B-82F8-93CFD8CDCB8F
Brandon Liddell
SENIOR LAND PLANNER LAND & ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
245 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
MAILING ADDRESS: MAIL CODE N10A PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177
June 23, 2020
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
RE: Southline Specific Plan: Comments on Notice of Preparation
Dear Ms. Friedman,
After reviewing the associated maps from the Notice of Preparation, we noticed our
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) 230-kV electric transmission line (line) is
located within the east side of the development. If the project proponent plans to relocate
or modify access to this line, PG&E request these plans to be included in the
Environmental Impact Report project description and analyzed under the California
Environmental Quality Act review.
Please contact me at 415-973-4893 or send me an email via [email protected] if you need
further information.
Sincerely,
Brandon Liddell, PG&E
Senior Land Planner
Cc : Jonathan Lockhart, PG&E
375 BEALE STREET, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO CA • 94105 • 415.771.6000 • www.baaqmd.gov
July 6, 2020
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Economic and Community Development
315 Maple St.
South San Francisco, CA 94080
RE: Southline Specific Plan – Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report
Dear Ms. Friedman,
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) staff has reviewed the Notice
of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Southline
Specific Plan (Plan). The DEIR will provide a plan-level analysis of the potential
effects on the environment that could occur from implementation of the proposed
Plan. The DEIR will also provide a project-level analysis of an initial development
phase (Project), which is a component of the proposed Plan.
The proposed Plan includes a new office/research and development (R&D) campus
with a maximum anticipated building area of up to 2.8 million square feet. The
proposed Plan would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct seven office
buildings, an amenities building, approximately 3,075 underground parking spaces
throughout the site, a 9-story parking structure with approximately 2,000 parking
spaces, a new east-west connection road, and approximately 369,000 square feet
of open space. Building heights would range from four to seven stories.
The proposed Project would include construction of the new connection road, three
buildings totaling approximately 613,800 square feet of office space, four-story
supportive amenity building totaling approximately 88,200 square feet,
approximately 2,800 parking spaces in a combination of below-grade parking and
the eastern portion of the 9-story parking structure, and landscaping and open
space amenities.
f
ALAMEDA COUNTY John J. Bauters Pauline Russo Cutter Scott Haggerty Nate Miley CONTRA COSTA COUNTY John Gioia David Hudson Karen Mitchoff (Secretary) Mark Ross MARIN COUNTY Katie Rice NAPA COUNTY Brad Wagenknecht SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY VACANT Shamann Walton Tyrone Jue (SF Mayor’s Appointee) SAN MATEO COUNTY David J. Canepa Carole Groom Davina Hurt SANTA CLARA COUNTY Margaret Abe-Koga Cindy Chavez (Vice Chair) Liz Kniss Rod G. Sinks (Chair) SOLANO COUNTY James Spering Lori Wilson SONOMA COUNTY Teresa Barrett Shirlee Zane Jack P. Broadbent EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO
Friedman July 6, 2020 Page 2
Air District staff recommends the DEIR include the following information and analysis:
• Provide a detailed analysis of the Plan/Project’s potential effects on local and regional air
quality. The DEIR should include a discussion of the Air District’s attainment status for all
criteria pollutants and the implications for the region if these standards are not attained or
maintained by statutory deadlines. The Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which
provide guidance on how to evaluate a Plan’s construction, operational, and cumulative air
quality impacts, can be found on the Air District’s website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-
and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/updated-ceqa-guidelines.
• The GHG impact analysis should include an evaluation of the Plan/Project’s consistency
with the most recent edition of the California Air Resources Board’s AB 32 Scoping Plan
and with the State’s 2030 and 2050 climate goals outlined in SB 32, as well as the State’s
Carbon Neutrality by 2045 goals, SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018, and
Executive Order B-55-18. The Air District’s current recommended GHG thresholds in our
CEQA Guidelines are based on the State’s 2020 GHG targets, which are now superseded by
the 2030 GHG targets established in SB 32. The DEIR should demonstrate how the Plan will
be consistent with the Scoping Plan, SB 32, SB 100 and Executive Order B-55-18.
• Evaluate the Plan/Project’s consistency with the Air District’s 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017
CAP). The DEIR should discuss 2017 CAP measures relevant to the Plan and show the
Plan/Project’s consistency with the measures. The 2017 CAP can be found on the Air
District’s website: https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/air-quality-plans/current-
plans.
• Estimate and evaluate the potential health risk to sensitive populations within and near
the Project area from toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as
a result of the Project’s construction and operations. Air District staff recommends that the
DEIR evaluate potential cumulative health risk impacts of TAC and PM2.5 emissions on
sensitive receptors within and near the Project area.
• The DEIR should identify and evaluate all Plan-level and Project-level design features and
mitigation measures that reduce criteria pollutants, TACs, and GHGs to lessen potential
impacts. Chapter 9, Section 6, of the Air District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides
recommended mitigation measures and policies for general plans. Examples of potential
emission reduction measures that should be evaluated and considered include, but are not
limited to:
Prohibit or minimize the use of diesel fuel, consistent with the Air District’s Diesel Free By
’33 initiative (http://dieselfree33.baaqmd.gov/),
Require construction vehicles to operate with Tier 4 or the highest tier engines
commercially available,
Friedman July 6, 2020 Page 3
Based on the proximity to BART and Caltrain, implement a program that incentivizes
construction workers and building tenants to use public transit to commute to and from
the site. The program may include the following features, as feasible:
a. Schedule work shifts to be compatible with the schedules of local transit services;
b. Install bicycle racks and lockers;
c. Provide comprehensive and safe bicycle and pedestrian routes within the Plan area
and connecting the Plan are to nearby land uses, especially BART and Caltrain stations;
d. Work with businesses to encourage employee transit subsidies or other transit
benefits.
The NOP indicates that the Plan may include over 5,000 parking spaces. Abundant
parking encourages auto use. Implement parking strategies to discourage solo occupancy
vehicle travel, such as parking cash-out, reduced parking requirements, shared parking,
paid parking, and related strategies,
Install electric vehicle charging infrastructure and provide preferential parking to EVs,
carpool vehicles and vanpool vehicles,
Install outdoor electrical receptacles for charging or powering of electric landscape
equipment,
Implementing green infrastructure and fossil fuel alternatives in the development and
operation of the Project, such as solar photovoltaic (PV) panels, renewable diesel, electric
heat pump water heaters, and solar PV back-up generators with battery storage capacity,
Eliminate the use of natural gas, a high global warming potential greenhouse gas, and
Implementing a zero-waste program consistent with SB 1383 organic waste disposal
reduction targets including the recovery of edible food for human consumption.
• Plan build-out could result in nearly three million square feet of office and R&D space, with
no additional housing. Such large-scale commercial development with no corresponding
housing will exacerbate the current severe shortage of housing for Bay Area workers. This
jobs/housing imbalance results in long-distance commutes and increased auto use and
emissions, among other impacts. The DEIR should discuss the Plan’s impact on housing
demand and associated auto use and emissions.
• Certain aspects of the Project may require a permit from the Air District (for example, back-
up diesel generators). Please contact Barry Young, Senior Advanced Projects Advisor, at (415)
749-4721 or [email protected] to discuss permit requirements. Any applicable permit
requirements should be discussed in the DEIR.
Friedman July 6, 2020 Page 4
• The Air District’s CEQA website contains several tools and resources to assist lead agencies
in analyzing air quality and GHG impacts. These tools include guidance on quantifying local
emissions and exposure impacts. The tools can be found on the Air District’s website:
https://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-
ceqa/ceqa-tools. If the Plan/Project requires a site-specific analysis, please contact Air District
staff to obtain more recent data.
We encourage the City staff to contact Air District staff with any questions and/or to request
assistance during the environmental review process. If you have any questions regarding these
comments, please contact Areana Flores, Environmental Planner, at (415) 610-1684 or
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Greg Nudd
Deputy Air Pollution Control Officer
Cc: BAAQMD Director David J. Canepa
BAAQMD Director Carole Groom
BAAQMD Director Davina Hurt
STATE OF CALIFORNIA------- CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY Gavin Newsom, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS-10D
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510) 286-5528
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
July 6, 2020
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community
Development
315 Maple Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
SCH #202004052
GTS #04-SM-2020-00320
GTS ID: 19555
Co/Rt/Pm: SM/82/19.253
Southline Specific Plan- Notice of Preparation (NOP)
Dear Adena Friedman:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in
the environmental review process for the Southline Specific Plan. We are
committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation
system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a
safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following
comments are based on our review of the May 2020 NOP.
Project Understanding
The proposed project includes a new office/research and development (R&D)
campus with a maximum anticipated building area of up to 2.8 million square
feet. The proposed project would demolish all existing on-site uses and construct
commercial buildings, a four-story supportive amenities building totaling
approximately 88,200 square feet, approximately 3,075 underground parking
spaces at various locations throughout the project site, a 9-story parking
structure with approximately 2,500 spaces, a new east-west connection road
(Southline Avenue), supportive utilities and related infrastructure, and
approximately 369,000 square feet of open space. The Specific Plan would allow
for development of either the office or R&D scenarios, or a hybrid of the two
development scenarios combining office/R&D uses, up to the maximum
intensity studied in the EIR. The project site is approximately less than a mile from
Adena Friedmann, Senior Planner
July 6, 2020
Page 2
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
the I-380 and U.S.-101.
Travel Demand Analysis
Please note that a travel demand analysis that provides a Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) analysis will be required as part of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) process. With the enactment of Senate Bill (SB) 743, Caltrans is focusing
on transportation infrastructure that supports smart growth and efficient
development to ensure alignment with State policies using efficient
development patterns, innovative travel demand reduction strategies,
multimodal improvements, and VMT as the primary transportation impact
metric. The travel demand analysis should include:
● A vicinity map, regional location map, and site plan clearly showing
project access in relation to the State Transportation Network (STN). Ingress
and egress for all project components should be clearly identified. Project
driveways, local roads and intersections, car/bike parking, and transit
facilities should be mapped.
● A VMT analysis pursuant to the City’s guidelines or, if the City has no
guidelines, the Office of Planning and Research’s Guidelines. Projects that
result in automobile VMT per capita above the threshold of significance
for existing (i.e. baseline) city-wide or regional values for similar land use
types may indicate a significant impact. If necessary, mitigation for
increasing VMT should be identified. Mitigation should support the use of
transit and active transportation modes. Potential mitigation measures
that include the requirements of other agencies such as Caltrans are fully
enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally-
binding instruments under the control of the City.
● A schematic illustration of walking, biking and auto conditions at the
project site and study area roadways. Potential safety issues for all road
users should be identified and fully mitigated.
● The project’s primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicycles,
travelers with disabilities and transit performance should be evaluated,
including countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT
increases. Access to pedestrians, bicycle, and transit facilities must be
maintained.
With respect to the local and regional roadway system, provide project related
trip generation, distribution, turning movements, and assignment estimates. The
project-generated trips should be added to the existing, future and cumulative
scenario traffic volumes for the intersections affected by the project. In
conducting these evaluations, it is necessary to use demand volumes rather
Adena Friedmann, Senior Planner
July 6, 2020
Page 3
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
than output volumes or constrained flow volume.
Intersections and ramps:
● El Camino Real (SR-82) and Sneath Lane intersection
● El Camino Real (SR-82) and Spruce Ave intersection
● El Camino Real (SR-82) and San Bruno Ave intersection
● NB/SB El Camino Real (SR-82) and NB/SB I-380 Connector Ramps
● SB US-101 San Bruno Ave Diagonal Off-ramp intersection
● NB US-101 San Bruno Ave Diagonal Off-ramp intersection
● SB US-101 S Airport Blvd loop Off-ramp intersection
● NB US-101 S Airport Blvd Diagonal Off-ramp intersection
Vehicle Trip Reduction
From Caltrans’ Smart Mobility 2010: A Call to Action for the New Decade, the
project site is identified as Place Type 1b: Urban Centers where location
efficiency factors, such as community design, and regional accessibility are
strong. Given the place, type and size of the project, it should include a robust
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program to reduce VMT and
greenhouse gas emissions. Such measures are critical to facilitating efficient site
access. The measures listed below can promote smart mobility and reduce
regional VMT.
● Project design to encourage walking, bicycling and transit access;
● Transit and trip planning resources such as a commute information kiosk;
● Real-time transit information system;
● Ten percent vehicle parking reductions;
● Charging stations and designated parking spaces for electric vehicles;
● Carpool and clean-fuel parking spaces;
● Designated parking spaces for a car share program;
● Unbundled parking;
● Secured bicycle storage facilities;
● Bicycle route mapping resources;
● Bicycle repair facilities;
● Participation/Formation in/of a Transportation Management Association
(TMA) in partnership with other developments in the area; and
● Aggressive trip reduction targets with Lead Agency monitoring and
enforcement.
Transportation Demand Management programs should be documented with
annual monitoring reports by a TDM coordinator to demonstrate effectiveness. If
the project does not achieve the VMT reduction goals, the reports should also
Adena Friedmann, Senior Planner
July 6, 2020
Page 4
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
include next steps to take in order to achieve those targets. Also, reducing
parking supply can encourage active forms of transportation, reduce regional
VMT, and lessen future transportation impacts on State facilities.
For additional TDM options, please refer to the Federal Highway Administration’s
Integrating Demand Management into the Transportation Planning Process: A
Desk Reference (Chapter 8). The reference is available online at:
http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop12035/fhwahop12035.pdf.
Multimodal, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
The project’s primary and secondary effects on pedestrians, bicyclists, travelers
with disabilities, and transit users should be evaluated, including
countermeasures and trade-offs resulting from mitigating VMT increases. Access
for pedestrians and bicyclists to transit facilities must be maintained. The
proposed project exhibits strong locational connections to bicycle and transit
networks, including Caltrain, bicycle trails, connections to major employment
centers and the Newell/Clark pedestrian/ bicycle overcrossing. The inclusion of
well-marked, well-connected bicycle/pedestrian facilities can encourage mode
shift here.
These smart growth approaches, given the project location and adequate TDM
measures, should be consistent with MTC’s Regional Transportation Plan/SCS
and would help meet Caltrans Strategic Management Plan targets.
Transportation Impact Fees
The City should identify project-generated travel demand and estimate the
costs of transit and active transportation improvements necessitated by the
proposed project; viable funding sources such as the City’s existing
development and/or transportation impact fee programs should also be
identified. We encourage a sufficient allocation of fair share contributions
toward multimodal and regional transit improvements to fully mitigate
cumulative impacts to regional transportation. We also strongly support
measures to increase sustainable mode shares, thereby reducing VMT.
The City should also ensure that a capital improvement plan identifying the cost
of needed improvements, funding sources, and a scheduled plan for
implementation is prepared along with the General Plan. Caltrans welcomes the
opportunity to work with the City and local partners to secure the funding for
needed mitigation. Traffic mitigation- or cooperative agreements are examples
of such measures.
Adena Friedmann, Senior Planner
July 6, 2020
Page 5
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation
system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Construction-Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State Right-of-Way (ROW) from project-related
temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts
due to construction and noise should be identified in the EIR. Project work that
requires movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on state roadways
requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, visit:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/transportation-permits.
Prior to construction, coordination is required with Caltrans to develop a
Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts
to the STN.
Thank you again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Laurel Sears
at (510)286-5614 or [email protected]. Additionally, for future notifications
and requests for review of new projects, please contact [email protected].
Sincerely,
Mark Leong
District Branch Chief
Local Development - Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse