The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 154-2022 (22-722) 303 E. Gurley Street #514 ⬧ Prescott, AZ 86301 ⬧ Office (602) 710-4175 4/26/2022 Airspace and Safety Analysis - 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. (WAC) was retained by El Camino SSF, LLC c/o Steelwave, LLC to complete an obstruction evaluation and airspace analysis of a study area located at 180 El Camino Real, South San Francisco, CA (Figure 1). The study area is located NW of San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The proposed project includes three 6-Story R&D Buildings and a proposed residential building. The 6-story buildings have an overall height of approximately 155’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), and the residential building has an overall height of approximately 132’ AMSL. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the maximum elevation to which a structure can be erected at the study area without having an adverse effect upon the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace. The proposed study area’s location in relation to San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is shown in Figure 2. Figure 1 – Study Area 2 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 2 – Study Area Location FAA Review Process The FAA utilizes the criteria contained in CFR Part 77 to determine reporting requirements, the impact of a proposed structure on navigable airspace, and whether the structure, if constructed, will require lighting and/or marking. CFR Part 77 defines the criteria for determining if a structure will require reporting to the FAA, if the structure exceeds the stated criteria and requires the submittal of FAA Form 7460 -1, and/or whether or not the structure has an impact on navigable airspace. If the FAA determines that there is an impact to navigable airspace, a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH) will be issued and an aeronautical study will be conducted. Concurrent with the NPH the project is distributed to the FAA divisions having the responsibility for air traffic control, flight procedures, airport infrastructure and navigational aids. Each of these divisions then evaluates the project for impacts within their area of jurisdiction. These divisions submit their comments to the Air Traffic division who will issue a determination. If the FAA determines that the proposed structure has a substantial adverse impact, they will issue a Determination of Hazard. In some cases, they will offer the project proponent options to mitigate the adverse impact, i.e., lower the structure, redesign etc. It is not uncommon for the FAA’s initial analysis to disregard factors unique to a specific airport such as existing structures or special procedures that have been developed for that airport. 3 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Once the FAA’s initial analysis is complete, additional data can be presented to the FAA for their consideration which may result in the approval of the proposed structure. WAC Analysis The WAC airport and airspace compatibility analysis includes a review of the following criteria to determine possible adverse impacts to aeronautical operations: 1. Public and private airports in the vicinity of the proposed structure. 2. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. 3. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) including instrument approach and departure procedures. 4. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) Traffic Pattern Airspace. 5. One Engine Inoperative (OEI) Criteria 6. Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) Safety Compatibility Zones Public/Private Airports: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Runway 1 0L is located approximately 1.61 Nautical Miles (NM) SE of the study area (Figure 3). San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is a public use, public-owned airport located within the City of San Francisco, CA. The airport currently maintains four runways; Runway 10L/28R with a length of 11,870 feet, Runway 10R/28L with a length of 11,381 feet, Runway 1R/19L with a length of 8,650 feet, and Runway 1L/19R with a length of 7,650 feet. An in-depth analysis of SFO was conducted to determine possible impacts on navigable airspace, flight procedures, and determine the maximum achievable structure elevation which will not adversely impact aeronautical operations. 4 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 3 – Study Area Distance to Runway 10L CFR Part 77 Analysis CFR Part 77 Notice Requirements and Obstruction Standards An analysis of CFR Part 77 Notice Requirements was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would require formal submission to the FAA. An analysis of CFR Part 77 Obstruction Standards was completed to determine the maximum Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) elevation to which a structure could be erected without exceeding CFR Part 77 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces (Figure 4). As stated in FAA Order 7400.2 Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters paragraph 6-3-9b: “Obstruction standards are used to identify potential adverse effects and are not the basis for a determination. The criteria used in determining the extent of adverse affect are those established by the FAA to satisfy operational, procedural, and electromagnetic requirements. These criteria are contained in regulations, advisory circulars, and orders (e.g., the 8260 Order series and Order 7110.65). Obstruction evaluation personnel must apply these criteria in evaluating the extent of adverse effect to determine if the structure being studied would actually have a substantial adverse effect and would constitute a hazard to air navigation.” CFR Part 77 Obstruction Standards is not used to determine if a structure will be a hazard to air navigation, rather, structures exceeding these criteria are studied closely by the FAA to determine if the structure will require mitigation or if the structure will impact terminal instrument procedures or visual flight rule traffic pattern airspace. Generally, a structure that exceeds CFR Part 77 5 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Obstruction Standards will require mitigation such as lighting and/or marking in order to make it more conspicuous to airmen. Figure 4 - SFO Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces Conclusion: The majority of the study area is located within the 163’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) Horizontal Surface for SFO. A small portion of the proposed residential building is located within the Conical Surface for SFO. This Conical Surface has an increasing slope of 20:1. A penetration to Obstruction Standards does not mean the structure will have an adverse impact to operations, rather the airport’s specific procedures, such as Instrument Approach/Departure and VFR Traffic Pattern procedures, must be studied to determine if the specific procedures will be impacted. The FAA may require an obstruction exceeding Obstruction Standards to be lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L to make it more conspicuous to airmen. Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) An analysis of the Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) criteria was completed to determine the maximum elevation to which a structure could be erected without impacting SFO instrument approach and departure procedures. 6 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Instrument Approach Procedures A penetration to the Obstacle Clearance Surfaces (OCS) by a proposed structure would result in the need to increase the procedure’s Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) (the lowest altitude that a pilot can descend on an approach) and would likely receive a Hazard Determination from the FAA. SFO Instrument Arrival Procedures A review of SFO's Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP) revealed that the approaches for aircraft landing on Runways 10L/R have the lowest Obstacle Clearance Surfaces (OCS) over the study area. Figures 5 through 10 display the OCS associated with Instrument Approach Procedure's (IAP) to SFO RWY 10L/R. Figure 5 – LNAV RWY 10L 7 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 6 – LNAV RWY 10R Figure 7 – RNP 0.30 DA RWY 10R 8 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 8 – RNP 0.30 DA RWY 10R Missed Approach AMSL Elevations Figure 9 – RNP 0.20 DA RWY 10R 9 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 10 – RNP 0.20 DA RWY 10R AMSL Elevations Conclusion: The maximum height over the study area, without affecting IAP to SFO, is approximately 385’ AMSL to the SE and approximately 415’ AMSL to the NW. Circle-to-Land Instrument Approach Procedure Each instrument approach procedure to SFO contain a circle-to-land option. The circle-to-land portion of the procedure allows a pilot to approach the airport in instrument conditions then, once he has the airport environment in sight, the pilot can maneuver the aircraft to the opposite end of the runway to land. A pilot would execute this type of instrument approach procedure if the winds were not favorable for landing on the primary runway for which the procedure was designed. The surfaces which protect the circle-to-land consist of horizontal circular surfaces which extend from the end of each runway. The radius of each circle is dependent on the category of aircraft utilizing the circle-to-land approach. Figure 11 displays an overview of the lowest OCS associated with the Circle-to-Land Category B Approach to SFO. 10 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 11 – SFO Circle-to-Land Category B Conclusion: The maximum height over the study area, without affecting Circle-to-Land to SFO, is 660’ AMSL. Visual Flight Rule (VFR) Traffic Pattern Airspace An analysis of SFO’s VFR Traffic Pattern Airspace was completed to determine the maximum elevation to which a structure could be erected without impacting aircraft operating in visual conditions at SFO. A structure that exceeds VFR Part 77 Obstruction Standards (as applied to visual approach runways) could have an impact on aircraft operating in an airport’s VFR Traffic Pattern. Figure 12 displays the elevation to which a structure could be erected without penetrating SFO VFR Traffic Pattern Airspace. 11 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 12 - SFO VFR Traffic Pattern Airspace Conclusion: The maximum height over the study area, without affecting the VFR Traffic Pattern to SFO is 363’ AMSL. Obstacle Departure Procedures The OCS associated with SFO’s published departure procedures were analyzed. A penetration to the Departure procedure Initial Climb Area (ICA) could result in the need for the departure procedure to be modified. Figures 13 and 14 display an overview of the ICA for SFO RWY 28R Departure. 12 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 13 - SFO RWY 28R ICA Figure 14 - SFO RWY 28L ICA AMSL Elevations 13 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Conclusion: The maximum height over the study area, without affecting the RWY 28R Departure ICA is approximately 247’ AMSL to the SE and approximately 263’ AMSL to the NW. One Engine Inoperative (OEI) All commercial airlines are required to develop OEI procedures for each airport / runway out of which they conduct flight operations. The Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) prescribe that in the event of an engine failure on takeoff, commercial air carrier type aircraft must be loaded in such a manner that they are able to clear obstacles along their intended route of flight by either 35 feet vertically or 300 feet laterally. It is the airlines responsibility that in an event of an engine failure on takeoff, commercial air carrier type aircraft must be loaded in such a manner that they are able to clear obstacles along their intended route of flight. Also, the FAA has stated they do not consider OEI departure splay paths in their analysis. OEI Departure Splay Paths should not be used to determine the maximum achievable building heights over the property. Figure 15 displays the SFO OEI Splay Path off Runways 28R/L. The SFO iALP Single Point Analysis Tool was used to determine the maximum heights allowed at the study area. Figure 16 shows the maximum OEI heights at the 4 study locations without exceeding the SFO iALP online tool. Figure 15 – OEI Splay over Study Area 14 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 16 – SFO iALP OEI Max Heights Conclusion: The proposed 155’ AMSL R & D 6-Story Buildings, and the proposed 132’ AMSL Residential Building will not exceed the SFO OEI Maximum Heights. Safety Compatibility Policies Figure 17 displays the Safety Compatibility Zones for SFO. 15 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 17 – Safety Compatibility Zones Shown in Figure 18, the proposed Biosafety Level 2 R & D buildings are located within Zone 4. “Zone 4 - Outer Approach/Departure Zone (OADZ): Zone 4, the OADZ, extends along the extended runway centerline immediately beyond the IADZ. It is subject to overflights of aircraft on approach and straight-out departures. At SFO, the OADZ off the west end of Runways 10R- 28L and 10L-28R is overflown by a high proportion of departures using Runways 28L and 28R, especially long-haul departures by heavy, wide-body aircraft.”1 Figure 19 displays the Incompatibile and Avoid Land Use Criteria for Zone 4. Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities are Incompatibile within Zone 4. “Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities: Medical and biological research facilities involving the storage and processing of extremely toxic or infectious agents (Figure 20). See Policy SP-3 for additional detail.”1 Figure 21 displays the SP-3 Hazardous Uses definitions. Biosafety Level 2 practices, equipment, and facility design and construction are applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, and other laboratories in which work is done with the broad spectrum of indigenous moderate-risk agents that are present in the communityand associated with human disease of varying severity. The proposed R & D facilities are Biosafety Level 2. 1 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport 16 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 18 – Study Area with Safety Compatibility Zones 17 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 19 – Land Use Criteria 18 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 20 – Safety Compatibility Criteria 19 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. Figure 21 – SP-3 Hazardous Uses 20 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. WAC Conclusion: Accoding to Dr. Kinkead Reiling, CEO and Founder of Bonneville Labs (see Attachment A) “The lowest level 1 (BSL-1) precautions consist of regular hand-washing and minimal personal protective equipment. These types of laboratories are ubiquitous in industry and are found in teaching setting such as high schools and colleges. The second lowest level (BSL-2) precautions consist of good laboratory practices and training, restricted lab access, decontamination practices, and protective measures such as the use of biosafety cabinets, gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses to allow the handling of generally treatable human diseases; examples could include Hepatitis A, B, and C, and Salmonella. Numerous laboratories throughout the bay area and country safely operate Biosafety Level 2 (BSL -2) facilities for research and development purposes. In fact, the low-level risk to the community and public from a BSL -1 or BSL-2 research laboratory is not widely different, in that the organism handled in either one of them would not cause harm above organisms already found in the community, are generally treatable, and the robust facility, engineering, biosafety practices and security control measures necessary to effectively contain them are not highly susceptible to human error. Illness and infections spreading into communities surrounding a BSL-1 or BSL-2 lab are generally unheard of because research on high-risk agents and pathogens can only be performed in BSL-3 or 4 laboratories. While serving the health and well-being of our community through research to prevent disease, these labs do not pose high levels of risk by adhering to all relevant biosecurity and safety standards required by law.” Therefore, the difference between BSL-1 and BSL-2 are minimal, and the restrtictions in Safety Compatibility Zone 4 at SFO should not restrict the use of BSL-2. Only Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities are stated as being incompatible within Zone 4. 21 Williams Aviation Consultants, Inc. WAC Summary The proposed 155’ AMSL R & D 6-Story Buildings, and the proposed 132’ AMSL Residential Building will not exceed the SFO Part 77 Civil Airport Imaginary Surfaces, SFO TERPs Surfaces, or SFO OEI Surfaces. The WAC technical analysis revealed: • An analysis of CFR Part 77 Notice Requirements was conducted and it was determined that the proposed project would require formal submission to the FAA. • The majority of the study area is located within the 163’ Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) Horizontal Surface for SFO. A small portion of the proposed residential building is located within the Conical Surface for SFO. This Conical Surface has an increasing slope of 20:1. • The maximum height over the study area, without affecting IAP to SFO, is approximately 385’ AMSL to the SE and approximately 415’ AMSL to the NW. • The maximum height over the study area, without affecting Circle-to-Land to SFO, is 660’ AMSL. • The maximum height over the study area, without affecting the VFR Traffic Pattern to SFO is 363’ AMSL. • The maximum height over the study area, without affecting the RWY 28R Departure ICA is approximately 247’ AMSL to the SE and approximately 263’ AMSL to the NW. • The proposed 155’ AMSL R & D 6-Story Buildings, and the proposed 132’ AMSL Residential Building will not exceed the SFO OEI Maximum Heights. • Accoding to Dr. Kinkead Reiling, CEO and Founder of Bonneville Labs (see Attachment A), the difference between BSL-1 and BSL-2 are minimal, and the restrtictions in Safety Compatibility Zone 4 at SFO should not restrict the use of BSL- 2. Only Biosafety Level 3 and 4 facilities are stated as being incompatible within Zone 4. Attachment A bonnevillelabs.com | 626 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA and 1 Corporate Dr, South San Francisco, CA Tom Williams, City Manager Darcy Smith, Community Development Director City of Millbrae 621 Magnolia Ave Millbrae, CA 94030 My name is Dr. Kinkead Reiling. I am the founder of Bonneville Labs, a bio-entrepreneur, and graduate of UCSF. I have been a scientist, entrepreneur and am now a co-working laboratory operator all focused on research and innovation for over 25 years. At my current company, we support over 20 innovative bio-based companies across the bay area. Given the breadth of companies that I have seen over this time, I feel that I am uniquely positioned to comment on need for and relative safety of biolabs in the bay area. Life science entrepreneurs and scientists need access to high quality laboratory space to handle biological samples safely and effectively as they perform the research critical to sustaining innovation in the industry. Bio-labs are designed to meet stringent safety requirements and the level of containment ranges from the lowest level 1 (BSL-1) to the highest at level 4 (BSL-4). My current laboratories support research up to BSL-2 thus enabling work on topics from disease to climate change. The lowest level 1 (BSL-1) precautions consist of regular hand-washing and minimal personal protective equipment. These types of laboratories are ubiquitous in industry and are found in teaching setting such as high schools and colleges. The second lowest level (BSL-2) precautions consist of good laboratory practices and training, restricted lab access, decontamination practices, and protective measures such as the use of biosafety cabinets, gloves, lab coat, and safety glasses to allow the handling of generally treatable human diseases; examples could include Hepatitis A, B, and C, and Salmonella. Numerous laboratories throughout the bay area and country safely operate Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) facilities for research and development purposes. In fact, the low-level risk to the community and public from a BSL-1 or BSL-2 research laboratory is not widely different, in that the organism handled in either one of them would not cause harm above organisms already found in the community, are generally treatable, and the robust facility, engineering, biosafety practices and security control measures necessary to effectively contain them are not highly susceptible to human error. Illness and infections spreading into communities surrounding a BSL-1 or BSL-2 lab are generally unheard of because research on high-risk agents and pathogens can only be performed in BSL-3 or 4 laboratories. While serving the health and well-being of our community through research to prevent disease, these labs do not pose high levels of risk by adhering to all relevant biosecurity and safety standards required by law. Simply reflect on the year 2020, it is clear that there is an ongoing need for BSL-1 and BSL-2 lab space in the US for the purpose of performing research on the biology of disease-causing agents. To conclude, the need for laboratories to safely and effectively research and prevent disease is increasing with great speed. The low-level risk of BSL-2 labs are on par with BSL-1 as they are limited to handling lower-risk organisms that in many cases are already present and generally controlled within our communities. I hope that the City of Millbrae will recognize the low-level risk of BSL-2 labs and be supportive of the life science industry that is working diligently to use biotechnology to address the pressing issues of our time ranging from illness to climate change. Sincerely, Dr. Reiling CEO and Founder, Bonneville Labs 180 El Camino Real Residences South San Francisco, California ALUC ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ANALYSIS 28 February 2022 Prepared for: Bridget Metz Steelwave 101 California Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 [email protected] Prepared by: Salter Skyler Carrico – Consultant Valerie Smith, PE – Vice President [email protected] [email protected] Salter Project: 22-0062 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION We have conducted an Airport Land-Use Commission (ALUC) environmental noise analysis for the proposed multi-family housing project at 180 El Camino Real in South San Francisco. This report is broken into the following sections: ● Section 1.0 – Introduction ● Section 2.0 – Acoustical Criteria ● Section 3.0 – Noise Environment ● Section 4.0 – Recommendations ● Appendix A – Fundamentals of Environmental Acoustics ● Appendix B – SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated ● Appendix C – 2019 SFO Noise Contour Map, with Project Site Indicated ● Appendix D – 2021 3rd Quarter Noise Contour Overlay, December 2019 Airport Director’s Report, with Project Site and Nearby Monitors Indicated Those readers not familiar with the fundamental concepts of environmental noise may refer to Appendix A and Figure A1 for additional information. 1.1 Executive Summary The proposed project at 180 El Camino Real will consist of four buildings (three Research & Development buildings and one multi-family residential building). The site is located along South Spruce Avenue, between El Camino Real and Huntington Avenue. This ALUC study only addresses the residential building. In summary: ● The project site is located near the CNEL1 65 to 70 dB contours for airport noise for the three available site noise contour maps (See Section 3.2 and Appendices B, C, and D for further information). ● Per the South San Francisco Noise Element, the ALUC uses the “latest quarterly noise contour report to determine the compatibility of land use plans”. This quarterly noise contour is shown in Appendix D. The 2021 3rd Quarter contours indicate the site is outside of the CNEL 65 dB contour for airport noise. 1 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the CNEL and DNL are usually interchangeable. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 3 ● The project can achieve the State Building Code standard of CNEL 45 dB indoors with the use of commercially-available windows and conventional wood-frame construction. 2.0 ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA 2.1 State Noise Standards The 2019 California Building Code requires that the indoor noise level in residential units of multi-family projects not exceed DNL2 45 dB. 2.2 City Noise Standards The City also has the following related policies: o Policy 9-I-1: Work to adopt a pass-by (single event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. o Policy 9-I-2: Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft-based mitigation and land use controls. o Policy 9-I-4: Ensure that project applications for all new noise-sensitive land uses (plans and specifications), including hospitals and residential units proposed within the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB aircraft noise contour include an acoustical study prepared by a professional acoustic engineer, that specifies the appropriate noise mitigation features to be included in the design and construction of these uses, to achieve an interior noise level of not more than CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room, based on the latest official SFIA noise contours3 and on-site noise measurement data. o Policy 9-I-6: Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. o Policy 9-I-7: Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. o Policy 9-I-10: Do not allow new residential or noise sensitive development in the CNEL 70 dB+ areas impacted by SFO operations, as required by Airport Land Use Commission infill criteria, with 2 DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. DNL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the nighttime hours. DNL penalizes sound levels by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the DNL and CNEL are usually interchangeable. DNL is sometimes written as Ldn. 3 We understand the latest noise contours are the 2021 3rd Quarter noise contours. See Appendix D. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 4 the exception of projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and to the extent necessary, approved through the local agency override process.4 o Policy 9-I-11: Require new residential development in area between the most recent FAA- accepted 65 and 70 dB CNEL aircraft noise contours for San Francisco International Airport (SFO), or those projects deemed appropriate by the City Council and, to the extent necessary, approved through the local agency override process4, to grant an avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco, as proprietor of SFO. The City of South San Francisco’s Noise Element notes that the San Mateo County ALUC will need to approve new development prior to permit issuance. The Noise Element identifies the following ALUC land-use compatibility guidelines for residential land use: Table 1: Land Use Criteria for Noise-Impacted Areas CNEL Range General Land Use Criteria Less than 65 dB Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements 65 to 70 dB Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 70 dB Development should not be undertaken To determine if a site is in an aircraft noise-impacted area, the ALUC determines the CNEL 65 dB boundary using the following resources: o The federal CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined using the most recent noise exposure map (NEM) as accepted by the FAA under the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. At this time, the latest accepted NEM is the Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map5. This map is included in Appendix C with the project site indicated. o The state CNEL 65 dB boundary is determined from the quarterly noise contours, based on the required airport noise monitoring system. Appendix D contains the 2021 3rd Quarter noise contour overlay, as well as the directors report with the approximate location of the project site indicated. Per the Noise Element, the ALUC uses the latest quarterly noise contour to determine the compatibility of land use plans. Appendix D contains the 2021 3rd Quarter Noise Contour overlay. 4 Per the General Plan Amendment Resolution #20-870, which was passed on 1 December 2020. Amendment information provided by Genna Yarkin on 28 February 2022. 5 Per www.flysfo.com, this NEM was submitted for approval in July 2018. The Final 2019 map is dated 13 August 2015. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 5 2.3 SFO Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Table IV-I of the November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport contains the following polices and compatibility criteria for evaluating multi-family residential land uses. o Policy NP-1 Noise Compatibility Zones: For the purposes of ALUC, the projected 2020 CNEL noise contour map from the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Runway Safety Area Program shall define the boundaries within which noise compatibility policies described in this Section shall apply. o Policy NP-2 Airport Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria: The compatibility of proposed land uses located in the Airport noise compatibility zones shall be determined according to the noise/land use compatibility criteria shown in Table IV-1 [excepts shown below as Table 2]. The criteria indicate the maximum accepted airport noise levels, described in terms of CNEL, for the indicated land uses. The compatibility criteria indicate whether a proposed land use is “compatible”, “conditionally compatible”, or “not compatible” within each zone, designated by the identified CNEL ranges. Table 2: ALUCP Noise/Land Use Compatibility Criteria CNEL Range Land Use Less than 65 dB Land use and related structures compatible without restrictions. 65 to 70 dB Land use and related structures are permitted, provided that sound insulation is provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dB or lower and that an avigation easement is granted to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO. 70 dB to 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible. However, use is conditionally compatible only on an existing lot of record zoned only for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. Use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. Over 75 dB Land use and related structures are not compatible o Policy NP-4 Residential Uses Within CNEL 70 dB Contour: As described in Table IV-1, residential uses are not compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB and typically should not be allowed in high noise areas. – Policy NP-4.1 Situations Where Residential Use is Conditionally Compatible: Residential uses are considered conditionally compatible in areas exposed to noise above CNEL 70 dB only if the proposed use is on a lot of record zoned exclusively for residential use as of the effective date of the ALUCP. In such a case, the residential use must be sound-insulated to achieve an indoor noise level of CNEL 45 dB or less from exterior sources. The property owner also shall grant an 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 6 avigation easement to the City and County of San Francisco in accordance with Policy NP-3 prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed building or structure. 3.0 NOISE ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Project Description The project site is located in South San Francisco, and is bounded by El Camino Real, Huntington Street, and South Spruce Avenue. It is also near San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The major noise source at the project site is traffic along these roads, and flyovers from SFO. To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted three long-term noise measurements between 19 and 21 January 2022 (see Figure 1 for measurement locations and measured noise levels). The long-term noise monitors were installed at a height of approximately 12 feet above grade. A future traffic analysis was not provided for this project. Therefore, we have added 1 dB to the calculated noise levels to account for general future traffic increases6. 3.2 Noise from SFO Per the published resources, the site is exposed to the following noise levels from SFO airport: o November 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: Exhibit IV-6 shows the site within or directly on the CNEL 70 dB contour. This exhibit references noise contours provided in 2011. See Appendix B for the project site location. o Final 2019 Noise Exposure Map: Appendix C contains the Part 150 map generated by the San Francisco International Airport. Per the exhibit, it was submitted on 13 August 2015. This exhibit references sources from 2014 for the creation of the noise contours. Salter has added an overlay of the project site to the Part 150 map to clarify the project location. Per this map, the majority of the project site is located within the CNEL 65 to 70 dB contour. o December 2019 Airport Director’s Report7: See Appendix D for the approximate site location. Per this overlay8, the project site is fully beyond the CNEL 65 contour. This information is based on 2021 noise monitoring. 6 The California Department of Transportation assumes a traffic volume increase of three-percent per year, which corresponds to a 1 dB increase in DNL over a ten-year period. 7 Due to decreased noise levels from March 2020 onward due to the pandemic, we have used the December 2019 Airport Director’s Report. 8 SFO 2021 3rd Quarter CNEL Overlay 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 7 GIS maps of historical quarterly noise reports are not available at this time. We have reviewed the noise levels provided in the monthly Airport Director’s Reports dating back to January 2019. For the three noise monitors closest to the project site, noise levels are generally below CNEL 69 dB. The graph below shows the monthly measured noise levels since January 2019. Detailed information is provided in Appendix D, along with information on the noise monitor locations. 3.3 Site Noise Context The main noise sources at the project site include vehicle passbys on the nearby roadways and aircraft overflights from SFO. We conducted noise measurements at the project site (see Figure 1), which collected noise data from both the car passbys and the aircraft overflights. We measured on-site noise levels of CNEL 71 to 75 dB at roads surrounding the project site (see Figure 1). Since both car and aircraft noise exist at the site, we have referenced the Airport Director’s Report to determine the aircraft contribution to noise at the site. The Airport Director’s Report summarizes the noise data from 29 noise monitors managed by the airport that continuously collect noise data. In general, these airport noise monitors are located away from major roadways, reducing the amount of 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember2019 2020 2021Measured CNEL (dB)Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports (January 2019 to December 2021) Site 4 (SSF)Site 6 (SSF)Site 14 (SSF) CNEL 70 dB 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 8 traffic noise that is collected (see data for aircraft noise presented in Appendix D), so that the airport contribution can be determined. Using the 2019 December Airport Director’s Report9, the contribution of airport noise at the site is expected to approximately CNEL 69 dB10. Logarithmically, subtracting the aircraft contribution from our noise measurements would result in a noise level of approximately CNEL 69 dB from traffic: CNEL 75a dB [from aircraft+traffic] – CNEL 69b dB [from aircraft] = CNEL 74c dB [from traffic] a = measured at project site, see Figure 1 b = determined from 2019 December Airport Director’s Report c = calculated See Appendix A for additional information on decibel mathematics. Individual aircraft flyovers from SFO are significantly louder than individual car passbys, but the flyovers occur at a lower frequency than the car passbys, resulting in similar average overall noise levels (CNEL). For reference, CNEL above 70 dB are common along large roadways and rail lines. Figure 9-2 of the South San Francisco Noise Element indicates that noise levels in South San Francisco were estimated to be above CNEL 70 dB in 2006 in the vicinity of I-280, I-380, US 101, and along the Caltrain line. Recent noise measurements indicate that noise levels are above CNEL 70 dB along El Camino Real. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS To meet the Code criterion of CNEL 45 dB inside residences, it will be necessary for the windows and exterior doors to have STC11 ratings. Our calculations are based on preliminary drawings dated 6 January 2022 and the following assumptions and understandings of the current design: ● Living rooms are 12 by 15 feet ● Bedrooms are 10 by 12 feet ● Glazing is 50% of the facade ● Flooring is hard surfaced in all rooms, including bedrooms ● Residences have 9-foot-tall ceilings 9 Due to decreased noise levels from March 2020 onward due to the pandemic, we have used the December 2019 Airport Director’s Report. 10 The project site is near Airport Noise Monitors 04, 06, and 14. We have referenced Monitor 04 for this CNEL level. 11 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 9 Based on the above, the following is a summary of our initial analysis: ● Rooms along Spruce: STC ratings up to 43 ● Rooms along the east and west facades: STC ratings up to 38 ● Rooms along the south facade: STC ratings up to 35 The recommended STC ratings are for full window assemblies (glass and frame) rather than just the glass itself. Tested sound-rated assemblies should be used. For reference, typical construction-grade assemblies achieve an STC rating of 28. Where STC ratings above 32 are required, at least one pane will need to be laminated. STC ratings above 38 typically require IGU greater than one-inch thick. This will vary depending on the window manufacturer. Since the windows need to be closed to achieve an indoor DNL of 45 dB, an alternative method of supplying fresh air (e.g., mechanical ventilation) should be provided. This issue should be discussed with the project mechanical engineer. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 10 APPENDIX A: FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE This section provides background information to aid in understanding the technical aspects of this report. Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response. These are: ● The intensity or level of the sound ● The frequency spectrum of the sound ● The time-varying character of the sound Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. The "frequency" of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds, which we hear in the environment, do not consist of a single frequency, but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its sound spectrum. A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments. Many rating methods have been devised to permit comparisons of sounds having quite different spectra. Surprisingly, the simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. The weighting system described above is called "A"-weighting, and the level so measured is called the "A-weighted sound level" or "A-weighted noise level." The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated "dB." In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry are shown in Figure A1. Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle passbys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 11 To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. "L10" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. "L50" is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The "L90" is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise. As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or "Leq" is now widely used. The term "Leq" originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation. In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions again become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24- hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24- hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: ● Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction ● Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning ● Physiological effects such as startle, hearing loss The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. Unfortunately, there has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time. Thus, an important factor in assessing a person's subjective reaction is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 12 With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 13 APPENDIX B: SFO ALUCP 2020 CONTOURS, WITH PROJECT SITE INDICATED APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated APPENDIX B SFO ALUCP 2020 Contours, with Project Site Indicated A1 A1 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 14 APPENDIX B: SFO ALUCP 2020 CONTOURS, WITH PROJECT SITE INDICATED 280 380 101 101 101 E L C A M IN O R E A L C A L L A N B L V D MISS I O N R D GRAN D A V E H IL L S ID E BLVD SNEA T H L N P A R K W Y OAK M O N T DR FLEETWOOD DR S H A R P P A R K R D A R R O Y O D RS A IRPORT BLVDN MCDONNELL RDL O M IT A AV ES SPRUCE AVECHESTNUT AVES M C D O N N E L L R D E G R A N D A V E W E S T B O ROUGH BLVDHOLLY AVES LINDEN AVEUTAH A V E C R E S T MOOR D R JENE V EI N A V E MADISON A VEHICKEY BLVD CRY S T A L SPRINGS RDE SAN BRUNO AVE W SAN B R U NO A V E SERRAMONTE B L V D W O R A N G E A V EALTA M E S A DR PARK BLVDR O L LIN G W OO D DR MAGNOL I A A V EORANGE AVEEVERGREEN AVESAN MATEO AVEOLYMPIC DRJUNIPERO SERRA BLVDGLENVIEW DRW H I T M A N WY RI D GE WOOD DREAR L AVEST F R A N CI S B L V D RICH M O N D D RGATEWAY DRCRESTWOOD DR7TH AVESKYL INE BOU LEVARDAVA LON D R LITTLEFIELD AVEBA Y S H O R E H W YEL CAM INO REALEUCALYPTUS AVETAYLOR BLVDMOSSWOOD LN BA R C E L O N A D R 82 G RAND AVE HICKEY BL V D W SAN B R U N O A V E S N E A T H LN S K Y L IN E BOU LE V ARD SAN MATEO AVEHUNTINGTON AVE SNEAT H L N HELE N D R PacificaPacifica San BrunoSan Bruno South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco MillbraeMillbrae Daly CityDaly City BurlingameBurlingame ColmaColma BrisbaneBrisbane San Andreas LakeSan Andreas Lake 0 0.2 0.40.1 Miles Exhibit IV-6 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport NOISE COMPATIBILITY ZONES --DETAIL NORTH Municipal Boundary Road Regional Park or Recreation Area Freeway Railroad San FranciscoSan FranciscoInternational AirportInternational Airport C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, California Noise Contour Data: - Draft Environmental Assessment, Proposed Runway Safety Area Program, San Francisco International Airport. URS Corporation and BridgeNet International, June 2011 County Base Maps: - San Mateo County Planning & Building Department, 2007 Local Plans: - Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan, August 2006 - Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, January 2009 - Burlingame General Map, September 1984 - North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan, February 2007 - Colma Municipal Code Zoning Maps, December 2003 - Daly City General Plan Land Use Map, 1987 - Hillsborough General Plan, March 2005 - Millbrae Land Use Plan, November 1998 - Pacifica General Plan, August 1996 - San Bruno General Plan, December 2008 - San Mateo City Land Use Plan, March 2007 - San Mateo County Zoning Map, 1992 - South San Francisco General Plan, 1998 San FranciscoSan FranciscoBayBay LEGEND CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast Hospital Place of Worship School Airport Property BART Station CALTRAIN Station Open Space Planned use not mapped Public Multi-Family Residential Single Family Residential Commercial Industrial, Transportation, and Utilities Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development Sources: Planned Land Use Per General Plans: CNE L 7 5 d B Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet 10L10R1R 1L 19RCNE L 7 0 d B CNEL 6 5 d B Inset map added by Salter to illustrate project location 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 15 APPENDIX C: 2019 SFO PART 150 NOISE CONTOUR MAP, WITH PROJECT SITE INDICATED 1CNEL 65 dBCNEL 70 dBCNEL 70 dBInset added by Salter to illustrate project location 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 16 APPENDIX D: DECEMBER 2019 AIRPORT DIRECTOR’S REPORT, WITH PROJECT SITE AND NEARBY MONITORS INDICATED Monthly Noise Monitor Data from Historical Airport Director’s Reports12 The following noise monitors (Monitors 4, 6, and 14) appear to be closest to the site at 180 El Camino Real. 12 Accessed from https://www.flysfo.com/community/noise-abatement/reports-and-resources/airport-directors-report 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember2019 2020 2021Measured CNEL (dB)Data from Airport Noise Director's Reports (January 2019 to December 2021) Site 4 (SSF)Site 6 (SSF)Site 14 (SSF) CNEL 70 dB 180 ECR 180 El Camino Real Residences 28 February 2022 ALUC Environmental Noise Analysis Page 17 The table below summarizes noise levels from December 2021 to January 2019 at the three locations closest to the 180 El Camino Real site. Noise levels were below 70 dB at all locations at all times. Year Month Aircraft CNEL (dBA) from Directors Reports Site 4 (SSF) Site 6 (SSF) Site 14 (SSF) December 69 66 61 November 67 65 61 2021 October 68 66 61 September 69 66 61 August 68 65 61 July 69 65 61 June 69 65 61 May 69 65 60 April 68 65 61 March 68 64 59 February 68 65 60 January 67 64 60 2020 December 67 65 60 November 67 63 59 October 66 63 59 September 61 58 53 August 62 59 54 July 61 58 54 June 62 59 54 May 62 59 54 April 62 59 54 March 62 59 53 February 63 60 55 January 64 61 56 2019 December 63 60 55 November 62 60 55 October 63 60 56 September 64 61 56 August 64 60 55 July 63 60 55 June 63 59 54 May 64 60 55 April 64 61 56 March 64 62 57 February 64 61 56 January 66 63 59 See the following figure for the 2021 3rd Quarter CNEL Project Site Overlay. Figure 1Noise Contour Map (2021 Q3)Source: AEDT version 3cPage 3Inset added by Salter toillustrate project location Images used by SFO are Rights Managed Images and have speciÿc usages deÿned. Please see photography usage guidelines document for more information and only use approved images on SFO Widen Media Collective. Airport Director’s Report Presented at the August 5, 2020 Airport Community Roundtable Meeting Aircraft Noise Abatement Office December 2019 r l l l l December2019AircraftNoiseLevels Themapshows29aircraftnoisemonitoringlocationsthatkeeptrackof noiselevelsinthecommunitiesaroundtheairport.Imagecenteredon SFOairportshowsquarterlyaircraftnoiselevels(dBA)exposure.The greenzonemarks65dBACommunityNoiseExposureLevel(CNEL).The CNELmetricisusedtoassessandregulateaircraftnoiseexposurein communitiessuroundingtheairport. 27 26 21 25 24 2320 7 146 1517 319 18 16 4 2 Thegraphbelowshows aircraftnoiseeventsthat producedanoiselevel higherthanthemaximum alowabledecibelvalue establishedfora particularmonitoring site. SignificantExceedances 5 1 22 8 9 1110 29 13 Noise Events Aircraft Community (AVG CNEL SEL LMax CNEL Site City Day) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) 1 SanBruno 145 72 94 79 69 2 SanBruno 40 53 82 71 64 3 SSF 28 52 81 69 64 4 SSF 97 67 91 79 60 5 SanBruno 108 66 89 77 64 6 SSF 92 64 88 77 57 7 Brisbane 17 49 81 71 58 8 Milbrae 276 67 86 70 69 9 Milbrae 26 51 82 71 59 10 Burlingame 12 47 85 71 59 11 12 13 Burlingame FosterCity Hilsborough 25 328 6 52 62 35 84 82 81 71 72 70 59 60 56 14 SSF 87 60 84 72 60 15 SSF 125 59 83 70 60 16 SSF 77 59 84 72 59 17 SSF 83 58 83 71 58 18 19 DalyCity Pacifica 90 75 64 60 88 86 76 74 60 58 20 21 DalyCity SanFrancisco 26 7 48 40 80 77 69 67 60 57 22 SanBruno 108 59 82 71 66 23 SanFrancisco 71 54 81 69 65 24 SanFrancisco 16 45 79 68 61 25 SanFrancisco 23 43 76 64 55 26 SanFrancisco 4 38 80 68 59 27 SanFrancisco 7 46 87 73 90 28 29 RedwoodCity SanMateo 5 50 41 54 83 82 69 71 53 60 Noise Monitor's CNEL values (top) are derived from actual measured events and are used to validate the 65dBA CNEL noise footprint. Aircraft and Community monthly CNEL average for each monitor site are provided, along witha daily average aircraft counts with the average Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and Maximum Level (LMax). 12 ©2020Mapbox©OpenStreetMap Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1000 1500 2000 2500 AircraftSignifi cantExceedances 2,089 28 Year 2016 2017 2018 2019 Note:Site2onlinestarting11/20/2019 1 0 Operations December2019 MonthlyOps AVGDailyOps 12MonthAVG YOYGrowth MajorArivalandDepartureRoutes(WestFlow) 36,814 1,188 37,764 WestFlowisdepictedintheaboveimageandis apredominateflowatSFO. WestFlow 80% -1.5% December2019AverageDay(Hourly) 60 50 40 30 20 10 Arrivals Departures AVGDayOps 1AM 3AM 5AM 7AM 9AM 11AM 1PM 3PM 5PM 7PM 9PM 11PM ArivalRoute DepartureRoute DowntheBayvs 19% 32% 8% 27% 37% 28% r r It r A.GAP1.BDEGATopDestinations Peninsula B.SSTIK2.DYAMD C.NITE 8% LosAngeles Seatle LasV 75% 25% 3.SERFR 0% 41%egas 1.1BDEGAEa D.TRUKNRWY01st 4%4%7% 4.OCEANIC D.TRUKNRWY281.2BDEGAWest AirlineswiththeMostOperations NonAirline MostUtilizedAirc raftTypes United 39% 6% BoeingB737 30% Skywest 24% AirbusA320 25% NarowBodyAlaska 13% BombardierCRJ2 13% Delta 9% 79% EmbraerE170 12% Southwest 8% BoeingB777 9% American 8% WideBody BoeingB757 7% 16% Boeing787 4% DailyAircraftOperations 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 0 0 0 998 1,296 Average=1,188 ChristmasDay SFOGroundDelay Programduetoweather Date 100 50 2 t t r l t t t t r r t t l t e ner ou eas Planon12/1,12/2&12/7. IntermitentGroundDelay SFO&EastCoast GroundDelay programforSFOfrom615a.m. to1200a.m.duetolowceilings andwind;delaysof60-90 programs. minutes. 12AM 1AM RunwayUsageandNightimeOperations MonthlyRunwayusageisshownforarivalsanddepartures,futhercategorizedbyalhoursandnightimehours.Graphat thebotomofthepageshowshourlynightimeoperationsforeachday.PowerRunuplocationsaredepictedontheairport mapwithairlinesnightimepowerrunupcountsshownbelow.Percent[%]isroundedtothenearestwholenumber. RunwayUtilization LateNightPreferential RunwayUtilization RunwayUse(1am-6am)Arivals Departures Departures66%01L/R Arivals11,705 39% 28L 28R10L/R1% 19% 20010L/R 45% 55%194 3,407 41%01L/R18% 1% 20819L/R 3,261 150 Night(10pm-7am)20%80% 13% 28L/R28L/R 99 32% 68%14,188 2,373 Nighti 10pm-7am AlaskaAirlines AmericanAirlin UnitedAirlines Apowerrunu totestanaircr maintenanceis donetoensur standardsprio aircrafttoserv powersetings fulpoweran duration. pisaprocedureused aftengineafter completed.Thisis esafeoperating rtoreturningthe ice.TheAircraft rangefromidleto dmayvaryin 7 es6 8 mePowerRun-Ups 28L/R 10L/R 19L/R 1L/R Hour 12AM 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AMHourlyNightimeOperations Not:SFOu d S th t Operations 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 3 4 l l . l l l l t l l t l 0 l r December2019NoiseReports NoiseReporters/NoiseReports Atherton 5 998 Reporters NoiseReportersLocationMapBelmont 5 194 AnnualAVGBrisbane 24 1,468 Burlingame 5 77 1,138DalyCity 12 1,057 ElGranada 2 1,073 ReportsFosterCity 12 551 AnnualAVG2 9HalfMoonBay Other Roundtable22 1,930MenloPark 177,683Milbrae 7 39 Montara 1 364 MossBeach 1 6 New Pacifica 25 3,205 Reporters PortolaValey 26 6,994 RedwoodCity 17 1,477 74 SanBruno 7 113 SanCarlos 1 34 NewSanFrancisco 44 5,593 ReportersSanMateo 24 1,035 TopCitySouthSanFra. 10 155 SanFranciscoWoodside 9 2,887 Alameda 5 106 FurthestAptos 6 241 ReportBenLomond 3 16 Berkeley 14 3,240 88milesBonnyDoon 2 27 BoulderCreek 7 123 ReportsperBrookdale 1 1 Capitola 14 1,361 SFO CarmelValey 2 26 Operation CastroValey 1 1 4Cupertino 1 1,536 Danvile 2 32 TopAircraft EastPaloAlto 2 47 Types EmeraldHils 8 2,600 B737 0.3Felton 7 370 A320 0.1E75L 0.3Fremont 1 309 Hayward 1 355 TopFlightKensington 1 3 NumbersLaSelvaBeach 1 5 UAL2201Lafayete 1 1 ©2020Mapbox©OpenStreetMapASA945ASA1969LosAltos 95 13,459 LosAltosHils 23 8,612 LosGatos 86 10,196 Moraga 4 552 HourlyNoiseReporters(AverageDayinaMonth) NoiseReporters OperationsMorganHil 2 27 MountainView 30 3,053 80 81 17 80 SFONoiseReportersOakland 31 7,491 Orinda 3 36 tOperations 15 PaloAlto 157 34,551 Penngrove 1 11 Richmond 6 4,037 60 60 1040 40SanJose 1 1 SantaCruz 94 14,101 Saratoga 2 218 Fligh 520 20 SFO59 6,189ScotsValey 56 8,744Soquel 04 791Stanford Sunnyvale 8 788 Watsonvile 1 193 GrandTotal 1,004 152,709 12AM 1AM 2AM 3AM 4AM 5AM 6AM 7AM 8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM 11PM Hourofthe DNightI ay IEveningI Airports 99%ofnoisereportscorelatetoa Notes:AddressvalidationReliesonUSPS-providedZIPCode lookuptableandUSPS-specifieddefaultcityvalues. OAK 7% PAO 6% SFO SJC 12% origin/destinationairport. S oQL ther. 4% 3% Source:SFOIntlAirportNoiseMonitoringSystem 68% 0 555 County Center, 5th Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 PHONE: 650.599.1406 www.ccag.ca.gov C/CAG CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Colma • Daly City • East Palo Alto • Foster City • Half Moon Bay • Hillsborough • Menlo Park • Millbrae • Pacifica • Portola Valley • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County •South San Francisco • Woodside August 22, 2022 South San Francisco City Council 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 RE: 180 El Camino Real ALUC Determination – Override Consideration Honorable Mayor and Council Members, The City/County Association of Governments, in its capacity as the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, hereby acknowledges receipt of South San Francisco City Council Resolution No. 136-2020 giving notice of your intent to consider an override of the ALUC determination that the residential portion of the 180 El Camino Real Project is inconsistent with the noise policies of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments. The findings laid out in South San Francisco’s Resolution, specifically Section 2.d., indicate that the noise contour has decreased since adoption of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (SFO ALUCP) in 2012, and we believe it important to address this point. The noise contours in the SFO ALUCP do not directly reflect the noise measured at a specific time, but rather are forecasts based on a long-range airport development plan that reflects the anticipated growth of the airport over a 20-year period, as required by PUC Section 21675 (a). So, while “point in time” measurements, such as those included in the project noise study, may reflect a lower noise level at present, it is cautioned that the SFO ALUCP projects that noise levels are likely to increase at the site over time. Therefore, we would respectfully suggest that it would be prudent to use the projected noise contour as the baseline to establish the necessary sound attenuation/mitigation measures needed to achieve the required indoor noise level of 45 dB rather than the “point in time” measurements to better ensure the intended interior noise environment is maintained over the life of the project. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment, ______________________________ Sean Charpentier, C/CAG Executive Director CC: SSF Planning Division C/CAG Board “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS P.O. BOX 942874, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94274 (916) 654-4959 | FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711 www.dot.ca.gov August 26, 2022 Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner City of South San Francisco, Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Dear Mr. Gross, Thank you for notifying the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), of the proposed overrule by the City of South San Francisco (City). The City is proposing an overrule of the County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), acting in their Role as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). On July 14, 2022, the Division received an email notification that included City Resolution 122-2022 and draft findings, declaring an intent to consider overruling the ALUC’s July 14, 2022, determination of inconsistency of the proposed 180 ECR Residential/R&D project (Project), with the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP). This proposed project is on an 11.2-acre site in South San Francisco located at 180-188 El Camino Real and 415 Spruce Avenue, APN 014- 183-110. The proposed Project consists of a high-density mixed-use development, consisting of construction of three (3) 6-story life science/R&D buildings, a 7-level parking structure, and a 7-story, multi-family residential building containing 184 units. The Project is in the Airport Influence Area of SFO as defined in the ALUCP, with much of the Project site located within ALUCP’s Safety Compatibility Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. This includes the three R&D structures identified in the site plans as Buildings 1, 2 and 3. The ALUC found that the Project is inconsistent with the policies of the ALUCP. This is based on the fact that the multi-family residential use portion of this Project is located within the 70-75 dB CNEL contour, consequently making it not compatible, since the site had not been zoned exclusively for residential use at the time of adoption of the ALUCP. This is further clarified in the ALUCP Noise Policy NP-2 to mean “that the proposed land use is incompatible with aircraft noise at the indicated CNEL level”, regardless of proposed mitigation. Thus, due Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner August 26, 2022 Page 2 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” to the residential component, the Project was determined to be not consistent with the ALUCP. Additionally, the ALUC stated that the three (3) 6 story life science/R&D buildings and parking structure would only be considered conditionally consistent with the ALUCP, with the following conditions:  Prior to approval, the final land use decision-making body for the project (South San Francisco City Council, Planning Commission, etc.) shall make specific findings that there is no feasible alternative for the proposed inclusion of biosafety level 2 use on the site.  The City of South San Francisco shall ensure that any structure within the project that is located within Safety Zone 4 and that contains a use classified as biosafety level 2 shall be provided with at least 50% more exits than required by applicable codes.  Prior to issuance of any building permits, the City of South San Francisco shall require that the project sponsor clearly document that all structures, including appurtenances, will be constructed below the heights shown on the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map (ALUCP Exhibit IV-17.)  Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project sponsor shall file Form 7460-1 with the FAA and provide to the City of South San Francisco an FAA “Determination of No Hazard” for each structure.  The City of South San Francisco shall require that the project sponsor comply with the real estate disclosure requirements outlined in Policy IP-1 of the ALUCP. The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule. Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC statutes set forth in PUC section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC, section 21670(a) (1) and (2). The Division agrees with the ALUC that the Project is not consistent with the ALUCP. This is due to the multi-family residential use portion of this Project being located within the 70-75 dB CNEL contour according to the ALUCP. The Division disagrees with the city’s finding “2. d.” with respects to using the noise analysis from Salter, dated February 28, 2022, or any other analysis to determine noise Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner August 26, 2022 Page 3 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” compatibility instead of the forecasted Noise Contours contained in the ALUCP. It is with good reason that ALUCPs are the fundamental tool used by ALUCs in fulfilling their purpose of promoting airport land use compatibility. As mandated (PUC sections 21674(c), 21675, and 21676 (b)), the ALUC used the criteria of the ALUCP in making its determination of inconsistency. Thus, the ALUC is correct in its determination that that the proposed multi-family residential use is incompatible with aircraft noise, regardless of proposed mitigation. Regarding noise compatibility for residential uses, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), published by the Division on page 4-7 states: “For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 65 dB CNEL is not an appropriate criterion for new noise-sensitive development around most airports. At a minimum, communities should assess the suitability and feasibility of setting a lower standard for new residential and other noise-sensitive development.” Additionally, the Division agrees with the following (from the letter addressed to the ALUC dated June 14, 2022, from Nupur Sinha, Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport), regarding this prosed Project’s noise incompatibility. “Noise compatibility for a development project must be evaluated based on the SFO ALUCP as required by state law. Noise contours based on more recent data, such as used in the Salter report, do not fully reflect the future forecast for SFO operations and may underestimate noise impacts to development projects. As a prime example, the Q 3, 2021 noise contours cited in the noise analysis reflect an unprecedented and temporary decline in air traffic as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is not a reliable source of data for future forecasts.” Regarding the rest of the project, construction of the three (3) 6-story life science/R&D buildings, and a 7-level parking structure, the Division agrees with all of the ALUC’s required conditions, as being absolutely necessary. Although, the addition of these conditions by the ALUC would make these land uses compatible with the ALUCP, the Division still has serious concerns. According to the Handbook’s example of Safety Zones, that are to be used as a starting point for ALUCs to develop the Safety Zones for the ALUCP. A significant portion of the area for construction of the 6-story life science/R&D buildings will be located in Safety Zones 4 and 6. Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner August 26, 2022 Page 4 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Safety Zone 4 is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone and considered by the Handbook as having a moderate risk level for an aircraft accident occurring at this location. High intensity retail or office buildings are to be avoided. Avoided is defined as: Use generally should be permitted only if an alternative site outside the zone would not serve the intended public function. Additionally, it notes to consider potential airspace protection hazards of certain energy/industrial projects. Safety Zone 6 is the Traffic Pattern Zone and has a risk level that is considered low. However, the Handbook cautions that processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous material should be limited. Concerning hazardous materials, the Handbook on page 4-30 states: “Two other categories of high-risk uses may not have many occupants, but the consequences of an aircraft accident at the site could nonetheless be elevated. Of particular concern is that these consequences may extend beyond the immediate location of the accident. Manufacturing, storage, or use of hazardous materials may warrant special consideration depending upon the specific materials and quantities. The concern is whether an aircraft accident could cause an explosion or release of toxic materials, thus posing dangers to the nearby population. Uses that involve the storage of hazardous materials (e.g., gas stations)should be avoided in locations where aircraft may be operating at low altitudes, or where data has shown the risk of accidents to be greater. Specifically, locations where the manufacturing or bulk storage of hazardous materials should be avoided include safety zones one through five.” (Bold added) Concerning the Handbook, the California Public Utilities Code, section 21674.7 (b), states: “It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the Division…” Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner August 26, 2022 Page 5 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Please note: The Division comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at email at [email protected] or call (916) 639-6298. Sincerely, Original signed by TONY SORDELLO Associate Aviation Planner Division of Aeronautics c: Suzy Kalkin, [email protected] Joseph Carroll, Attorney, CA Department of Transportation, Legal Division, [email protected] Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics [email protected] bc: Jean Finney, Deputy District Director Planning, District 4; [email protected]