Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 10-18-12 (Reso 2724-2012) - Genentech CEQA SMEIR Certification RESOLUTION NO. 2724-2012 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, FOR GENENTECH OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE WHEREAS, Genentech submitted an application to update the 2007 Master EIR (2007 MEIR) prepared for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update (2007 Master Plan). The 2007 MEIR considered the environmental impacts of development on Genentech’s 160-acre campus area within a broader 220- acre study area. The 2007 MEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165, was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and certified by the City of South San Francisco (“City”) on March 14, 2007; and WHEREAS, because of the five year limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15179, the City has determined to review the adequacy of the 2007 MEIR and conduct additional environmental review in order to supplement the 2007 MEIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document (as supplemented) in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the 2007 Master Plan was fully analyzed in the 2007 MEIR. The scope of the 2007 Master Plan has not changed since its adoption. However, the City desires to continue to rely upon the 2007 MEIR in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA, the City prepared a Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report (SMEIR) to analyze substantial changes in circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan is being undertaken that have occurred, and new information of substantial importance that has arisen, since certification of the 2007 MEIR which were determined to potentially result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts previously found significant in the 2007 MEIR. The SMEIR focuses largely on regulatory changes that have occurred since certification of the 2007 MEIR in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use/planning, and new information and changed circumstances since certification of the 2007 MEIR in the area of traffic/transportation, as more fully explained in the SMEIR; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was issued for the SMEIR on December 21. 2011; and, WHEREAS, the SMEIR was circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a 45-day public review period that began on August 17, 2012, and concluded on October 1, 2012. Two written comment letters were received during the public review period, one from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a state agency, and one from the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), a regional agency; and, WHEREAS, a Final SMEIR was prepared to respond to comments and make minor revisions to the Draft SMEIR. The Final SMEIR was made available to commenting agencies and the public on October 5, 2012; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the SMEIR, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference (MMRP); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft SMEIR and the Final SMEIR (collectively, “SMEIR”) and staff report at a duly noticed public hearing held on October 18, 2012, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and certifies the EIR, as an objective and accurate document prepared in compliance with CEQA and that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project’s environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission also has reviewed and considered a Statement of Overriding Considerations which specifies the benefits of the 2007 Master Plan against its unavoidable impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record of proceeding before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the 2007 MEIR, the 2007 Master Plan, and the SMEIR; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting held on October 18, 2012; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), all of which are incorporated herein by reference, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The SMEIR, as well as the Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the CEQA Findings, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit A), the Draft SMEIR (Exhibit B), the Final SMEIR (Exhibit C), and the Errata Sheet for the Final SMEIR (Exhibit D) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information in the SMEIR. Based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the Planning Commission exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the findings regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and project alternatives set forth in Exhibit A, and the findings regarding a balancing of the project’s unavoidable impacts and benefits, set forth in Exhibit B. 5. The Planning Commission finds that that the SMEIR was completed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis on the environmental impacts of the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby certifies the SMEIR as complete, adequate and in compliance with CEQA, makes the findings contained in this Resolution, including the CEQA findings attached as Exhibit A, adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B; and adopts the MMRP, attached as Exhibit C. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 18th day of October, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Chairperson Zemke, Vice-Chairperson Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Gupta, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Prouty and Commissioner Sim NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest:/s/ Susy Kalkin Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A CEQA Findings, the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2005072165 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111 October 2012 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR FOF/SOC vii Contents Draft SMEIR CHAPTER 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Findings of Fact ............................................................................................................... 1-2 CHAPTER 2 General Findings .................................................................................................... 2-1 CHAPTER 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................... 3-1 CHAPTER 4 Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation ................................................... 4-1 CHAPTER 5 Findings Regarding Alternatives ........................................................................... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations ................................................................... 2 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR FOF/SOC 1-1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 BACKGROUND The City of South San Francisco prepared an update to the Genentech Master EIR (2007 MEIR). The 2007 MEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165, was certified by the City of South San Francisco on March 14, 2007. The supplement to a master environmental impact report (SMEIR) addressed potential environmental impacts that could occur due to any substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that have occurred, or due to new information that has arisen since certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update project (project) for the City of South San Francisco in 2007. Since certification of the 2007 MEIR and adoption of the 2007 Master Plan, the City has approved a number of projects which it determined were within the scope of the 2007 MEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15177. CEQA Guidelines Section 15179 provides: (a) The certified Master EIR shall not be used for a subsequent project described in the Master EIR in accordance with this article if either: (1) The Master EIR was certified more than 5 years prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project except as set forth in subsection (b) below, or … (b) A Master EIR that was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project described in the Master EIR may be used in accordance with this article to review such a subsequent project if the lead agency reviews the adequacy of the Master EIR and takes either of the following steps: (1) Finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Master EIR was certified, or that there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR was certified; or (2) Prepares an initial study, and, pursuant to the findings of the initial study, does either (A) or (B) below: (A) Certifies a subsequent or supplemental EIR that updates or revises the Master EIR and which either: 1. Is incorporated into the previously certified Master EIR, or 2. References any deletions, additions or other modifications to the previously certified Master EIR. Because of the five year limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15179, the City determined that a review of the adequacy of the 2007 MEIR was necessary. The City conducted additional environmental review in order to supplement the 2007 MEIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document (as supplemented) in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. Chapter 1 Introduction City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1-2 Although the scope of the 2007 Master Plan has not changed since its adoption, the City wishes to continue to rely upon the 2007 MEIR in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. The Supplemental MEIR (SMEIR) therefore analyzed substantial changes in circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan is being undertaken that have occurred, and new information of substantial importance that has arisen, since certification of the 2007 MEIR which were determined to potentially result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts previously found significant in the 2007 MEIR. As such, the SMEIR focused largely on regulatory changes that have occurred since certification of the 2007 MEIR in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use/planning, and new information and changed circumstances since certification of the 2007 MEIR in the area of traffic/transportation. The SMEIR analyzed the same 220-acre 2007 Study Area, and focused on changes to the relevant policies and standards, changes in the circumstances under which build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would occur, and/or new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2007 MEIR certification. The SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,708,100 square feet (sf), as well as the updated cumulative scenario. The following objectives were identified in the 2007 MEIR and are unchanged in the SMEIR: ■ Articulates vision and policies that will serve as a general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals. ■ Fosters development of a campus befitting its setting on the City’s eastern bay shore that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront. ■ Promotes alternatives to individual automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives, by emphasizing a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, and pedestrian connectivity throughout the campus to promote ease of movement between buildings. ■ Establishes the basis for zoning provisions that have been included in an amended Genentech Research and Development Overlay District. ■ Provides design guidelines that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the Master Plan area. The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. 1.2 FINDINGS OF FACT When an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or Chapter 1 Introduction City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1-3 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR (Public Resources Code, §21081). A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the SMEIR concludes are less than significant (see ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 716). As “lead agency” under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15367, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update project environmental review documents, including the Draft SMEIR (SMEIR) and the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Final SMEIR”) certified by the City on October 18, 2012. The Draft SMEIR and the Final SMEIR are collectively referred to herein as the “SMEIR.” The 2007 MEIR is incorporated by reference into the SMEIR. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR FOF/SOC 2-1 CHAPTER 2 General Findings The SMEIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the SMEIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project, and identifies feasible means of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the SMEIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required (see Public Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1)). The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2)). The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations (see also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II)). The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of Chapter 2 General Findings City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 2-2 San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b)). With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b)). The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576). These Findings constitute the evidentiary and policy bases for the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The Planning Commission hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the SMEIR as significant and unavoidable. The Planning Commission believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the SMEIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted through project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the SMEIR and the 2007 MEIR. Even with mitigation, however, the Planning Commission recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the SMEIR. The Planning Commission specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the SMEIR. Instead, the findings provides a summary description of each impact, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the SMEIR and the 2007 MEIR, and states the findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of any adopted feasible mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions and supporting evidence can be found in the SMEIR, 2007 MEIR and the Record of Proceeding for the Project, and all those documents are hereby incorporated by reference into these findings. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR FOF/SOC 3-1 CHAPTER 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No mitigation is feasible that would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City has determined that the impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented below. Impact 4.1-2 Construction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would include excavation, grading, and construction activities which could result in emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the established thresholds. This would be a temporary but potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.1-1(a) through MM4.1-2 would reduce this impact, but not to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. MM4.1-1(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for individual development projects undertaken under the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech shall present to the City of South San Francisco Planning Department detailed analysis of the development project’s construction related impacts. This analysis shall be consistent with the methodology as outlined in the BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Guidelines. MM4.1-1(b) Genentech shall implement the appropriate BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: ■ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ■ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. ■ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ■ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. ■ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ■ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. Chapter 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 3-2 ■ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. ■ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM4.1-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, if the detailed analysis of an individual development project determines that the proposed project would exceed the construction-related threshold established in this SMEIR after implementation of the mitigation measures identified in MM4.1-1(b), Genentech shall implement one or more of the following measures (which it shall choose) as necessary to bring the impact to below the threshold: ■ All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. ■ All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. ■ Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. ■ Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. ■ The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. ■ All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. ■ Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. ■ Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. ■ Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to 2 minutes. ■ The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. ■ Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). Chapter 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 3-3 ■ Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. ■ Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. Finding: The detailed construction related air quality impact analysis required under Mitigation Measure MM 4.1-1(a) would include a quantification of project-generated construction-related emissions in accordance with the BAAQMD-recommended methods, and a comparison of the total average daily amount of mitigated (with implementation of mitigation measures identified in MM4.1-1(b) and MM4.1- 2 if required) criteria air pollutants and precursors with the applicable thresholds. If the analysis shows that with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-2 all construction-related criteria air pollutants and precursors would be reduced to levels below the applicable thresholds, the impact to air quality would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The SMEIR assumed that mitigation measures MM4.1-1(b) and MM4.1-2 would reduce construction- related emissions; however, it is possible that construction-related emissions would still exceed the thresholds established in the SMEIR. Therefore, since construction-related emissions could not be quantified at this time, there is no guarantee that construction-related emissions would not exceed the applicable thresholds despite the imposition of feasible mitigation. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact of construction related air quality emissions infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.1-3 Operation activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Finding: Design features including Transportation Demand Management programs have been incorporated into the 2007 Master Plan to reduce vehicle trips that would help reduce the operational emissions that would otherwise be generated. These design features would encourage pedestrian activity, which would reduce emissions from the operation of motor vehicles by project employees. The 2007 MEIR and the SMEIR determined that there are no quantifiable and feasible mitigation to further reduce the operational emissions associated with full buildout of the 2007 Master Plan. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact of operation related air quality emissions infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.1-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Chapter 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 3-4 The project, in combination with related projects within the City, would result in a cumulatively significant impact for ROG and NOX since these exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds and are considered significant for the project. This is considered cumulatively significant according to BAAQMD’s significance thresholds when a project exceeds the BAAQMD’s project mass emission threshold for criteria air pollutants. The 2007 MEIR and the SMEIR determined that there are no quantifiable and feasible mitigation to further reduce the emissions associated with full buildout of the 2007 Master Plan. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact of cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.4-9 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-9 would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than- significant level. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this would remain significant and unavoidable. MM4.4-9 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard: ■ Eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard: add a through lane to both eastbound approaches (from the US 101 off-ramp, and Oyster Point Boulevard) Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than- significant. Implementation of the 2007 MEIR mitigation measure MM4.7-14, and mitigation measure MM4.4-9 would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level in the AM or PM peak hour. It would remain a LOS F with 102.5 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour, and LOS F with 111.3 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.4-10 Implementation of the project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. This is considered a potentially significant impact. As potential mitigation measures to reduce this impact would require approvals from outside agencies and are outside the City’s jurisdiction, this would remain significant and unavoidable. Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than- significant. Implementation of the project would contribute to the identified unacceptable LOS along the freeway mainline. Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding Chapter 3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 3-5 development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Finally, implementation of such mitigation measures would be beyond the jurisdiction of the City. The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CCAG) provided comment on the SMEIR that the study of implementation of auxiliary lanes on the US 101 in the project vicinity; however, no action is currently being planned. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 4.4-10 is not feasible. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR FOF/SOC 4-1 CHAPTER 4 Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation The Final SMEIR determined that the project has potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas discussed below. The Final SMEIR identified feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the information and analyses set forth in the Final SMEIR, and the entirety of the Record before it, including without limitation the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Conditions of Approval, the City finds that the for each of the following project impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and the Final SMEIR, the following impacts will be less than significant with identified feasible mitigation measures. Impact 4.4-1 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of signalized intersections to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/ US 101 NB on-ramp. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-1 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramp: ■ The signal for the right turn movement for the westbound approach shall be modified to provide a protected overlap for the right turn (allowed during the westbound through and northbound through phases) ■ Convert one of the westbound through lanes to a shared through/right-turn lane in the PM Finding: Implementation of MM4.4-1 and the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures MM4.7-1a and MM4.7- 1b, would result in operation at this intersection at an acceptable LOS D (43.0 seconds of delay). This impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.4-2 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-2 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue: ■ Widen eastbound approach of Oyster Point Boulevard to create shared through/right-turn lane, and two dedicated through lanes Finding: Mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would require the new lane be carried through the intersection of Oyster Point/Eccles to the next driveway to the east (Monogram Biosciences), and a transition from 2 eastbound to 3 eastbound lanes between the Monogram Biosciences driveway and the Oyster Point/Gull Chapter 4 Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4-2 Drive intersection. With implementation of this measure, operation at this intersection will be an acceptable LOS C (30.9 seconds of delay). This impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-3 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-3 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard: ■ Eastbound Grand Avenue shall be widened from two eastbound through lanes to three eastbound through lanes ■ Northbound Harbor Way Road shall be modified to create variable lanes that meet the following:  In AM: one dedicated left-turn, two dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane  In PM: two dedicated left-turn lanes, one dedicated through, and one shared through/right- turn lane ■ Southbound Harbor Way shall be modified to create variable lanes that meet the following:  In AM: one dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and two dedicated right- turn lanes  In PM: one shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 assumes that intersection splits are optimized to account for the new lanes. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard would be reduced to LOS D (45.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS D (51.2 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-4 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue: ■ On southbound approach, create one dedicated left-turn lane, two dedicated through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane Finding: Mitigation Measure MM4.4-4 would involve removal of the pork-chop islands, and signal masts, as well as re-striping. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at Chapter 4 Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4-3 the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue would be reduced to LOS D (52.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-5 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard: ■ The two right-turn lanes for southbound Veterans Boulevard shall be reduced to one right-turn lane and overlap with the eastbound left-turn lane ■ Convert the westbound approach along Oyster Point Boulevard from two through lanes to three through lanes by converting westbound right-turn to a through and shared right-turn lane ■ Convert the eastbound approach along Oyster Point Boulevard to one dedicated left-turn lane, a shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5 assumes the elimination of the planted median on the east side of the intersection. After implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5, the impact at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard would be reduced to LOS C (32.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (54.6 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-6 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-6 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard: ■ Along northbound Gateway Boulevard, add a second dedicated right-turn lane and adjust intersection splits—change northbound left to split phase ■ Along southbound Gateway Boulevard, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane ■ Along eastbound East Grand Avenue, convert the dedicated right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane. One shared through/right-turn lane, three dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated left-turn lane. Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6 would reduce the impact to LOS D (37.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (37.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This impact would be considered less than significant. Chapter 4 Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 4-4 Impact 4.4 7 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4 7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-7 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard: ■ Along southbound Gull Drive, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane ■ Along eastbound Forbes Boulevard, create a dedicated left-turn lane, and three through lanes ■ Along westbound Forbes Boulevard, create two dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated right- turn lane (yield) Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-7 would reduce the impact to a LOS C (32.7 seconds) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-8 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. MM4.4-8 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: ■ Along eastbound Grand Avenue, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right- turn lane Finding: Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-8 would reduce the impact at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection to LOS D (54.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (45.7 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This impact would be considered less than significant. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR FOF/SOC 5-1 CHAPTER 5 Findings Regarding Alternatives Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715). Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. The 2007 MEIR evaluated a number of different alternatives to the 2007 Master Plan, including a no- project alternative and a reduced development alternative. The No Project Alternative would not reduce the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the SMEIR as development and continued expansion of Genentech’s campus would occur without the benefits provided by the proposed project. Further, regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in less development, less traffic volumes and less construction and operational related emissions. However, the Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the project objectives articulated in the 2007 MEIR, and would not provide the full range of benefits identified in the 2007 MEIR from implementation of the 2007 Master Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new information of substantial importance has become available showing either that (1) alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, or (2) alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2007 MEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, and (3) that the project proponents have declined to address the alternative. Accordingly, the analysis and conclusions contained in the 2007 MEIR remain adequate and there was no need for further environmental review in the SMEIR. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 2 CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR (SCH No. 2005072165; Certified _______, 2012 by Resolution No. _____), as further identified and described in Chapter 3 of these Findings. The Planning Commission has carefully considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Project. The Planning Commission has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which would both meet most of the project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The Planning Commission hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project. ■ The Project is expected to generate a new source of significant tax revenue for City. Additionally, at full build out, the Project is expected to employ an additional 6,661 employees. ■ The Project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policies for the East of 101 Area, which provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses (3.5-G-1) and promotes high-technology, and research and development uses (3.5- G-3). ■ The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing Policies, which generally promote research & development uses, to the exclusion of residential and more traditional industrial uses. (See 3.5-I-3, 3.5-I-11.). ■ The Project is designed to take advantage of and promote the use of public transit by adopting a Transportation Demand Management Plan that provides incentives for employees to use alternative modes of transportation. 1981086.1 : Exhibit B Draft SMEIR CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2005072165 Draft SMEIR Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111 Contents City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-2 August 2012 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR iii Contents Draft SMEIR CHAPTER 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 6-1 1.1 Purpose and Legal Authority ......................................................................................... 6-1 1.2 Scope of the EIR ............................................................................................................. 6-3 1.2.1 Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline ..................................... 6-4 1.3 Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................... 6-5 1.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved ....................................................... 6-7 1.5 Document Organization ................................................................................................. 6-7 CHAPTER 2 Summary ................................................................................................................. 6-1 2.1 Purpose of the Summary ................................................................................................ 6-1 2.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 6-1 2.3 Summary of Project ......................................................................................................... 6-1 2.4 Classification of Environmental Impacts ..................................................................... 6-2 2.5 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ........................................................................... 6-3 2.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analyzed in This SMEIR ............. 6-3 CHAPTER 3 Project Description ................................................................................................. 6-1 3.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 6-1 3.2 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................ 6-1 3.2.1 Regional Location ............................................................................................. 6-1 3.2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................... 6-1 3.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................... 6-5 3.2.4 General Plan/Zoning Designations .............................................................. 6-5 3.3 Project Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 6-6 3.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 6-6 3.4.1 City of South San Francisco Policies ............................................................. 6-7 3.4.2 Genentech’s Project Objectives ..................................................................... 6-7 3.5 Intended Uses of This SMEIR ...................................................................................... 6-8 3.6 Public Actions and Approvals Required ...................................................................... 6-8 3.6.1 State and Local Agencies ................................................................................. 6-8 3.7 Cumulative Development Scenario .............................................................................. 6-9 3.8 References ...................................................................................................................... 6-10 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................... 6-1 4.0 Introduction to the Analysis .......................................................................................... 6-1 4.1 Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.1.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.1.2 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1.2-2 4.1.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 1.2-2 4.1.4 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................ 1.2-3 Contents City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR iv 4.1.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 1.2-11 4.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 1.2-23 4.1.7 References ................................................................................................... 1.2-24 4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.2.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.2.2 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1.2-1 4.2.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 1.2-1 4.2.4 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................ 1.2-7 4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 1.2-19 4.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 1.2-26 4.2.7 References ................................................................................................... 1.2-26 4.3 Land Use/Planning ..................................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.3.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.3.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 1.2-2 4.3.3 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................ 1.2-2 4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................................. 1.2-5 4.3.5 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 1.2-11 4.3.6 References ................................................................................................... 1.2-12 4.4 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.4.1 Background ................................................................................................... 1.2-1 4.4.2 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1.2-1 4.4.3 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 1.2-2 4.4.4 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 1.2-10 4.4.5 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 1.2-12 4.4.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 1.2-37 4.4.7 References ................................................................................................... 1.2-37 CHAPTER 5 Other CEQA Considerations.................................................................................. 6-1 5.1 New Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Project Is Implemented .................................................................................................. 6-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ........................................................... 6-1 5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts.............................................................................................. 6-1 5.4 Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects of the Project ............................................................................................................................... 6-2 5.5 Additional CEQA Consideration .................................................................................. 6-2 5.5.1 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 6-2 5.5.2 Hydrology/ Water Quality .............................................................................. 6-2 5.5.3 Alternatives ........................................................................................................ 6-3 CHAPTER 6 Report Preparers ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.1 List of Report Preparers ................................................................................................. 6-1 Contents City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR v Appendices Appendix A Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures Appendix C Air Quality Supporting Data Appendix D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Data Appendix E Traffic Memorandum Figures Figure 3-1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity ................................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 3-2 Genentech Existing Development ........................................................................................................... 6-3 Figure 4.3-1 Areas of Inundation for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise ....................................................... 1.2-7 Figure 4.4-1 SMEIR Study Intersections..................................................................................................................... 1.2-5 Figure 4.4-2 Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) Turning Movement Volumes ............................ 1.2-7 Figure 4.4-3 Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................................... 1.2-15 Figure 4.4-4 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.2-21 Figure 4.4-5 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) Turning Movement Volumes ...................................................................................................................................................... 1.2-23 Tables Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas (sf) ...................................................................................... 6-2 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures ............ 6-4 Table 3-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas.............................................................................................. 6-7 Table 3-2 Cumulative Projects Located within the East of 101 Area ............................................................. 6-10 Table 4.1-1 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources .................................. 1.2-4 Table 4.1-2 Bay Area 2010 Estimated Average Daily Emissions ....................................................................... 1.2-6 Table 4.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ................................................................... 1.2-6 Table 4.1-4 BAAQMD Operational Emissions Thresholds ............................................................................. 1.2-14 Table 4.1-5 Operational Emissions ........................................................................................................................... 1.2-21 Table 4.2-1 Project-Level GHG Emissions ............................................................................................................ 1.2-24 Table 4.3-1 BCDC Climate Change Consistency Analysis ................................................................................... 1.2-9 Table 4.4-1 Comparison of Genentech Development Assumptions in the 2007 MEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study ....................................................................................................................................... 1.2-3 Table 4.4-2 Comparison of East of 101 Area Land Uses in the 2007 MEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study .............................................................................................................................................................. 1.2-3 Table 4.4-3 SMEIR Study Intersections..................................................................................................................... 1.2-4 Table 4.4-4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) .......................................................................................................................................................... 1.2-9 Table 4.4-5 Genentech Growth in Master Plan District ..................................................................................... 1.2-13 Table 4.4-6 Project Trip Generation (Net Increase in Vehicle Trips)—Genentech Master Plan District ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.2-14 Table 4.4-7 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project without East of 101 Planned Improvements .......................................................................................................................... 1.2-17 Contents City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR vi Table 4.4-8 Updated 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) and East of 101 Planned Improvements* ........................................................................................................................ 1.2-18 Table 4.4-9 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) ...................................................................................................................................... 1.2-25 Table 4.4-10 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With and Without Project) (Includes East of 101 Planned Improvements) ......................... 1.2-26 Table 4.4-11 2035 Conditions Freeway Mainline Analysis ................................................................................... 1.2-37 Table 6-1 List of EIR Preparers .................................................................................................................................... 6-1 City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-1 ○ Introduction This supplement to a master environmental impact report (SMEIR) addresses potential environmental impacts that could occur due to any substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken that have occurred, or due to new information that has arisen since certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update project (project) for the City of South San Francisco (the City) in 2007. The City is the lead agency for this project. The background for the project and the legal basis for preparing an SMEIR are described below. O PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY The City of South San Francisco is processing an application from Genentech to update the company’s 2007 Master EIR (2007 MEIR) prepared for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update. The 2007 MEIR considered the environmental impacts of development on Genentech’s 160-acre campus area within a broader 220-acre study area. The 2007 MEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165, was certified by the City of South San Francisco on March 14, 2007. After certification of the 2007 MEIR, the City Council subsequently adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan (2007 Master Plan) that was analyzed in the 2007 MEIR, and amended the City’s Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (R&D). Since certification of the 2007 MEIR and adoption of the 2007 Master Plan, the City has approved a number of projects which it determined were within the scope of the 2007 MEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15177. CEQA Guidelines Section 15179 provides: (a) The certified Master EIR shall not be used for a subsequent project described in the Master EIR in accordance with this article if either: (1) The Master EIR was certified more than 5 years prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project except as set forth in subsection (b) below, or … (b) A Master EIR that was certified more than five years prior to the filing of an application for a subsequent project described in the Master EIR may be used in accordance with this article to review such a subsequent project if the lead agency reviews the adequacy of the Master EIR and takes either of the following steps: (1) Finds that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Master EIR was certified, or that there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR was certified; or (2) Prepares an initial study, and, pursuant to the findings of the initial study, does either (A) or (B) below: (A) Certifies a subsequent or supplemental EIR that updates or revises the Master EIR and which either: 1. Is incorporated into the previously certified Master EIR, or CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-2 2. References any deletions, additions or other modifications to the previously certified Master EIR. Because of the five year limitations set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15179, the City has determined to review the adequacy of the 2007 MEIR and conduct additional environmental review in order to supplement the 2007 MEIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document (as supplemented) in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. Under CEQA, the scope of environmental analysis required depends on whether substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the 2007 MEIR was certified have occurred and/or whether any new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the certification of the 2007 MEIR becomes available. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15179 incorporates the standards for supplemental environmental review under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Supplemental review is appropriate if (1) substantial changes are proposed in the project or in the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions of an EIR, or new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known at the time an EIR was certified becomes available, and (2) such changes or new information will result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. As discussed above, the 2007 Master Plan was fully analyzed in the 2007 MEIR. Although the scope of the 2007 Master Plan has not changed since its adoption, the City wishes to continue to rely upon the 2007 MEIR in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. This SMEIR therefore analyzes substantial changes in circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan is being undertaken that have occurred, and new information of substantial importance that has arisen, since certification of the 2007 MEIR which were determined to potentially result in new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts previously found significant in the 2007 MEIR. This SMEIR thus focuses largely on regulatory changes that have occurred since certification of the 2007 MEIR in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and land use/planning, and new information and changed circumstances since certification of the 2007 MEIR in the area of traffic/transportation, as explained more fully below. All other environmental topics were adequately analyzed in the 2007 MEIR and require no further analysis, as determined in the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation (IS/NOP) attached hereto as Appendix A. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15163(b), this SMEIR contains only the information necessary to make the previous 2007 MEIR adequate for the City’s reliance in reviewing subsequent projects that are within the scope of, and for implementation of, the 2007 Master Plan. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, a subsequent EIR is required only when, among other criteria, “substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15163 allows the lead agency to choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if “only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.” CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-3 There are no changes to the previously adopted 2007 Master Plan. Accordingly, only minor additions to the 2007 MEIR are necessary to adequately address changes in the circumstances of the project’s implementation and new information that has arisen since certification of the 2007 MEIR. Because of the modest nature of these updates, a supplement to the 2007 MEIR has been prepared. The purpose of this report is to serve as an informational document for the public and City decision- makers. The process will culminate with Planning Commission and City Council hearings to consider certification of a Final SMEIR. O SCOPE OF THE EIR The SMEIR assesses and evaluates potentially new or substantially more significant environmental impacts that were not previously examined in the 2007 MEIR due to substantial changes in circumstances or new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the 2007 MEIR was certified. These impacts were identified through a scoping process that included (1) preparation of the IS/NOP distributed for public review for 30 days beginning on December 21, 2011, and ending January 20, 2012; (2) comments received by the City in response to the IS/NOP; and (3) scoping discussions among consulting staff and the City. The IS/NOP and comment letters received during the 30-day public review period are included in Appendix A. During the scoping period, the City received two written comment letters on the IS/NOP: one from the Native American Heritage Commission regarding cultural resources, and one from the San Mateo County Transit District regarding potential impacts on area public transit. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) provided verbal comments via phone communication with the City during the NOP comment period. This comment was regarding the change in the SFRWQCB permits. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) also submitted a comment letter after the close of the IS/NOP comment period requesting a copy of the SMEIR. The IS/NOP determined the scope of any additional review required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15179, and it concluded that changes in circumstances and/or new information had arisen in four impact areas that warranted further analysis in this SMEIR: Air Quality1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic 1 In January 2012, the Superior Court for the Court of Alameda County issued a minute order granting a petition for writ of mandate and determined that BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA in adopting its revised CEQA Guidelines, and decided that the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are invalid on procedural grounds (California Building Industry v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt RG10-548693). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. This SMEIR conservatively assumes that BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Guidelines were developed with the support of substantial evidence, represent more accurate thresholds of significance and provide a more accurate methodology for purposes of analyzing potential air quality impacts than the earlier (1999) version of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, it is ultimately up to the Lead Agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply. Because the City has determined that the revised thresholds and methodologies prescribed by BAAQMD’s revised 2011 CEQA Guidelines are amply supported by evidence in the record, the City has determined to adopt them for purposes of the analysis in this SMEIR. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-4 This SMEIR addresses each of these environmental issues in Chapter 4 (Environmental Analysis) of this document. The environmental analysis was conducted in accordance with the provisions set forth in CEQA Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15179. The analysis identifies potentially significant environmental impacts, including both the site-specific and cumulative effects of the project; evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the project; and recommends feasible mitigation measures, where appropriate, that would serve to reduce or eliminate the project’s identified adverse environmental effects. All project-related mitigation measures previously analyzed in the 2007 MEIR and adopted by the City in its mitigation and monitoring plan are being carried forward and are listed in Appendix B (2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures) for ease of reference. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15128 and 15162, the IS/NOP (Appendix A) explains why each of the following environmental issue areas did not meet the criteria for supplemental environmental review, and are not, therefore, analyzed further in the SMEIR: Aesthetics Agriculture/Forestry Resources Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Noise Mineral Resources Population/Housing Public Services Utilities/Service Systems For each of these impact areas, it was determined that there is no new information of substantial importance and no changes in circumstances that warrant revisions to the 2007 MEIR, that the analysis in the 2007 MEIR was adequate, and therefore no further analysis was required. In preparing the SMEIR, the City reviewed and evaluated pertinent City policies and guidelines, the 2007 MEIR, and other background documents. A list of references is provided at the end of each section in Chapter 4.2 ▪ Environmental Setting/Definition of the Baseline According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the “baseline condition” against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published. The NOP for the project was published on December 2 Because no changes to the 2007 Facilities Master Plan evaluated in the 2007 MEIR are being proposed, this SMEIR does not include discussion of additional alternatives to the project. As required by CEQA, the 2007 MEIR included a detailed analysis of two alternatives to the project: a No Action Alternative, and a Reduced Development Alternative. This analysis remains applicable. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-5 21, 2011. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that the date for establishing an environmental baseline cannot be rigid. Because physical environmental conditions may vary over a range of time periods, the use of environmental baselines that differ from the date of the NOP is reasonable and appropriate when doing so results in a more accurate or conservative (e.g., higher impacts) environmental analysis. The baseline year of 2011 is used for all impact areas analyzed in this SMEIR to evaluate the potential impacts of the project in light of changes in policies and other circumstances. O ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS This SMEIR has been prepared to meet all of the substantive and procedural requirements of CEQA of 1970 (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the rules, regulations and procedures for the implementation of CEQA as adopted by the City of South San Francisco. Accordingly, as discussed above, the City of South San Francisco has been identified as the Lead Agency for this project, taking responsibility for conducting the environmental review and approving or denying future projects. As a first step in complying with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study (IS) to determine which, if any, aspects of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the environment. Based on that determination, the City could narrow the focus (or scope) of the subsequent environmental analysis. For this project, the IS process found that this SMEIR should focus on air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and transportation and traffic impacts. After completing the IS, the City filed a NOP with the California Office of Planning and Research, providing official notice that an SMEIR would be prepared for this project. Subsequently, the NOP was distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a public review period of 30 days. The purpose of the public review period was to solicit comments on the scope and content of the environmental analysis to be included in the SMEIR. Agencies or interested persons who did not respond during the public review period of the NOP will have an opportunity to comment on the project’s environmental effects during the public review period required for the SMEIR, as well as at subsequent Planning Commission and City Council hearings on the project. In addition to filing the NOP, the City held a public scoping meeting on January 9, 2012, to encourage and solicit comments from the general public on the project. The IS/NOP, as well as the scoping comment letters, are included in Appendix A of this SMEIR. During preparation of the SMEIR, agencies, organizations, and persons who the City believed might have an interest in this project were identified and specifically contacted. Information, data, and observations derived from these contacts are included in the SMEIR. Moving forward, this SMEIR will be distributed to affected agencies, involved public agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day review period in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087. During the 45-day public review period, this SMEIR is available for general public review on the City’s website (http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=367) and at the following locations: CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-6 City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Main Library Planning Division 840 West Orange Avenue 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Interested parties may provide comments on the SMEIR in written form. Comments should be addressed to the City of South San Francisco to the following address: City of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94083 Attention: Mr. Gerry Beaudin, Principal Planner Your comments may also be sent by FAX to 650-829-6639 or by email to gerry.beaudin@ssf.net (include the project name, “Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update” in the subject heading). Upon completion of the 45-day public review period, written responses to all comments raised with respect to environmental issues discussed in the SMEIR will be prepared and incorporated into the Final SMEIR. Furthermore, written responses to comments received from any public agencies will be made available to these agencies at least 10 days prior to the public hearing during which the certification of the Final SMEIR will be considered. These comments, and their responses, will be included in the Final SMEIR for consideration by the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council, as well as any other public decision-makers. According to CEQA Section 21081, the Lead Agency must make specific Findings of Fact (Findings) before certification of the Final SMEIR, when the SMEIR identifies significant environmental impacts that may result from a project. The purpose of the Findings is to establish the link between the contents of the Final SMEIR and the action of the Lead Agency with regard to approval or rejection of the project. Prior to approval of a project, one of three findings must be made: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final SMEIR. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final SMEIR. Additionally, according to CEQA Section 21081.6, for projects in which significant impacts will be avoided by mitigation measures, the Lead Agency must include a mitigation monitoring program (MMP) as part of the Final SMEIR. The purpose of the MMP is to ensure compliance with required mitigation during implementation of the project. However, environmental impacts may not always be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. When this occurs, impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If a public agency approves a project that has CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-7 significant and unavoidable impacts, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final SMEIR and any other information in the public record. This is termed a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” and is used to explain the specific reasons why the benefits of a project make its unavoidable environmental effects acceptable. The statement is prepared, if required, after the Final SMEIR has been completed, and before action to approve the project has been taken. Ultimately, the lead agency must certify the Final SMEIR, prior to approving a specific project. In the case at hand, the City of South San Francisco (as the lead agency), would need to certify the Final SMEIR and adopt Findings prior to approving future projects under the 2007 Master Plan. O AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED During the environmental review process, NOP comment letters were received from various parties which raised issues of concern. Comments received included: one comment letter from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), one comment letter from the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), one comment letter from the California Water Service Company, and phone communication with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). These comment letters and verbal comments are included in Appendix A, and were used to determine areas of potential controversy and issues to be resolved. These issues are discussed within the technical sections of this document, and summarized below. Consideration of traffic impacts to local transit service Consideration of impacts to cultural resources Consideration of water supply Consideration of compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit O DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This SMEIR has been designed for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest, a brief summary of the contents of each section of the SMEIR is provided. References are contained at the end of each respective chapter, and at the end of each section in Chapter 4. The following chapters are contained within the SMEIR: Chapter 1: Introduction—This chapter describes the purpose, approach, intended use, and scope of the SMEIR, a summary of the environmental and public review process, agencies relevant to the project, the availability of the SMEIR, documents incorporated by reference, and a brief outline of this document’s organization. Chapter 2: Summary— This chapter contains a summary of the project, as well as a summary of new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts, proposed mitigation, level of significance after mitigation, and unavoidable impacts. Chapter 3: Project Description—This chapter provides a description of the conditions that have changed since certification of the 2007 MEIR; there are no changes to the 2007 Master Plan or to the project described in the 2007 MEIR. Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis—This chapter describes and evaluates the changes to environmental issue areas, applicable environmental thresholds, environmental impacts (both short-term and long-term), policy considerations related to the particular environmental issue area under analysis, feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing environmental impacts, and CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-8 a discussion of cumulative impacts as they related to new information or changes in circumstance occurring since certification of the 2007 MEIR. Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations—This chapter provides analysis, as required by CEQA, regarding changes to impacts that would result from the project, including significant and unavoidable impacts, mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant impacts of the project, and effects found not to be significant since certification of the 2007 MEIR. Chapter 6: Report Preparers—This chapter identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this SMEIR. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-1 ○ Summary O PURPOSE OF THE SUMMARY This section summarizes the characteristics of the project, the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and residual impacts of the project. O INTRODUCTION This Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report (SMEIR) is intended to provide decision- makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e. continued implementation of the 2007 Master Plan). This SMEIR identifies significant or potentially significant environmental effects, as well as ways in which those impacts can be reduced through the imposition of mitigation measures (MMs), or through the implementation of alternatives to the project. O SUMMARY OF PROJECT The project study area is bounded by the San Francisco Bay in the north and east and is connected by Oyster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of Genentech’s existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus). The Campus is built on and around the San Bruno Hill—which is the highest point in the East of 101 Area. The Campus is visible from downtown South San Francisco, and has many views overlooking the Bay and landmarks in the Bay Area. In 1995, the City of South San Francisco adopted the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) to provide an integrated framework for development of Genentech-owned properties into a corporate campus, at the City’s eastern bayshore. The 1995 Master Plan was designed and formulated to ensure consistency with the existing South San Francisco General Plan development policies. The 1995 Master Plan ensured that Genentech’s growth fits within a City-wide development context and was adopted in the South San Francisco General Plan to minimize future impacts and conflicts or policy inconsistencies. The Genentech Research and Development (R&D) Overlay District, as Chapter 20.260 in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), was established at the same time (this district is now known as the Genentech Master Plan District). The Genentech R&D Overlay District specifies Floor Area Ratio (FAR), parking and other standards, and review and approval procedures for development within the R&D Overlay District. In 2007, the City Council adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan, supported by the 2007 MEIR and amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The 2007 MEIR evaluated a study area of approximately 220 acres, of which 160 acres currently comprise the Genentech Master Plan District which is divided into the Lower, Upper, Mid, and West Campus neighborhoods. At build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech expected to almost double its CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-2 2006 size (from 2.8 million square feet [sf] to roughly 6 million sf) of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking structures. Table 2-1 (Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas [sf]) shows the existing development and the remaining proposed development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District. This SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,708,100 sf as shown in Table 2-1.3 No changes have been proposed to the adopted 2007 Master Plan. Table 2-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas (sf) 2007 Genentech R&D Overlay District 2011 Existing Genentech Master Plan District 2007 Approved Capacity under Master Plan/Genentech Master Plan District Remaining Development Capacity under 2007 Approved Master Plan/ Genentech Master Plan District Land Area (acres) 125 162 200 38 Office 1,009,00 1,091,430 2,632,000 1,540,570 Laboratory 1,007,000 1,010,300 2,000,000 989,700 Manufacturing 724,000 1,046,900 1,046,000 -900 Amenity 75,000 143,270 322,000 178,730 Total Building Area 2,815,000 3,291,900 6,000,000 2,708,100 SOURCE: Genentech (2011). No changes have been proposed to the 2007 Facilities Master Plan. The SMEIR focuses exclusively on changes to the relevant policies and standards, changes in circumstances that have occurred, and/or new information of substantial importance that was not known at the time of the 2007 MEIR certification. O CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Under CEQA, a “significant impact” represents a substantial or potentially substantial adverse physical change to the environment. In evaluating specific effects, this SMEIR identifies thresholds of significance for each effect, evaluates the potential environmental change associated with each effect, and then characterizes the effects as impacts in the following categories: Less Than Significant—Results in no substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions Potentially Significant—Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by implementation of proposed potentially feasible mitigation measures or by the selection of an environmentally superior project alternative 3 Given that the 2007 Master Plan does not mandate the timing or sequence of construction of specific structures, where the analysis of specific impacts requires an estimate of building schedule as a model input, reasonable working assumptions have been made. For purposes of analysis in this SMEIR, complete build-out is assumed by 2015 for all sections except transportation. For transportation, the analysis assumes seventy percent build-out by 2015, and complete build-out by 2035, based on the East of 101 Traffic Study which represents significant new information or changed circumstances warranting an update to the 2007 MEIR analysis. These assumptions produce a “worst case scenario” for all potential environmental effects. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-3 Significant and Unavoidable—Constitutes a substantial adverse change to existing environmental conditions that cannot be fully mitigated by implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. O SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS The following significant, unavoidable impacts would result from future development of the project as a result of either new information arising since certification of the 2007 MEIR or changes in circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented. A detailed discussion of these impacts can be found in Section 4.1 (Air Quality) and Section 4.4 (Transportation/Traffic) of this document. Air Quality Project Specific—Operation of the project would exceed an air quality threshold and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Project Specific and Cumulative—Operation of the project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors), resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. Transportation/Traffic Project Specific and cumulative—Implementation of the project would conflict with a recently established applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact Project Specific and cumulative—Implementation of the project would conflict with a recently established applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. O SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ANALYZED IN THIS SMEIR Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(b)(1), Table 2-2 (Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures) contains a summary of less-than-significant, potentially significant, or significant and unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project, mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid those effects, and the level of significance of the impacts following the implementation of mitigation measures. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-4 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This would be a less-than-significant impact. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Impact 4.1-2 Construction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would include excavation, grading, and construction activities which could result in emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the established thresholds. This would be a temporary but potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-1(a) and MM4.3-1(b) as identified in the 2007 MEIR, and mitigation measures MM4.1-1(a) through MM4.1-2 would reduce this impact, but not to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. PS 2007 MEIR MM4.3-1(a) Implement appropriate dust control measures recommended by the BAAQMD as outlined below. The project contractor(s) shall comply with these dust control strategies. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: ■ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose construction and demolition debris from the site, or require all such trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. ■ Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces in active construction areas at least twice daily. ■ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. ■ Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas. ■ Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. ■ Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). ■ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ■ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. ■ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ■ Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. ■ Install wind breaks at the windward side(s) of construction areas. ■ Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph over a 30-minute period or more. ■ To the extent possible, limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other dust- generating construction activity at any one time. 2007 MEIR MM4.3-1(b) Designate a dust control coordinator. All construction sites shall post in a conspicuous location the name and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. MM4.1-1(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for individual development projects undertaken SU CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-5 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation under the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech shall present to the City of South San Francisco Planning Department detailed analysis of the development project’s construction related impacts. This analysis shall be consistent with the methodology as outlined in the BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Guidelines. MM4.1-1(b) Genentech and its construction contractor shall implement the appropriate BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: ■ All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. ■ All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. ■ All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. ■ All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. ■ All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. ■ Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. ■ All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. ■ Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MM4.1-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, if the detailed analysis of an individual development project determines that the proposed project would exceed the construction- related threshold established in this SMEIR after implementation of the mitigation measures identified in MM4.1-1(b), Genentech shall implement one or more of the following measures (which it shall choose) as necessary to bring the impact to below the threshold: ■ All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-6 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. ■ All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. ■ Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. ■ Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. ■ The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. ■ All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. ■ Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12- inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. ■ Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. ■ Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to 2 minutes. ■ The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. ■ Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). ■ Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. ■ Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-7 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 4.1-3 Operation activities associated with full build- out of the 2007 Master Plan could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. PS No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 4.1-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. PS No feasible mitigation is available. SU Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This would be a less-than-significant impact. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. However, quantification of the greenhouse gas levels does not exceed the threshold established by the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. However, quantification of the greenhouse gas levels does not exceed the threshold established by the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-8 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation LAND USE PLANNING Impact 4.3-1 The project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. LTS No mitigation required. LTS TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Impact 4.4-1 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of signalized intersections to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/ US 101 NB on-ramp. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. PS MM4.4-1 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramp: ■ The signal for the right turn movement for the westbound approach shall be modified to provide a protected overlap for the right turn (allowed during the westbound through and northbound through phases) ■ Convert one of the westbound through lanes to a shared through/right-turn lane in the PM LTS Impact 4.4-2 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. PS MM4.4-2 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue: ■ Widen eastbound approach of Oyster Point Boulevard to create shared through/right-turn lane, and two dedicated through lanes LTS CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-9 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 4.4-3 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. PS MM4.4-3 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard: ■ Eastbound Grand Avenue shall be widened from two eastbound through lanes to three eastbound through lanes ■ Northbound Harbor Way Road shall be modified to create variable lanes that meet the following: In AM: one dedicated left-turn, two dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane In PM: two dedicated left-turn lanes, one dedicated through, and one shared through/right- turn lane ■ Southbound Harbor Way shall be modified to create variable lanes that meet the following: In AM: one dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and two dedicated right- turn lanes In PM: one shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes LTS Impact 4.4-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. PS MM4.4-4 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue: ■ On southbound approach, create one dedicated left-turn lane, two dedicated through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane LTS Impact 4.4-5 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. PS MM4.4-5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard: ■ The two right-turn lanes for southbound Veterans Boulevard shall be reduced to one right- turn lane and overlap with the eastbound left-turn lane ■ Convert the westbound approach along Oyster Point Boulevard from two through lanes to three through lanes by converting westbound right-turn to a through and shared right turn lane ■ Convert the eastbound approach along Oyster Point Boulevard to one dedicated left-turn lane, a shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane LTS CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-10 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 4.4-6 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. PS MM4.4-6 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard: ■ Along northbound Gateway Boulevard, add a second dedicated right-turn lane and adjust intersection splits—change northbound left to split phase ■ Along southbound Gateway Boulevard, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane ■ Along eastbound East Grand Avenue, convert the dedicated right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane. One shared through/right-turn lane, three dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated left-turn lane. SU Impact 4.4-7 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. PS MM4.4-7 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard: ■ Along southbound Gull Drive, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right- turn lane ■ Along eastbound Forbes Boulevard, create a dedicated left-turn lane, and three through lanes ■ Along westbound Forbes Boulevard, create two dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane (yield) LTS Impact 4.4-8 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. PS MM4.4-8 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: ■ Along eastbound Grand Avenue, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane LTS Impact 4.4-9 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-9 would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level, this would remain significant and unavoidable. PS MM4.4-9 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard: ■ Eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard: add a through lane to both eastbound approaches (from the US 101 off-ramp, and Oyster Point Boulevard) SU CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-11 Table 2-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures Impact(s) Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) and/or Project Requirements Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 4.4-10 Implementation of the project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. This is considered a potentially significant impact. As potential mitigation measures to reduce this impact would require approvals from outside agencies and are outside the City’s jurisdiction, this would remain significant and unavoidable. PS No feasible mitigation is available. SU City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-1 ○ Project Description O BACKGROUND The City of South San Francisco is updating the Genentech Master EIR (2007 MEIR). The 2007 MEIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2005072165, was certified by the City of South San Francisco on March 14, 2007, and may be found at http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink8/Browse.aspx. The 2007 MEIR is incorporated by reference into this SMEIR. The City is conducting additional environmental review in order to supplement the 2007 MEIR so that it may continue to rely upon that document in its review of subsequent projects within the scope of the previously approved 2007 Master Plan. This SMEIR analyzes the same 220-acre 2007 Study Area, and focuses on changes to the relevant policies and standards, changes in the circumstances under which build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would occur, and/or new information of substantial importance that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the 2007 MEIR certification. This SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,708,100 square feet (sf), as well as the updated cumulative scenario as described in Section 3.7 below. The project characteristics are described at length in Chapter 3 of the 2007 MEIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. Although there are no changes proposed to the 2007 Master Plan, the project described in the 2007 MEIR is summarized below for informational purposes. O EXISTING SETTING ▪ Regional Location The project area is the same 220-acre Study Area as analyzed in the 2007 MEIR. The Genentech Master Plan District extends over 162 acres. The project area is located in the City of South San Francisco, in the East of 101 Area, along the western shoreline of central San Francisco Bay, about 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and 10 miles south of downtown San Francisco. Figure 3-1 (Project Location and Regional Vicinity) shows the regional location of the SMEIR Study Area. ▪ Project Location The MEIR Study Area is located within the East of 101 Area. Genentech’s existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus) is bounded by the San Francisco Bay in the north and east and is connected by Oyster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Campus. Figure 3-2 (Genentech Existing Development) is a map of the existing Campus buildings. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-2 Figure 3-1 Project Location and Regional Vicinity B&W 8.5x11 CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-3 Figure 3-2 Genentech Existing Development Page 1—color 8.5x11 CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-4 Page 2—color 8.5x11 CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-5 The Genentech Campus is within the jurisdiction of other agencies in addition to the City of South San Francisco. Along the Genentech Campus shoreline, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) jurisdiction and permitting authority embrace a 100-foot shoreline band. In addition, the entire Genentech Campus is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limits for the SFIA. ▪ Surrounding Land Uses Figure 3-2 shows the existing on-site development, as well as the adjacent uses. Surrounding development includes the following: The Oyster Point Marina Park—The Marina is a combination of Coastal Commercial and park uses, including site of the future South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, currently under construction, and anticipated to be operational a the end of 2012. The Marina is directly north of the Genentech Campus. San Francisco Bay Trail—Portions of the San Francisco Bay Trail, a mostly contiguous trail around the San Francisco Bay, outline the coast around the Genentech Campus, providing recreational uses as well as pedestrian and bicycle access. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) jurisdiction and permitting authority embrace a 100-foot shoreline band. San Francisco International Airport (SFIA)—SFIA is a major influence on land use in the East of 101 Area. SFIA is approximately 1.5 miles south of the Genentech Campus. Caltrain Station and BART Station—There are shuttle bus links to the South San Francisco BART Station and to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The BART station is approximately 4 miles away. The Caltrain station is approximately 2 miles away. ▪ General Plan/Zoning Designations The project site is currently zoned as Business Technology Park (SSFMC Chapter 20.110) and Genentech Master Plan District (SSFMC Chapter 20.260), with a narrow strip of land that extends south along the coastline zoned as Parks & Open Space (SSFMC Chapter 20.130). Permitted uses include, among others, offices, research and development, and limited industry, and certain warehousing, storage, and distribution uses. Certain manufacturing activities are allowed within the scope of research and development and light industry uses. The majority of the project area is designated in the General Plan as Business and Technology Park, with the southern portion along the San Francisco Bay designated as Park and Recreation in the City’s General Plan. The small Park and Recreation General Plan land use category includes the Bay Trail and coastal beach areas. The Business and Technology Park land use category is designated for campus-style development for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline- oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-6 facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses. Uses permitted under the Park and Recreation land use category are parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. O PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS Genentech, founded in 1976 as the first biotechnology company, is the largest employer in South San Francisco. As of December 31, 2011, Genentech employed 5,856 employees within the in the MEIR Study Area. Genentech employs a wide range of functions at its Campus, which include research and development, manufacturing and distribution, marketing and administration. In 1995, the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) was adopted in the South San Francisco General Plan to minimize future impacts and conflicts or policy inconsistencies. The Genentech R&D Overlay District, as Chapter 20.260 in the SSFMC, was established at the same time. In 2007, the City Council adopted the updated Genentech Ten Year Facilities Master Plan, supported by a Master Environmental Impact Report (2007 MEIR), and amended the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (R&D). The 2007 MEIR evaluated a study area of approximately 220 acres, of which 160 acres currently comprise the Genentech Master Plan District (then referred to as the “Genentech R&D Overlay District”, and referenced herein as the Genentech Master Plan District). The 2007 Master Plan “[a]rticulates vision and policies that will serve as a general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals” (see 2007 Master Plan at page 3). It does not provide a binding schedule for the construction of individual buildings or for full build-out. At build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech expects to approximately double its 2006 size (from 2.8 million square feet [sf] to roughly 6 million sf) of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking structures. Table 3-1 (Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas) shows the existing development and the remaining proposed development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District. This SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,708,100 sf as shown in Table 3-1.4 No changes have been proposed to the adopted 2007 Master Plan. O PROJECT OBJECTIVES The following objectives were identified in the 2007 MEIR and are unchanged in this SMEIR: 4 Given that the 2007 Master Plan does not mandate the timing or sequence of construction of specific structures, where the analysis of specific impacts requires an estimate of building schedule as a model input, reasonable working assumptions have been made. For purposes of analysis in this SMEIR, complete build-out is assumed by 2015 for all sections except transportation. For transportation, the analysis assumes complete build-out by 2035, based on the East of 101 Traffic Study, which represents significant new information or changed circumstances warranting an update to the 2007 MEIR analysis. These assumptions produce a “worst-case scenario” for all potential environmental effects. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-7 Table 3-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas 2007 Genentech R&D Overlay District 2011 Existing Genentech Master Plan District 2007 Approved Capacity under Master Plan/Genentech Master Plan District Remaining Development Capacity under 2007 Approved Master Plan/Genentech Master Plan District Land Area (acres) 125 162 200 38 Office (sf) 1,009,00 1,091,430 2,632,000 1,540,570 Laboratory (sf) 1,007,000 1,010,300 2,000,000 989,700 Manufacturing (sf) 724,000 1,046,900 1,046,000 -900 Amenity (sf) 75,000 143,270 322,000 178,730 Total Building Area (sf) 2,815,000 3,291,900 6,000,000 2,708,100 SOURCE: Genentech (2011). ▪ City of South San Francisco Policies The City’s policies, as described in the General Plan5 are listed below: Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of nonresidential uses Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support commercial establishments such as dry cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses ▪ Genentech’s Project Objectives The 2007 Master Plan outlines a potential expansion that would allow the Campus to grow up to approximately six million square feet during the ten-year planning period and serves several purposes: Articulates vision and policies that will serve as a general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals. Fosters development of a campus befitting its setting on the City’s eastern bay shore that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront. Promotes alternatives to individual automobile transportation to further the City’s transportation objectives, by emphasizing a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, and pedestrian connectivity throughout the campus to promote ease of movement between buildings. Establishes the basis for zoning provisions that have been included in an amended Genentech Research and Development Overlay District. 5 Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan (October 13, 1999). CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-8 Provides design guidelines that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the Master Plan area. O INTENDED USES OF THIS SMEIR This SMEIR was prepared to analyze whether any new information of substantial importance has arisen or substantial changes in the project or in circumstances under which the project will be implemented have occurred that could potentially result in new or substantially more significant impacts that were not previously analyzed in the 2007 MEIR, and if so, whether there are additional feasible mitigation measures that would eliminate such impacts or reduce them to less than significant. This document is intended to serve as an informational document. Additionally, this SMEIR, together with the 2007 MEIR, will provide the primary source of environmental information for the lead agency to consider when exercising permitting authority or approval power related to implementing subsequent projects as part of the 2007 Master Plan. This SMEIR is intended to provide decision-makers and the public with information that enables them to intelligently consider the environmental consequences of the proposed action. In a practical sense, EIRs function as a technique for fact-finding, allowing an applicant or developer, concerned citizens, agency staff, and decision-makers an opportunity to collectively review and evaluate baseline conditions and project impacts through a process of full disclosure. O PUBLIC ACTIONS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED The City is the lead agency for the project. The 2007 MEIR together with this SMEIR are anticipated to be used by the City to evaluate the environmental impacts created by implementation of the 2007 Master Plan as it reviews subsequent projects within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan. The City Council will consider approval of the subsequent projects anticipated in the 2007 Master Plan as part of the City’s development review process and would certify the project’s Final EIR in advance of future project approvals. The following specific actions must be completed for the project: Certification of the Final SMEIR (City Council). The City will consider certification of this SMEIR. All future developments within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan will be subject to a separate permit approval. Under the CEQA standards for Master EIRs, the final SMEIR is intended to serve as the CEQA review for future development projects that are within the scope of the 2007 Master Plan and consistent with the SMEIR. However, the City will determine the appropriate CEQA review as established in SSFMC Chapter 20.260.003 and the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. ▪ State and Local Agencies In addition to the City (Lead Agency), other agencies whose approval may be required for future development projects implementing the 2007 Master Plan include, but are not necessarily limited to: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-9 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) O CUMULATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Since certification of the 2007 MEIR, several development applications have been approved by the City. Consequently, the cumulative development scenario for the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan with respect to traffic has been updated in this SMEIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines “cumulative impacts” as “two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts.” In general, these impacts occur in conjunction with other related developments whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project under review. In order to analyze the cumulative impacts of the project in combination with existing development and other expected future growth, the amount and location of growth expected to occur (in addition to the project) must be considered. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), this reasonably foreseeable growth may be based on either of the following, or a combination thereof: A list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency A summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which is designed to evaluate regional or area wide conditions For the purposes of this SMEIR, the potential cumulative effects of the project are based upon a list of projects and allowed redevelopment that was included in the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco (East of 101 Study), prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants in October 2011. This list of projects and allowed redevelopment was utilized in preparing the updated Traffic Analysis for the project (refer to Section 4.4 [Transportation/Traffic]). Information regarding cumulative projects, both approved and pending, was also solicited from the City’s planning department. The purpose of East of 101 Study was to evaluate traffic impacts, identify short-term (2015) and long- term (2035) roadway and circulation needs, determine potential improvement measures beyond the 2007 East of 101 Planned Improvements, and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on-going planning process in light of future land use conditions in the East of 101 Area. This summary of projections represents the City’s known future development within the East of 101 Area, and provided for consistent analysis with the City’s East of 101 Traffic Model. The Projection of allowed redevelopment within the East of 101 Area is provided in Table 3-2 (Cumulative Projects Located within the East of 101 Area). The East of 101 Area redevelopment includes Phase I of the Oyster Point Development, which will be completed by 2015, and Phase II, which will be completed by 2035. Based on information/data provided by the City and utilized in the East of 101 Study regional model, the East of 101 Area redevelopment is presented for the year 2035 in Table 3-2: CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-10 Table 3-2 Cumulative Projects Located within the East of 101 Area Project Type Project Components EAST OF 101 AREA (LONG-TERM—2035) Oyster Point Development (Phase I & II) ■ 50,000 sf of commercial uses ■ 350 hotel rooms ■ 1,710,230 sf of R&D uses ■ 920,000 sf of office uses Rest of East of 101 Land Use ■ 20,000 sf of quality restaurant uses ■ 673,302 sf of commercial uses ■ 9,258,902 sf of R&D uses ■ 1,478,570 sf of office uses ■ 11,291,567 sf of manufacturing uses ■ 3,735 hotel rooms ■ 290,794 sf of home center uses SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco (October 2011). O REFERENCES Dyett & Bhatia. City of South San Francisco General Plan, October 13, 1999. ———. Genentech Central Campus Ten-Year Master Plan, 2005. ———. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan, 2005. Genentech. Annual Report 2011 for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan Presented to the City of South San Francisco. Prepared by Genentech, Inc., 2011. South San Francisco, City of. Master EIR for Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update. SCH# 2005072165, certified March 2007. TJKM Transportation Consultants. Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco, October 2011. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-1 ○ Environmental Analysis 6.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE ANALYSIS The SMEIR updates the 2007 SMEIR by analyzing substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken and new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time the 2007 MEIR was certified, which may result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts than were analyzed in the 2007 MEIR. The analysis is limited to the four following impact areas: Air Quality Greenhouse Gas Emissions Land Use/Planning Transportation/Traffic All other topics were adequately analyzed in the 2007 MEIR and require no further analysis, as determined in the IS/NOP (see Appendix A). This chapter is the primary component of the Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report (SMEIR), as it provides information on the project site’s existing conditions, the type and magnitude of the project’s potential environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid such impacts. The existing conditions component of the analysis defines the environmental conditions as they exist on and near the project site, while project impacts are defined as the project’s effect on the existing environment. Mitigation measures are designed to reduce a project’s potential impact. The purpose of this section is to inform readers of the type and magnitude of the project’s environmental impacts and how such impacts would affect the existing environment. A “significant effect” is defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.” The assessment of each issue area begins with a discussion of the existing conditions (or setting), as well as a discussion of the regulatory framework relevant to that issue area. Following the setting is a discussion of the project’s impacts relative to the issue area. Within the impact analysis, the first subsection identifies the methodologies used and the “Thresholds of Significance,” which are those criteria used to determine whether potential effects are significant. The next subsection programmatically describes each impact of the project, project requirements and mitigation measures for significant impacts, and the level of significance after mitigation. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-2 The impact analysis concludes with a discussion of cumulative effects, which evaluates the impacts associated with the project in conjunction with other past, present, and probable future development in areas causing related impacts. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-1 O AIR QUALITY ▪ Background The 2007 MEIR evaluated the potential for project implementation to affect air quality, specifically with respect to criteria pollutant emissions and toxic air contaminants (TACs). Criteria pollutants are emitted during project-related construction and operational activities. The 2007 MEIR evaluated emissions based on the 1999 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. Subsequently, in 2010 the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were revised, with the most recent update in May 2011 (2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines). In March 2012, the Superior Court for the Court of Alameda County issued a judgment finding that BAAQMD failed to comply with CEQA in adopting its revised CEQA Guidelines, and decided that the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are invalid on procedural grounds (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Al. Sup. Ct., March 5, 2012, Case No. RG10- 548693). The Court issued a writ of mandate ordering BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. Subsequently, to comply with the Court’s order, BAAQMD is no longer recommending that they be used to determine a project’s significant air quality impacts. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” This SMEIR conservatively assumes that the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were developed with substantial evidentiary support, and represent more accurate thresholds of significance and provide a more accurate methodology for purposes of analyzing potential air quality impacts than BAAQMD’s 1999 version of the CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, it is ultimately up to the Lead Agency to determine which thresholds of significance and methodology to apply. Because the City has determined that the revised thresholds and methodologies prescribed by the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are amply supported by evidence in the record, the City has determined to adopt them for purposes of the analysis in this SMEIR. While the project description has not changed, with the revisions reflected in the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and the City’s determination to rely upon them, the methodology and thresholds that were used in the 2007 MEIR have changed. Similarly, the 2007 MEIR addressed the potential for the project to result in impacts from the generation of TACs. With the 2011 update to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and the City’s determination to rely upon them, the process for evaluating impacts from TACs has changed. This SMEIR therefore utilizes the new methodologies and thresholds in order to update the analysis in the 2007 MEIR. In addition, the following analysis relies upon regional emissions inventories that have been revised since certification of the 2007 MEIR, as well as other new information that has become available since certification of the 2007 MEIR. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-2 ▪ Introduction Section 4.3 of the 2007 MEIR (Sections 4.3.1 though 4.3.4), incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth, describes the existing air quality of the project area. The environmental setting, including descriptions of existing air quality data and sensitive receptors, both on site and in the vicinity of the project site, remains as described in the 2007 MEIR. The existing regional air quality and attainment status for the Basin have, however, been updated in this SMEIR. This section evaluates whether there are any new or substantially more severe significant impacts on air quality that could result from implementation of the project in light of the new methodologies, guidelines, plans, standards, and thresholds of significance that have been adopted since the 2007 MEIR was certified. Specifically, this section includes the potential for the project to: conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan (AQP) of the BAAQMD; violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (the Bay Area is considered to have not attained the federal and State ozone standards or the State standards for respirable particulate matter [PM10]), or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts relating to the project creating objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people were determined to not be potentially significant in the IS/NOP and are not further evaluated in this SMEIR. Information reported in this section is derived from: the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and BAAQMD air emission models that predict regional emissions and localized pollutant concentrations, and traffic data prepared by Atkins. Information on climate change is presented in Section 4.2 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) of this SMEIR. No areas of controversy were identified in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A). ▪ Environmental Setting As described on pages 4.3-1 through 4.3-12 of the 2007 MEIR, South San Francisco and the SMEIR Study Area are located in San Mateo County, within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Specifically, the SMEIR Study Area is located within the Peninsula climatological subregion of the Basin, that extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. Air pollutant emissions within the Bay Area are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the Basin. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-3 • Regional Air Quality Measurements of ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants are used by the USEPA and the California Air Resources Board (California ARB) to assess and classify the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with federal and state standards. If a pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in “attainment.” If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is classified as a “nonattainment” area. If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated “unclassified.” The EPA and California ARB use different standards for determining whether the Bay Area Basin is an attainment area. Under national standards, the Bay Area Basin is currently classified as a nonattainment area for Ozone (O3). The Bay Area Basin is in attainment or designated as unclassified for all other pollutants under national standards. Under State standards, the Bay Area Basin is designated as a nonattainment area for O3 and respirable particulate matter (PM10), and an attainment area for all other pollutants. Table 4.1-1 (State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources) discloses the health effects of each criteria pollutant, and the federal and state attainment status for each. The emissions inventory for the entire Bay Area Basin and San Mateo County is summarized in Table 4.1-2 (Bay Area 2010 Estimated Average Daily Emissions). In the Bay Area Basin, motor vehicles generate the majority of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NOX), and carbon monoxide (CO). Stationary sources generate the most sulfur dioxide (SOX) and areawide sources generate the most airborne particulate matter (PM). • Local Air Quality The BAAQMD monitors ambient air pollutant concentrations through a series of monitoring stations located throughout the Bay Area. While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco, approximately 8 miles from the MEIR Study Area. Table 4.1-3 (Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants) identifies the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured at the Arkansas Street-San Francisco monitoring station through the period of 2008 to 2010. Monitoring was not conducted at this station for SO2. Therefore, no site-specific data is available for those emission levels. ▪ Regulatory Framework This section provides a summary of federal, state, regional and local regulations designed to address air quality within the Bay Area. The federal and state regulations are unchanged since the 2007 MEIR, while BAAQMD has updated their CEQA Guidelines and Clean Air Plan as detailed below. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-4 Table 4.1-1 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources Pollutant Averaging Time State Standarda Federal Standardb Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Concentration Attainment Status Concentration Attainment Status Ozone 1-Hour 8-Hour 0.09 ppm 0.070 ppm N N —c 0.075 ppm —c N High concentrations can directly affect lungs, causing irritation. Long-term exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Formed when ROG and NOX react in the presence of sunlight. Major sources include on-road motor vehicles, solvent evaporation, and commercial industrial mobile equipment. Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour 8-Hour 20 ppm 9.0 ppm A A 35 ppm 9 ppm A A Classified as a chemical asphyxiate, CO interferes with the transfer of fresh oxygen to the blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Internal combustion engines, primarily gasoline- powered motor vehicles. Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour Annual 0.18 ppm 0.030 ppm A A 0.100 ppm 0.053 ppm U/A A Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors atmosphere reddish-brown. Motor vehicles, petroleum-refining operations, industrial sources, aircraft, ships, and railroads. Sulfur Dioxide 1 Hour 24-Hour Annual 0.25 ppm 0.04 ppm — A A 0.075 ppmd 0.14 ppm 0.030 ppm A A A Irritates upper respiratory tract; injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow the leaves of plants, destructive to marble, iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight. Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-Hour Annual 50 µg/m3 20 µg/m3 N N 150 µg/m3 —e U May irritate eyes and respiratory tract, decreases in lung capacity, cancer, and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. Dust and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, combustion, atmospheric photochemical reactions, and natural activities (e.g., wind-raised dust and ocean sprays). Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-Hour Annual — 12 µg/m3 N 35 µg/m3,f 15 µg/m3 A A Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, and premature death. Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling. Fuel combustion in motor vehicles, equipment, and industrial sources; residential and agricultural burning. Also formed from photochemical reactions of other pollutants, including NOX, S02, and organics. Lead Monthly Quarterly 3-Month Rolling 1.5 µg/m3 — — A — 1.5 µg/m3 0.15 µg/m3 A U/A Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and causes anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Present source: lead smelters, battery manufacturing and recycling facilities. Past source: combustion of leaded gasoline. Sulfates 24-Hour 25 µg/m3 A No Federal Standard Decrease ventilatory function, aggravate asthmatic symptoms, and increase risk of cardio-pulmonary disease. Degrade visibility, and, due to fact that they are usually acidic, can harm ecosystems and damage materials and property. Fuel combustion, chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, and metal processing. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-5 Table 4.1-1 State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources Pollutant Averaging Time State Standarda Federal Standardb Pollutant Health and Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources Concentration Attainment Status Concentration Attainment Status Hydrogen Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) U No Federal Standard Primarily an odor nuisance at ambient concentrations. Present in sewer gas and some natural gas, and can be emitted as the result of geothermal energy exploitation. Vinyl Chloride 24-Hour 0.010 ppm (26 µg/m3)) — No Federal Standard Short-term exposure to high levels causes central nervous system effects, such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term exposure through inhalation and oral exposure causes in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation. Most vinyl chloride is used to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and vinyl products. Vinyl chloride has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Visibility Reducing Particles 8-Hour Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per km—visibility of 10 miles or more because of particles when the relative humidity is less than 70%. U No Federal Standard Limits visibility. Combustion processes in motor vehicles, industrial and commercial boilers and incinerators, power generating plants, solid fuel domestic heating, domestic incineration. Natural sources of airborne particles include fine soil particles and smoke particles from bushfires. SOURCE: BAAQMD’s Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status internet site http://hank.baaqmd.gov/pln/air_quality/ambient_air_quality.htm, ARB’s California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) internet site http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/caaqs/caaqs.htm, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) internet site http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, (accessed June 28, 2012) A = Attainment; N = Nonattainment; U = Unclassified (insufficient data collected to determine classification; generally indicates low concern for the pollutant levels); ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter a. California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO, suspended particulate matter—PM10, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe CO, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-, 8-, or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that California ARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard. b. Federal standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.08 ppm or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 65 µg/m3. c. The federal 1-hour ozone standard was revoked on June 15, 2005. d. On June 2, 2010 the US EPA established the new 1-hr SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-yr average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS, however, must continue to be used until one year following US EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. EPA expects to designate areas by June 2012.” e. Because of lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term coarse particle exposure, the USEPA revoked the annual PM10 standard on September 21, 2006. f. USEPA lowered the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006 and issued attainment status designations for the 35 µg/m3 standard on December 22, 2008. USEPA design- nated the SF BAAB as nonattainment for the 35 µg/m3 PM2.5 standard; however, that designation has not yet been published in the Federal Register and is, therefore, not yet effective. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-6 Table 4.1-2 Bay Area 2010 Estimated Average Daily Emissions Emissions Source Emissions in Tons per Day ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 359.2 414.2 1595.7 62.2 215.7 81.6 San Mateo County 33.4 56.2 158.3 8.6 20.9 7.6 SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (2011), http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php. Table 4.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants Pollutant/Standard Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During Such Violations 2008 2009 2010 Ozone State 1-Hour > 0.09 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Federal 1-Hour > 0.12 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Federal 8-Hour > 0.08 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 day Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.082 ppm 0. 072 ppm 0.079 ppm Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.066 ppm 0.056 ppm 0.051 ppm Carbon Monoxide State 8-Hour > 9.0 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Federal 8-Hour > 9.5 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 2.29 ppm 2.86 ppm 1.37 ppm Nitrogen Dioxide State 1-Hour > 0.25 ppm 0 days 0 days 0 days Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.062 ppm 0.059 ppm 0.093 ppm Max. Annual Conc. (ppm) 0.016 ppm 0.015 ppm 0.013 ppm Suspended Particulates (PM10) State 24-Hour > 50 µg/m3 0 days 4 days 0 days Federal 24-Hour > 150 µg/m3 0 days 0 days 0 days Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 41.3 µg/m3 36 µg/m3 39.7 µg/m3 Max. Annual Conc. (µg/m3) 23 µg/m3 18.6 µg/m3 NA Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Federal 24-Hour > 35 µg/m3 0 days 1 days 3 days Max. 24-Hour Conc. (µg/m3) 39.2 µg/m3 49.8 µg/m3 45.3 µg/m3 Max. Annual. (µg/m3) 11.7 µg/m3 NA NA SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php (accessed January 19, 2012). ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-7 • Federal At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is responsible for implementing national air quality programs. The USEPA enforces the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and associated NAAQS. The USEPA has established NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5. The standards are established to protect the public health and welfare. The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The CAA Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. The USEPA must review all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the federal CAA and its amendments and to determine whether implementing the SIPs will achieve air quality goals. If the USEPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated time frame may result in sanctions being applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin. The project must comply with all required elements of the federal CAA and regulatory requirements of the USEPA. • State The California ARB, a part of the Cal/EPA, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). The CCAA, which was adopted in 1988, required the California ARB to establish CAAQS (Table III.H-1). The California ARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the previously mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of those studies. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The act specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources and gives districts the authority to regulate indirect sources of emissions. Among the California ARB’s other responsibilities are overseeing local air district compliance with California and federal laws, approving local air quality plans, submitting SIPs to the USEPA, monitoring air quality, determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels. In 2000, the California ARB began a program of identifying and reducing risks associate with the particulate matter emissions from diesel-fueled vehicles in order to reduce diesel-related health risks. The California ARB plan consists of promulgating new regulatory standards for all new on-road, off-road and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles, new retrofit requirements for existing on-road, off-road and stationary diesel-fueled engines and vehicles and new diesel fuel regulations to reduce the sulfur content SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-8 of diesel fuel as required by advanced diesel emissions control systems. Under the plan, the overall risk reduction program is expected to result in a 75 percent reduction in diesel particulate emissions by 2010 (compared to 2000 levels) and an 85 percent reduction by 2020. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (2005) provides California ARB recommendations for the siting of new sensitive land uses (i.e., residences, schools, daycare centers, playgrounds, and medical facilities) near recognized major sources of TACs (e.g., freeways, large warehouses/distribution centers, rail yards, etc.). The Genentech Child Care Center located along Allerton Way would be considered a sensitive land use under these guidelines. • Regional o Bay Area Air Quality Management District BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the entire Bay Area Air Basin, including San Mateo County. To that end, BAAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and State government agencies. BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point) sources and for assuring that State controls on mobile sources are effectively implemented. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Ozone Attainment Plans and Clean Air Plans that comply with the federal CAA and the CCAA to accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area Basin, meet the national and State Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)/CAAQS, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The Ozone Attainment Plans are prepared for the federal ozone standard, and the Clean Air Plans are prepared for the State ozone standards. The most recent Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on October 2001 and demonstrates attainment of the federal ozone standard in the Bay Area by 2006. In January 2006, the BAAQMD adopted the 2005 Ozone Strategy to identify further steps needed to continue reducing the public’s exposure to unhealthy levels of ozone. Most recently, the 2010 Clean Air Plan was adopted by BAAQMD’s Board of Directors on September 15, 2010, which serves to: Update the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM), air toxics, and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in a single, integrated plan Review progress in improving air quality in recent years Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe According to the 2010 Clean Air Plan, these planning efforts have substantially decreased the population’s exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Bay Area. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-9 In 2003, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 656 (SB 656) to reduce public exposure to PM10 and PM2.5. SB 656 required California ARB, in consultation with local air districts, to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, a list of the most readily available, feasible, and cost-effective control measures that could be used by California ARB and the air districts to reduce PM10 and PM2.5. In November 2005, BAAQMD adopted a Particulate Matter Implementation Strategy (PMIS) focusing on those measures most applicable and cost effective for the Bay Area. Although BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects within the Bay Area. Historically, BAAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to assist lead agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area, consistent with the Ozone Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan. Specifically, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines explain the procedures that BAAQMD recommends be followed during the environmental review processes required by CEQA. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. BAAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Bay Area, and adverse impacts will be minimized. BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA Guidelines on June 2, 2010, including revised recommended significance thresholds. BAAQMD further revised the CEQA Guidelines in May 2011. All of the adopted CEQA thresholds of significance, except for the risk and hazards thresholds for new receptors, were effective June 2, 2010. An Alameda Superior Court recently invalidated the June 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (as updated in May 2011) on the basis that BAAQMD failed to conduct a CEQA analysis regarding the potential environmental effects of adopting the Guidelines. Accordingly, in May 2012, BAAQMD further updated the BAAQMD Guidelines removing the thresholds of significance and screening criteria. Notwithstanding these actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that the BAAQMD Guidelines are supported by substantial evidence and particularly given BAAQMD’s expertise with respect to air quality; it will continue to apply the 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c)). The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide methodologies for analyzing air quality impacts for the updated CEQA significance thresholds for construction-related and operational emissions of criteria pollutants, ozone precursors, health risks, and GHGs. The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend an evaluation of air concentrations from a project’s traffic sources if the project is expected to add 10,000 vehicles per day or 1,000 trucks per day to surrounding roads. The Guidelines also recommend a cumulative evaluation of sources, which includes mobile emissions from major roadways, on sensitive receptors affected by project sources. BAAQMD defines a major roadway as one with daily traffic greater than 10,000 vehicles per day. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-10 • Local o South San Francisco General Plan Local jurisdictions, such as the City of South San Francisco, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the City is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City of South San Francisco is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy- efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. City of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies recognize community goals for air quality. Chapter 7.3 of the South San Francisco General Plan identifies goals and policies that help the City contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts, and are consistent with the Clean Air Plan. These are outlined as follows: Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all federal and state ambient air quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. Cooperate with the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including CO, ozone, and PM10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by federal and state statutes. Use the City’s development review process and the CEQA regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines. Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and wood stoves. In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially adverse air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits and monitors and enforces the implementation of such mitigation. The City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the BAAQMD and utilizes the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The goals and policies outlined in the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan are consistent with the General Plan, as well as the Clean Air Plan. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-11 ▪ Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Analytic Method The 2007 MEIR evaluated emissions based on the 1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Subsequently the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were revised and then further updated in May 2011. As discussed above, the City has adopted these revised 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, including their prescribed methodologies and new thresholds of significance, for purposes of the analysis in this SMEIR. Thus while the project description has not changed, the analysis below is intended to update the prior analysis contained in the 2007 MEIR. This SMEIR evaluates full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan (approximately 2,708,100 sf of remaining development capacity). o Construction Emissions Construction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in temporary emissions necessary to facilitate development within the project Study Area. The BAAQMD has established thresholds for the analysis of construction emissions which are published in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. The construction activities associated with the project would create diesel emissions and would generate emissions of dust. Construction equipment used for development would also generate VOCs/ROGs, CO, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 pollutants. While the amount of allowable development is known, the development will be spread out and the phasing of the construction will be determined by Genentech’s need based on market demand for new office and research and development facilities. Therefore, the construction details would be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify due to the variables associated with daily construction activity (e.g., construction schedule, number and types of equipment, etc.). Because the level of detail needed to model construction related impacts is not available, a qualitative analysis is used to analyze the potential significance of project implementation with regards to construction emissions. o Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the project are estimated using the CalEEMod computer model, with the information provided in Chapter 3 (Project Description) and trip generation rates derived from the traffic report (Appendix E). Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile source emissions and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the study area associated with operation of the project. Area source emissions are generated by natural gas consumption for space and water heating, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products. To determine if an air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions was compared with the BAAQMD’s regional emissions thresholds published in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. o Consistency with the Clean Air Plan The most current air quality plan for the region is the recently adopted 2010 Clean Air Plan, which updates the 2005 Ozone Strategy and represents a unique approach to air planning by including greenhouse gases, as well as criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. For the 2010 Clean Air Plan, SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-12 the vehicle mile estimates used in preparing the on-road mobile source inventory are the same as those used in the Transportation Air Quality Conformity Analysis for MTC’s regional transportation plans. MTC’s travel demand model utilizes regional demographic forecasts from ABAG’s socioeconomic and population projections. Under BAAQMD’s new methodology, a proposed plan must demonstrate consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, as well as that the proposed plan’s projected VMT or vehicle trips increase is less than or equal to its projected population increase. To determine whether the project is consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, it must support the primary goals of the Clean Air Plan (e.g., attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure and protect public health, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate), include feasible control measures from the Clean Air Plan, and it must not disrupt or hinder the implementation of any control measures established by the Clean Air Plan. o Toxic Air Contaminants Diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known toxic air contaminant, would be emitted from diesel-powered delivery trucks traveling to and from the MEIR Study Area. Emergency diesel generators are also a source of potential intermittent diesel emissions, although these emergency generators would only be used intermittently and would not be used under normal daily operation of the project. To address DPM and other TAC emissions, the California ARB published an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005) as an “informational guide” to prioritize the important sources of TACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. The recently invalidated 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommended that general and area plans establish special overlay zones of at least 500 feet on each side of all freeways and high-volume roadways and special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs, and that the plans identify goals, policies, and objectives to minimize potentially adverse impacts. To date, the City has not established such zones within the Study Area. The Study Area is located east of the US 101 Freeway and currently contains office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking structures. The project will allow for those land uses to continue and expand as identified in the 2007 Master Plan. The SMEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as such the only identified sensitive receptor within the SMEIR Study Area would be the Genentech Child Care Center located along Allerton Avenue, which is not considered a high-volume roadway. • Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality if it would do any of the following: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-13 Application of these thresholds is based upon the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Thresholds of Significance for criteria pollutants as follows.6 o Construction Emissions Thresholds The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (as amended through May 2011) recommends that projects with construction-related emissions that exceed any of the following emissions thresholds should be considered significant. The BAAQMD also recommends that any construction-related emissions from individual development projects that exceed these thresholds be considered cumulatively considerable: ROG that exceeds 54 pounds per day NOX that exceeds 54 pounds per day PM10 (exhaust only) that exceeds 82 pounds per day PM2.5 (exhaust only) that exceeds 54 pounds per day PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) application of Best Management Practices7 As previously discussed, the construction details would be difficult, if not impossible to quantify due to the variables associated with daily construction activity (e.g., construction schedule, number and types of equipment, etc.). Because the level of detail needed to model construction related impacts is not available, a qualitative analysis is used to evaluate the potential significance of project implementation with regards to construction emissions. o Operational Emission Thresholds The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (as amended through May 2011) recommends that projects with operation-related emissions that exceed either the average daily emissions (expressed in pounds per day) or the maximum annual emissions (expressed in tons per year) thresholds should be considered significant. The BAAQMD also recommends that any operation-related emissions from individual development projects that exceed these thresholds be considered cumulatively considerable. The BAAQMD CEQA Guideline thresholds for operation are presented in Table 4.1-4 (BAAQMD Operational Emissions Thresholds): 6Although the BAAQMD Guidelines suggest using a plan-level methodology for area plans such as the Master Plan, a project-level methodology is followed for purposes of this SMEIR due to the fact that the SMEIR is intended to serve as the CEQA review for subsequent individual development projects within the scope of the Master Plan and SMEIR. It is for this reason that the 2007 MEIR applied a project-level analysis as well. 7 The BAAQMD has not established numerical limits for fugitive PM10/PM2.5; however, projects that comply with the BAAQMD BMPs to control fugitive PM10/PM2.5 would be considered to have less-than-significant impacts. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-14 Table 4.1-4 BAAQMD Operational Emissions Thresholds Criteria Pollutant Average Daily Emissions (lb/day) Maximum Annual Emissions (tons per year) ROG 54 10 NOX 54 10 PM10 (exhaust only) 82 15 PM2.5 (exhaust only) 54 10 PM10/ PM2.5 (fugitive dust) None None SOURCE: BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines Update (May 2011). o 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures This analysis assumes compliance with the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures. The 2007 MEIR measures were based on the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines measures for dust control. It should be noted that the 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines have updated the recommended dust control measures. These updated measures are described and incorporated as mitigation for the project as detailed below. The following mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 MEIR to reduce construction related air quality impacts: MM4.3-1(a) Implement appropriate dust control measures recommended by the BAAQMD as outlined below. The project contractor(s) shall comply with these dust control strategies. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose construction and demolition debris from the site, or require all such trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces in active construction areas at least twice daily. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas. Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. Install wind breaks at the windward side(s) of construction areas. Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph over a 30- minute period or more. To the extent possible, limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other dust-generating construction activity at any one time. MM4.3-1(b) Designate a dust control coordinator. All construction sites shall post in a conspicuous location the name and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator who can respond to SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-15 complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. • Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact 4.1-1 Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. This would be a less- than-significant impact. MTC maintains an inventory of population for the region and by county, the latest version of which was published in 2008 (MTC 2008). The MTC population estimates cite a 2035 Bay Area population of 9,031,498.8 The 2007 MEIR identified that Genentech employed approximately 6,658 employees in the East of 101 Area. With the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, the new development could increase the number of employees to approximately 13,319, or approximately 6,661 net new employees. As of December 31, 2011, Genentech employed 5,856 employees within the MEIR study area, and full build- out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in approximately 7,463 net new employees. The net increase of approximately 7,463 employees resulting from build-out of Genentech’s 2007 Master Plan would represent approximately 8 percent of the City’s projected employment in the year 2020. Further, according to the City’s current Housing Element, adopted in February 2010, between 2000 and 2008, the population of South San Francisco grew from 60,552 to 63,744, outpacing growth in San Mateo County as a whole but slightly lagging population increase in the Bay Area region. Looking to the future, ABAG predicts that South San Francisco will reach a population of nearly 70,000 by 2020. However, although full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in new employees and thus new households within the region, the project does not propose development of any new residential uses and any increase would be negligible new population in the City as the project would not develop any new residential uses. MTC also maintains an inventory of VMT for the nine-county Bay Area region and by county. For 2035, MTC data shows VMT for the Bay Area to be 168,120,927 miles per day. Based upon the trip generation provided in the Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis, the CalEEMod model (provided in Appendix C [Air Quality Emission Supporting Data]) estimated that full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a vehicle trip generation of 10,857 trips per weekday, which results in a yearly VMT of 20,427,061. The addition of project-related VMT represents approximately 0.0003 percent of the total anticipated VMT growth in the nine county Bay Area. The project’s contribution to VMT would not exceed the regional VMT projections and does not constitute a significant share of overall VMT for the Bay Area according to MTC’s VMT inventory. Both the 2010 Clean Air Plan and the 2005 Ozone Strategy emphasize the need for smart growth and a reduction of single automobile usage. The 2010 CAP contains 55 control measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source and transportation 8 The Bay Area region includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa, Sonoma, and Marin counties. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-16 control measures, the 2010 CAP contains a number of new control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. Applicable to this project, and consistent with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, Genentech has developed both a Sustainability Plan and a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) to reduce energy and transportation requirements and emissions from both stationary and mobile sources. Genentech’s TDM program provides amenities and incentives to encourage non-single-occupancy-vehicle transportation by employees and visitors. Genentech’s TDM policies and programs are outlined in the 2007 Master Plan. As reported in the 2010 Annual Report, Genentech’s TDM program, named gRide, provides a variety of flexible and convenient programs and services to get employees to and from work, as well as around campus. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips by incorporating project components that encourage increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Genentech has made public transit access a priority through dramatic increases in GenenBus service, and continued shuttle services to Caltrain and BART stations. Key elements of Genentech’s TDM program include City ordinance required and extra measures, annual survey monitoring and triennial reporting. These measures also include a variety of infrastructure and incentive based measures that encourage all forms of alternative mode use such as carpools, vanpools, transit and shuttles, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting. Other measures include an expansive commuter and internal shuttle program, a daily commute allowance subsidy program, a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program, preferential carpool parking, showers and bicycle facilities commuter incentives and a number of on-site amenities designed to support car-free employees. Although not a formal TDM plan measure, an important feature is the modest parking availability planned to discourage single occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. Genentech offers sixteen GenenBus routes, which include two Caltrain/BART routes; four San Francisco routes; six East Bay routes; one Marin route; and three Peninsula/South Bay routes, and GenenBus ridership is over 2,800 rides per day. Additionally, Genentech recently introduced an intra- campus bike share program that provides more connectivity for employees, further encourages gRide participation, and supplements the shuttle system. Participation in alternate transit modes has increased over 25 percent since the program inception in 2006, and a survey completed in October 2010 indicates that Genentech has been able to maintain the 35 percent alternative mode use attained for 2009 (Genentech 2011). Genentech currently markets its TDM through promotional programs and a comprehensive transportation intranet site. The Sustainability Plan was introduced with 2009 as the baseline and requires that each site throughout the company develop an Energy Action Plan to contribute to the reduction of emissions from energy use at the site. Further, Genentech’s Energy Action Plan would be consistent with the Energy and Climate Measures (ECMs) described in the 2010 CAP. The efficiency measures proscribed in Genentech’s Energy Action Plan are designed to reduce energy consumption and thereby reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants.9 9 Refer to Section 4.2 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions) for more details regarding Genentech’s Energy Action Plan. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-17 The TDM programs and Energy Action Plan described above are consistent with the programs and policies included in the 2010 Clean Air Plan and the 2005 Ozone Strategy. The project would continue to implement and conform to various transportation control and trip reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD’s goals for reducing regional air pollutants. Therefore, based upon the BAAQMD thresholds for planning level projects such as the 2007 Master Plan, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan and this impact would be less than significant. Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Impact 4.1-2 Construction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would include excavation, grading, and construction activities which could result in emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the established thresholds. This would be a temporary but potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-1(a) and MM4.3-1(b) as identified in the 2007 MEIR, and mitigation measures MM4.1-1(a) through MM4.1-2 would reduce this impact, but not to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Construction of individual new development projects with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would occur based upon Genentech’s need for new office and R&D facilities, dependent on market demand. As such, there is no construction schedule in place for the development anticipated under the project. Construction emissions are dependent on the number of construction and delivery vehicles operating, the length of time in operation, and the amount of soil that is disturbed on a daily basis. Without a known schedule or an anticipated annual or daily level of construction, construction related emissions cannot be accurately estimated. Individual construction projects implemented under full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to analyze the impacts from construction activities. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide a detailed process for analyzing construction related impacts, which are described below. The first step in determining the significance of construction-related criteria air pollutants and precursors is to compare the attributes of the project with the applicable screening criteria listed in Chapter 3 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These screening criteria are as follows: 1. The project is below the applicable screening level size shown in Table 3-1of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (277 ksf for general office/259 ksf for general light industry or industrial park, which would include R&D, and for manufacturing); and 2. All Basic Construction Mitigation Measures would be included in the project design and implemented during construction; and 3. Construction-related activities would not include any of the following: a. Demolition activities inconsistent with District Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing; b. Simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases (e.g., paving and building construction would occur simultaneously); SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-18 c. Simultaneous construction of more than one land use type (e.g., project would develop residential and commercial uses on the same site) (not applicable to high density infill development); d. Extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the Urban Land Use Emissions Model [URBEMIS] for grading, cut/fill, or earth movement); or e. Extensive material transport (e.g., greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) requiring a considerable amount of haul truck activity. If all of the screening criteria are met, construction of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality and no further analysis is required. If not, then the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommend that construction emissions be quantified. Following quantification of project-generated construction-related emissions, the total average daily emissions of each criteria pollutant and precursor should be compared with the applicable thresholds. Additionally, the BAAQMD recommends that all the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures be incorporated into the analysis and carried out by the project applicant. These Basic Construction Mitigation Measures are hereby incorporated into this SMEIR as mitigation measures MM4.1-1(a) and MM4.1-1(b) as follows: MM4.1-1(a) Prior to issuance of a grading permit for individual development projects undertaken under the 2007 Master Plan, Genentech shall present to the City of South San Francisco Planning Department detailed analysis of the development project’s construction related impacts. This analysis shall be consistent with the methodology as outlined in the BAAQMD’s 2011 CEQA Guidelines. MM4.1-1(b) Genentech and its construction contractor shall implement the appropriate BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-19 If it is determined that with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-1(b), that daily average emissions of construction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would not exceed any of the thresholds, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality. If, after implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-1(b), that daily average emissions of construction-related criteria air pollutants or precursors would exceed any applicable thresholds, the project would result in a significant impact to air quality and would require additional mitigation measures for emission reductions. Therefore, if it is determined that future individual development projects were to exceed any construction related threshold for criteria pollutant established in this SMEIR, mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would be implemented and would include the following: MM4.1-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, if the detailed analysis of an individual development project determines that the proposed project would exceed the construction-related threshold established in this SMEIR after implementation of the mitigation measures identified in MM4.1-1(b), Genentech shall implement one or more of the following measures (which it shall choose) as necessary to bring the impact to below the threshold: All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6- to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. Minimizing the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to 2 minutes. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-20 Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. As required by MM4.1-1(a), the detailed construction related air quality impact analysis would include a quantification of project-generated construction-related emissions in accordance with the BAAQMD- recommended methods, and a comparison of the total average daily amount of mitigated (with implementation of mitigation measures identified in MM4.1-2) criteria air pollutants and precursors with the applicable thresholds. If the analysis shows that with implementation of mitigation measure MM4.1-2 all construction-related criteria air pollutants and precursors would be reduced to levels below the applicable thresholds, the impact to air quality would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. If mitigated levels of any criteria air pollutant or precursor still exceed the applicable thresholds, the impact to air quality would remain significant and unavoidable. As quantification of construction related emissions is not possible in this SMEIR, it is assumed that mitigation measures MM4.1-1(b) and MM4.1-2 would reduce construction-related emissions; however, it is possible that construction-related emissions would still exceed the thresholds established in this SMEIR. Therefore, since construction-related emissions could not be quantified, there is no guarantee that construction-related emissions would not exceed the applicable thresholds despite the imposition of feasible mitigation. Accordingly, this impact is conservatively considered to be significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.1-3 Operation activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan could violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Stationary and area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the operation of diesel-powered emergency generators, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the project study area. The analysis of daily operational emissions was prepared utilizing the CalEEMod computer model recommended by the BAAQMD and the project daily motor vehicle trip generation data for total daily trips contained in the traffic impact analysis (see Appendix C). The CalEEMod computer model is a program that estimates air pollution emissions in pounds per day or tons per year for various land uses, area sources, construction projects, and project operations. As identified in the 2007 MEIR, the 2007 Master Plan incorporated certain features in its design that would help reduce the operational emissions that would otherwise be generated. These design features would encourage pedestrian activity, which would reduce emissions from the operation of motor vehicles by project employees. These features include the following: Creation of a safe and accessible pedestrian environment through the use of signage, lighting, and crossing treatments such as high-visibility striping Creating a continuous off-street pedestrian connection that links all quadrants of the Genentech Campus SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-21 Supporting pedestrian movement with frequent circuits of the shuttle bus and well-placed and designed bus shelters Use of landscaping features such as tree-spacing The project would implement a substantial Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the project. The TDM reductions utilized in this analysis assume a 25 percent reduction in vehicle trips, consistent with the East of 101 traffic study. The vehicle trips associated with the TDM were provided as project-specific trip rates and, therefore, are presented in the CalEEMod model as part of the emissions estimate. Operational emissions are identified in Table 4.1-5 (Operational Emissions). As shown, operational emissions would result in significant impacts for ROG and NOX. Table 4.1-5 Operational Emissions ROG NOX PM10* PM2.5* Daily Average Emissions (lb/day) Area 75.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 1.66 15.13 0.00 0.00 Mobile 56.64 105.65 3.81 3.64 Total 133.46 120.78 3.81 3.64 Daily Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Significant? Yes Yes No No Maximum Annual Emissions (Tons per year) Area 13.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy 0.30 2.76 0.00 0.00 Mobile 7.10 13.89 0.52 0.50 Total 21.12 16.65 0.52 0.50 Annual Thresholds 10 10 15 10 Significant? Yes Yes No No SOURCE: Atkins (2011) (calculation sheets are provided in Appendix C). * Emissions from exhaust only. Although TDM and design features have been incorporated into the 2007 Master Plan, emissions would still exceed the identified thresholds of significance. As there is no quantifiable and feasible mitigation to further reduce these emissions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-22 Threshold Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Impact 4.1-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project region is nonattainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The project, in combination with related projects within the City, would result in a cumulatively significant impact for ROG and NOX since these exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds and are considered significant for the project. This is considered cumulatively significant according to BAAQMD’s significance thresholds when a project exceeds the BAAQMD’s project mass emission threshold for criteria air pollutants.10 Because no feasible mitigation has been identified, the impact for ROG and NOX is, therefore, significant and unavoidable. Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This would be a less-than-significant impact. The Study Area is located east of US 101 and currently contains office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking structures. The project will allow for those land uses to continue and expand as identified in the 2007 Master Plan. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. The SMEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as such the only identified sensitive receptor within the SMEIR Study Area would be the existing Genentech Child Care Center located along Allerton Avenue. While the build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would increase truck trips and create new sources of emissions from proposed laboratories, these increases would not be expected to increase TAC emissions to hazardous levels. Additionally, the typical sources of TAC emissions associated with research and development facilities, such as laboratory fume hoods, boilers, ethylene oxide sterilization, and chemical storage tanks are regulated by the BAAQMD and other regulatory agencies. Activities that could create biohazardous aerosols are conducted in biosafety cabinets, which filter all released air to remove biohazardous materials. Biosafety cabinets are tested annually in accordance with regulatory requirements. It is not anticipated that new manufacturing uses would be developed with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, as Genentech has already reached capacity for these uses under the 2007 Master 10 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, p. 2-3. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-23 Plan. Genentech currently does not anticipate adding any new back-up generators, utility plants, or other TAC emission sources within 500 feet of the Genentech Child Care Center. The 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines recommended that general and area plans establish special overlay zones of at least 500 feet on each side of all freeways and high-volume roadways and special overlay zones around existing and planned sources of TACs, and that the plans identify goals, policies, and objectives to minimize potentially adverse impacts. To date, the City has not established such zones within the Study Area. Further, the BAAQMD recommends that sensitive uses, such as the Genentech Child Care Center be located at least 500 feet from high-volume roadways. The BAAQMD defines high-volume roadways as those that would result in excess of 10,000 vehicle trips per-day. Currently, Allerton Avenue averages approximately 3,500 vehicles per day. With full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, Allerton Avenue would average approximately 5,060 vehicles per day, which is below the BAAQMD threshold for sensitive receptors. The next closest roadway is Grandview Boulevard, located approximately 850 feet to the west, and therefore outside of the BAAQMD’s recommended zone for the siting of sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. In addition, BAAQMD has not revised its thresholds for local CO emissions affecting sensitive receptors. Accordingly, the conclusions set forth in the 2007 MEIR remain valid and no further analysis is required. ▪ Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As discussed above, the 2010 Clean Air Plan is based on ABAG’s projections. Under the BAAQMD methodology, for consistency with the 2010 Clean Air Plan, a project or plan must demonstrate that the population or VMT assumptions contained in the Clean Air Plan would not be exceeded and that the project or plan implements both a Sustainability Plan and a TDM as applicable. According to the City’s current Housing Element, adopted in February 2010, between 2000 and 2008, the population of South San Francisco grew from 60,552 to 63,744, outpacing growth in San Mateo County as a whole but slightly lagging population increase in the Bay Area region. Looking to the future, ABAG predicts that South San Francisco will reach a population of nearly 70,000 by 2020. While build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a net increase of approximately 7,463 employees, the increase in employees would represent only 10 percent of the City’s anticipated population growth. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Regional Comprehensive Plan projections the City’s total employment number is anticipated to increase to 48,290 by 2020. The net increase of approximately 7,463 employees resulting from build-out of Genentech’s 2007 Master Plan would represent approximately 15 percent of the City’s projected employment in the year 2020, while total daily trips would represent less than 0.0003 percent of regional trips. As such, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution. This impact is less than significant, and no mitigation is required. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-24 Threshold Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? As indicated under Impact 4.1-4, emissions from operational activities are anticipated to exceed the operational threshold for ROG and NOX, which are precursors to ozone, for which the Basin is nonattainment. Because emissions from the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be significant and unavoidable on a project level, this is considered to be a potentially significant cumulative impact. Because operation of land uses with the Study Area would exceed the thresholds established by the BAAQMD, and all exceedances of project-level thresholds inhibit the Basin’s ability to reach attainment, the exceedances would make a cumulatively considerable contribution. Threshold Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? DPM would be emitted from diesel-powered delivery trucks traveling to and from the project site. To address DPM and other TAC emissions, the California ARB published an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005) as an “informational guide” to prioritize the important sources of TACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines utilizes the California ARB guide in determining the siting of new sensitive uses or emitters of DPM or other TACs. Among the important sources of DPM it identifies are distribution centers, warehouses and other facilities that accommodate 100 or more large diesel trucks per day, and it recommends that no new residential uses be located within 1,000 feet of such facilities (or conversely that no new large sources of DPM be located near existing residential uses). The proposed development would not represent these uses, and typically only a fraction of delivery trucks would be diesel-powered. Furthermore, the MEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as described in Chapter 3 (Project Description). There are no residential uses or other sensitive receptors located within 500 feet of significant sources of TACs. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of DPM. As such, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution. ▪ References Atkins. 2012. Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis, January. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1997. 1997 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. ———. 2001. Revised Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for 1-Hour Ozone Attainment Standard. ———. 2010. Bay Area Clean Air Plan. ———. 2011. California Environmental Control Act Air Quality Guidelines. Brady and Associates. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, adopted 1994. California Air Resources Board (California ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April. ———. n.d. Top 4 Measurements and Days Above the Standard. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfourdisplay.php (accessed January 19, 2012). Dyett & Bhatia. 1999. City of South San Francisco General Plan, adopted October. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-25 Genentech. 2011. Genentech Annual Report: Genentech Facilities Master Plan, April. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). 2008. Travel Forecasts Data Summary: Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, December. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/Supplementary/T2035- Travel_Forecast_Data_Summary.pdf (accessed January 20, 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1999. Air Pollution and Health Risk. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-1 O GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ▪ Background At the time the 2007 MEIR was certified, a quantitative evaluation of greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts was not required under CEQA. In 2010, the CEQA Guidelines were amended, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.05, to address the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Because the 2007 MEIR did not address greenhouse gas emissions, these potential impacts are being evaluated in this SMEIR. In addition, as discussed below, since certification of the 2007 MEIR, BAAQMD has released new BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines11 that include a recommended approach to analyzing GHG emissions. Although these Guidelines were recently invalidated by the Alameda Superior Court, the City of South San Francisco believes they are supported by substantial evidence and employs portions of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines in the analysis that follows (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c), which says, “when adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence”). ▪ Introduction This section of the EIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on greenhouse gas emissions from implementation of the 2007 Master Plan. No comment letters addressing greenhouse gas emissions were received in response to the notice of preparation (NOP) circulated in advance of this SMEIR. This section is based on technical information compiled by the California Energy Commission (CEC), California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California ARB, BAAQMD, or other local agencies. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.2.6 (References). ▪ Environmental Setting The project site is located within the East of 101 Area. Genentech’s existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus) is bounded by the San Francisco Bay in the north and east and is connected by Oyster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Campus. The project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAB), which derives its name from the surrounding mountains that confine the movement of air and the pollutants it contains. This area includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, the western half of Solano, and the southern half of Sonoma counties. The regional climate within the SFBAB is considered semi-arid and is characterized by warm summers, mild winters, infrequent seasonal rainfall, moderate daytime on-shore breezes, and moderate humidity. Climate change within the Basin is 11 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, California Environmental Control Act Air Quality Guidelines (May 2011). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-2 influenced by a wide range of emission sources, such as utility usage, heavy vehicular traffic, industry, and meteorology. • Climate Change Background Parts of the Earth’s atmosphere act as an insulating blanket trapping sufficient solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range. The “blanket” is a collection of atmospheric gases called “greenhouse gases” based on the idea that these gases trap heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse. These gases, mainly water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), all act as effective global insulators, reflecting visible light and infrared radiation back to earth. Human activities, such as producing electricity and driving internal combustion vehicles, have contributed to the elevated concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. This in turn is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. A warmer Earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, smaller polar ice caps, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans. The relationships of water vapor and ozone as GHGs are poorly understood. It is unclear how much water vapor acts as a GHG. The uncertainty is due to the fact that water vapor can also produce cloud cover, which reflects sunlight away from Earth and can counteract its effect as a GHG. Also, water vapor tends to increase as the Earth warms, so it is not well understood whether the increase in water vapor is contributing to, or rather a result of, climate change. Ozone tends to break down in the presence of solar radiation but is not understood well enough for evaluation. For these reasons, methodologies approved by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the California ARB focus on CO2, N2O, CH4, and CFCs. The following provides a brief description of each of these GHGs. Carbon Dioxide. The natural production and absorption of CO2 occurs through the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and as a result of other chemical reactions, such as those required to manufacture cement. Globally, the largest source of CO2 emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. A number of specialized industrial production processes and product uses lead to CO2 emissions, such as mineral or metal production, and the use of petroleum-based products. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Natural sources of CO2 occur within the carbon cycle where billions of tons of atmospheric CO2 are removed by oceans and growing plants and are emitted back into the atmosphere through natural processes. When in balance, total CO2 emissions and removals from the entire carbon cycle are roughly equal. Since the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s human activities, including burning of oil, coal, and gas and deforestation, had increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere by 35 percent as of 2005. Methane. CH4 is emitted from a variety of both human-related and natural sources. CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil, from livestock and other agricultural practices, and from the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills. It is estimated that 60 percent of global CH4 emissions are related to human activities. Natural sources of CH4 include SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-3 wetlands, gas hydrates,12 permafrost, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, nonwetland soils, and wildfires. CH4 emission levels from a particular source can vary significantly from one country or region to another. These variances depend on many factors, such as climate, industrial and agricultural production characteristics, energy types and usage, and waste management practices. For example, temperature and moisture have a significant effect on the anaerobic digestion process, which is one of the key biological processes resulting in CH4 emissions from both human and natural sources. Also, the implementation of technologies to capture and utilize CH4 from sources such as landfills, coal mines, and manure management systems affects the emission levels from these sources. Nitrous Oxide. Concentrations of N2O also began to rise at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution reaching 314 parts per billion (ppb) by 1998. Microbial processes in soil and water, including those reactions that occur in fertilizer containing nitrogen, produce nitrous oxide. In addition to agricultural sources, some industrial processes (fossil fuel-fired power plants, nylon production, nitric acid production, and vehicle emissions) also contribute to the atmospheric load of N2O. Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs have no natural source, but were synthesized for uses as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. Since their creation in 1928, the concentrations of CFCs in the atmosphere have been rising. Due to the discovery that they are able to destroy stratospheric ozone, a global effort to halt their production was undertaken, and levels of the major CFCs are now remaining static or are declining. However, their long atmospheric lifetimes mean that some of the CFCs will remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. Since CFCs are also a GHG, along with such other long- lived synthesized gases as CF4 (carbontetrafluoride) and SF6 (sulfurhexafluoride), they are of concern. Another set of synthesized compounds called HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) are also considered GHGs, though they are less stable in the atmosphere and therefore have a shorter lifetime and less of an impact. CFCs, CF4, SF6 and HFCs have been banned and are no longer available. Therefore, these GHGs are not included further in this analysis. • Potential Effects of Global Climate Change Climate change could have a number of adverse effects. Although these effects would have global consequences, in most cases they would not disproportionately affect any one site or activity. In other words, many of the effects of climate change are not site specific. Emission of GHGs would contribute to the changes in the global climate, which would in turn, have a number of physical and environmental effects. A number of general effects are discussed below. However, because the extent to which climate change will occur and the effects to individual areas are undefined due to uncertainties in climate change research, the effects of climate change on the project site is speculative and will not be discussed further in this analysis. Additionally, in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, (2d Dist., Nov. 9, 2011) Cal.App.4th, the Court reiterated established precedent that an “EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” As such, the effects of climate change described below are not examined in this SMEIR. 12 Gas hydrates are crystalline solids that consist of a gas molecule, usually methane, surrounded by a “cage” of water molecules. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-4 Sea Level Rise and Flooding. The California Climate Change Center (CCCC) predicts that sea level in California would rise between 10.9 to 71.6 centimeters (cm) (0.36 to 2.3 feet) above existing mean sea level (msl) by 2099 as a result of climate change.13 Because the project area is at a low elevation (approximately at 8 to 100 feet above mean sea level) and is adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, natural and climate change-accelerated sea level rise could result in increased flood risks within the next 50 to 100 years. Additionally, alterations in the flow regime and subsequent flood potential could also occur from effects of climate change on local and regional precipitation patterns. In the future, precipitation events are predicted to vary in terms of timing, intensity and volume according to many climate change models. Extreme storm events may occur with greater frequency.14 The effect on peak runoff is not known because most climate change models have not used a temporal (or spatial) scale necessary to identify effects on peak flows, and existing precipitation/runoff models for assessing the effects of climate change do not yet adequately predict rainfall/runoff scenarios.15 Changes in rainfall and runoff could affect flows in surface water bodies, causing increased flooding and runoff to the storm drain system. Water Supply. California Health and Safety Code Section 38501(a) recognizes that climate change “poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California,” and notes, “the potential adverse impacts of [climate change] include … reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack.” As most of the state, including the South San Francisco depends on surface water supplies originating in the Sierra Nevada, this water supply reduction is a concern. Most of the scientific models addressing climate change show that the primary effect on California’s climate would be a reduced snow pack and a shift in stream-flow seasonality. A higher percentage of the winter precipitation in the mountains would likely fall as rain rather than as snow in some locations, hereby reducing the overall snowpack. Further, as temperatures rise, snowmelt is expected to occur earlier in the year resulting in peak runoff that would likely come a month or so earlier. The end result of this would be that the state may not have sufficient surface storage to capture the resulting early runoff and so, absent construction of additional water storage projects, a portion of the current supplies would be lost to the oceans, rather than be available for use in the state’s water delivery systems. Water Quality. Climate change could have adverse effects on water quality, which would, in turn, affect the beneficial uses (habitat, water supply, etc.) of surface water bodies and groundwater. The changes in precipitation discussed above could result in increased sedimentation, higher concentration of pollutants, 13 California Climate Change Center, Cayan, D., P. Bromirski, K. Hayhoe, M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, and R. Flick, Projecting Future Sea Level: Table 3 Projected global sea level rise (SLR) (cm) for the SRES A1fi, A2, and B1 greenhouse gas emission scenarios. SLR for A2 and B1 scenarios is estimated by combining output recent global climate change model simulations with MAGICC projections for the ice melt component. SLR estimates for A1fi estimated from MAGICC based on A2 temperature changes scaled according to those in A1fi, A Report from the California Climate Change Center CEC-500-2005-2002-SF (2006), p. 19. 14 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Indicators in the United States, Weather and Climate, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html (accessed February 2012). 15 M. Anderson, Chapter 6: Climate Change Impacts on Flood Management, in California Department of Water Resources, Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Planning and Management of California’s Water Resources, Technical Memorandum Report (2006), pp. 6-22 and 6-27. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-5 higher dissolved oxygen levels, increased temperatures, and an increase in the amount of runoff constituents reaching surface water bodies. Sea level rise, discussed above, could result in the encroachment of saline water into freshwater bodies.16 Ecosystems and Biodiversity. Climate change is expected to have effects on diverse types of ecosystems, from alpine to deep sea habitat. As temperatures and precipitation change, seasonal shifts in vegetation would occur; this could affect the distribution of associated flora and fauna species. As the range of species shifts, habitat fragmentation could occur, with acute impacts on the distribution of certain sensitive species.17 The IPCC states that “20 percent to 30 percent of species assessed may be at risk of extinction from climate change impacts within this century if global mean temperatures exceed 2 to 3°C (3.6 to 5.4°F) relative to pre-industrial levels.”18 Shifts in existing biomes could also make ecosystems vulnerable to invasive species encroachment. Wildfires, which are an important control mechanism in many ecosystems, may become more severe and more frequent, making it difficult for native plant species to repeatedly re-germinate. In general terms, climate change is expected to put a number of stressors on ecosystems, with potentially substantial effects on biodiversity. Human Health Impacts. Climate change may also increase the risk of vector-borne infectious diseases, particularly those found in tropical areas and spread by insects—malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and encephalitis. Cholera, which is associated with algal blooms, could also increase. While these health impacts would largely affect tropical areas in other parts of the world, effects could also be felt in California. Warming of the atmosphere would be expected to increase smog and particulate pollution, which could adversely affect individuals with heart and respiratory problems, such as asthma. Extreme heat events would also be expected to occur with more frequency, and could adversely affect the elderly, children, and the homeless. Finally, the water supply impacts and seasonal temperature variations expected as a result of climate change could affect the viability of existing agricultural operations, making the food supply more vulnerable.19 • Potential Effects of Human Activity on Climate Change The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, especially for the generation of electricity and powering of motor vehicles, has led to substantial increases in CO2 emissions (and thus substantial increases in 16 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.) (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1,000 pp. 17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ecosystems Impacts & Adaptation (2012), www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/eco.html (accessed June 2012). 18 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.) (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1,000 pp. 19 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.) (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1,000 pp. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-6 atmospheric concentrations). In 1994, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were found to have increased by nearly 30 percent above pre-industrial (c. 1860) concentrations. The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its emissions and its global warming potential (GWP), and is expressed as a function of how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e), and are often expressed in metric tons (MT CO2e) or millions of metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MMT CO2e). Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were nearly 30 billion tons of CO2e per year (including both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions from land-use changes).20 In 2009, worldwide emissions of GHGs are at 30.3 billion tons of CO2e, of which the United States accounted for about 22 percent.21 U.S. Emissions. In 2004, the United States emitted 7.2 billion tons of CO2e. Of the four major sectors nationwide—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation—transportation accounts for the highest percentage of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. In 2009, the United States emitted 6.6 billion tons of CO2e, with the electric power industry accounting for the highest emitter of GHGs, approximately 33 percent and transportation and industry as the second and third highest accounting approximately 27 and 20 percent respectively.22 State of California Emissions. In 2004, California emitted approximately 483 million tons of CO2e, or about 6 percent of the U.S. emissions. This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of California compared to other states. By contrast, California has one of the fourth lowest per- capita GHG emission rates in the country, due to the success of its energy-efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the state’s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise. Another factor that has reduced California’s fuel use and GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to that of many other states. In 2008, California’s GHG emissions were approximately 478 MMT CO2e, generally attributed to the reduced travel, and therefore, transportation of emissions.23 Transportation is the source of approximately 37 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out-of-state) at 24 percent, and industrial sources at 19 percent. Residential and commercial sources account for 9 percent, while agriculture, waste, high GWP compounds, and forestry account for 5.9, 3.3, 1.4, and 0.04 percent, respectively.24 City of South San Francisco Emissions. The 2005 GHG emissions inventory for the City of South San Francisco reflects all the energy used and waste produced within the City. Total emissions equaled approximately 526,766 metric tons CO2e. Vehicle emissions represent 20 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Sum of Annex I and Non-Annex I Countries without Counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), Predefined Queries: GHG total without LULUCF (Annex I Parties) (Bonn, Germany, 2007), http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php (accessed February 2012). 21 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Indicators in the United States. Weather and Climate, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html (accessed February 2012). 22 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Indicators in the United States. Weather and Climate, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html (accessed February 2012). 23 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data 2002–2008 (May 12, 2010). 24 California Air Resources Board, Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data 2002–2008 (May 12, 2010). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-7 approximately 46 percent of emissions while commercial/industrial, residential and solid waste represent 35, 13, and 6 percent, respectively.25 Genentech Emissions. In 2007 total GHG emissions from Country-wide Genentech operations equaled 190,718 metric tons CO2e, and had increased to 209,910 metric tons CO2e by 2009. Operational efficiency features implemented by Genentech saw a reduction in reported greenhouse gas emissions to 190,166 metric tons CO2e in 2010. Of the 2010 emissions the majority (~52 percent) were associated with electricity usage while the remaining emissions were associated with stationary combustion, vehicle fleet operation, and emissions of refrigerants and process gasses at approximately 35, 12, and 1 percent, respectively. In 2004, the South San Francisco Genentech site emitted 76,740 metric tons CO2e from its operational activities.26 Various aspects of constructing, operating, and eventually discontinuing the use of industrial and commercial development will result in GHG emissions. Operational GHG emissions result from energy use associated with heating, lighting, and powering buildings (typically through natural gas and electricity consumption), pumping and processing water (which consumes electricity), as well as fuel used for transportation and decomposition of waste associated with building occupants. New development can also create GHG emissions in its construction and demolition phases in connection with the use of fuels in construction equipment, creation and decomposition of building materials, vegetation clearing, and other activities. However, it is noted that new development does not necessarily create entirely new GHG emissions. Occupants of new buildings are often relocating and shifting their operational-phase emissions from other locations. ▪ Regulatory Framework Global climate change is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies as well as national and international scientific and governmental conventions and programs. These agencies work jointly and individually to understand and regulate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions and resulting climate change through legislation, regulations, planning, policy- making, education, and a variety of programs. The significant agencies, conventions, and programs focused on global climate change are discussed below. The 2007 MEIR did not address global climate change or GHG emissions; therefore, the information below is an update to the 2007 MEIR. • International/Federal o International Protocols The United States participated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (signed on March 21, 1994). The Kyoto Protocol was the first treaty made under the UNFCCC on December 1, 1997, and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol were met, global GHG emissions could have been reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first 25 City of South San Francisco, Zoning Ordinance Update (December 17, 2009). 26 Genentech, Annual Report 2011: Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan (May 2011). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-8 commitment period of 2008–2012. The United States has not ratified the Protocol and is not bound by the Protocol’s commitments. Representatives from 170 countries met in Copenhagen in December 2009 to ratify an updated UNFCCC agreement (Copenhagen Accord). The Copenhagen Accord, a voluntary agreement between the United States, China, India, and Brazil, recognizes the need to keep global temperature rise to below 2°C and obligates signatories to establish measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to prepare to provide help to poorer countries in adapting to Climate Change. The Copenhagen Accord is a nonbinding agreement. Representatives from 194 United Nations member states, including business leaders and nongovernment organizations, met in Cancun, Mexico in December 2010 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-16). In all, approximately 12,000 participants met to work out the language and reduction targets of a new agreement. The result was the Cancun Agreements, a voluntary agreement similar to the Copenhagen Accord, but with broader UN member nation support. The Cancun Agreements set the stage for the next year’s climate conference in Durban, South Africa. The key elements of the Cancun Agreements are as follows: Countries agree to keep temperature rise below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and developed countries are urged to make more aggressive emission cut pledges. A $30 billion package (“fast-start financing”) for 2012 to aid nations taking immediate action to adapt to global warming. The creation of a “Global Climate Fund” that will provide financing of $100 million annually for longer-term adaptation and mitigation measures in developing countries (although where this aid will come from is still unresolved). The World Bank was designated as its interim trustee. The creation of the forestry program, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, which provides compensation for the preservation of tropical forests in developing countries. Specific language and a formal system for monitoring and reporting emissions. This includes a process of “international consultations and analysis” for developing countries that is “nonintrusive, nonpunitive, and respectful of national sovereignty,” incorporating analysis by technical experts and resulting in a summary report. The UNFCCC met again in December 2011 in Durban, South Africa to continue deliberating on a treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012. The conference agreed to develop a legally binding deal comprising all countries, which will be drafted by 2015, and if approved will take effect in 2020. There was also progress regarding the creation of a Green Climate Fund (GCF) for which a management framework was adopted. o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Although the U.S. is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, in 2002, President George W. Bush set a national policy goal of reducing the GHG emission intensity (tons of GHG emissions per million dollars of gross SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-9 domestic product) of the U.S. economy by 18 percent by 2012.27 The goal did not establish any binding reduction mandates. Rather, the USEPA began to administer a variety of voluntary programs and partnerships with GHG emitters in which the USEPA partners with industries that produce and utilize synthetic gases to reduce emissions of particularly potent GHGs. This approach to addressing climate change was challenged in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). In this decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the USEPA was authorized by the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 emissions from new motor vehicles.28 The Court did not mandate that the USEPA enact regulations to reduce GHG emissions, but found that the only instances in which the USEPA could avoid taking action were if it found that GHGs do not contribute to climate change or if it offered a “reasonable explanation” for not determining that GHGs contribute to climate change. On December 7, 2009, the USEPA issued an “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, concluding that GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations and that motor vehicles contribute to greenhouse gas pollution.29 These findings provide the basis for adopting new national regulations to mandate GHG emission reductions under the federal Clean Air Act. ▪ Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufactures of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines, and requires annual reporting of emissions, with the first annual reports due in March 2011. This new program will cover approximately 85 percent of the nation’s GHG emissions and apply to roughly 10,000 facilities. USEPA’s new reporting system will provide a better understanding of GHG sources and will guide development of the best possible policies and programs to reduce emissions. The data will also allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost-effective methods to reduce emissions in the future. • State California has adopted various administrative initiatives and also enacted a variety of legislation relating to climate change, much of which sets aggressive goals for GHG emissions reductions within the state. However, none of this legislation provides definitive direction regarding the treatment of climate change in environmental review documents prepared under CEQA. In particular, recent amendments to the CEQA Guidelines do not require or suggest specific methodologies for performing an assessment or thresholds of significance, and do not specify greenhouse gas reduction mitigation measures. Instead, the 27 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiative (February 2002), http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214‐5.html (accessed February 2012). 28 Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency (Massachusetts), 549 U.S. 497 (2007). 29 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (December 2009), http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/ (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-10 CEQA amendments continue to rely on lead agencies to choose methodologies and make significance determinations based on substantial evidence.30 Consequently, no state agency has promulgated binding regulations for analyzing GHG emissions, determining their significance, or mitigating any significant effects in CEQA documents. The discussion below provides a brief overview of ARB and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) documents and of the primary legislation that relates to climate change that may affect the emissions associated with the project. It begins with an overview of the primary regulatory acts that have driven GHG regulation in California, which underlie many of the GHG rules and regulations that have been developed. o Executive Order S-3-05 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following GHG emission reduction targets: By 2010, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels By 2020, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels By 2050, California shall reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels o Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The law instructs the California ARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verifying of statewide GHG emissions. The Act directed ARB to set a GHG emission limit based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The heart of the bill is the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Based on ARB’s calculation of 1990 baseline emissions levels, California must reduce GHG emissions by approximately 28.5 percent below “business-as-usual” predictions of year 2020 GHG emissions to achieve this goal. In July 2011 the California ARB revised its “business as usual” GHG emission estimate for 2020, in order to account for the recent economic downturn in its emission projections.31 The estimate presented in the scoping plan (596 million metric tonnes CO2e) was based on pre-recession, 2007 data from the Integrated Energy Policy Report. ARB has updated the projected “business as usual” 2020 GHG emissions to 545 million metric tonnes CO2e. The bill requires the California ARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. Key AB 32 milestones for the California ARB’s actions include the following: 30 California Natural Resources Agency, Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). 31 California Air Resources Board, Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures (July 2011), http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-11 June 30, 2007—Identification of discrete early action GHG emissions reduction measures. On June 21, 2007, the California ARB satisfied this requirement by approving three early action measures.32 These were later supplemented by adding six other discrete early action measures.33 January 1, 2008—Identification of the 1990 baseline GHG emissions level and approval of a statewide limit equivalent to that level and adoption of reporting and verification requirements concerning GHG emissions. On December 6, 2007, the California ARB approved a statewide limit on GHG emissions levels for the year 2020 consistent with the determined 1990 baseline.34 January 1, 2009—Adoption of a scoping plan for achieving GHG emission reductions. On December 11, 2008, the California ARB adopted Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Scoping Plan), discussed in more detail below.35 January 1, 2010—Adoption and enforcement of regulations to implement the “discrete” actions. Several early action measures have been adopted and became effective on January 1, 2010.36,37 January 1, 2011—Adoption of GHG emissions limits and reduction measures by regulation. On October 28, 2010, the California ARB released its proposed cap-and-trade regulations, which would cover sources of approximately 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions.38 The California ARB’s Board ordered its Executive Director to prepare a final regulatory package for cap-and-trade on December 16, 2010.39 January 1, 2012—GHG emissions limits and reduction measures adopted in 2011 become enforceable. As noted above, the California ARB has adopted the Climate Change Scoping Plan, which outlines the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG limit set by AB 32. This Scoping Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions in California, improve 32 California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Consideration of Recommendations for Discrete Early Actions for Climate Change Mitigation in California (Sacramento: ARB, June 21, 2007). 33 California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Additions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and to Discuss Concepts for Promoting and Recognizing Voluntary Early Actions (Sacramento: ARB, October 25, 2007). 34 California Air Resources Board, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory (millions of metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent) by IPCC Category (Sacramento: ARB, November 2007). http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/archive/tables/ghg_inventory_ipcc_90-04_all_2007-11-19.pdf (accessed February 2012). 35 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Sacramento: ARB, December 2008), http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed February 2012). 36 California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Consideration of Recommendations for Discrete Early Actions for Climate Change Mitigation in California (Sacramento: ARB, June 21, 2007). 37 California Air Resources Board, Summary of Board Meeting: Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Additions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and to Discuss Concepts for Promoting and Recognizing Voluntary Early Actions (Sacramento: ARB, October 25, 2007). 38 California Air Resources Board, Rulemaking to Consider the Adoption of a Proposed California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation, Including Compliance Offset Protocols (Sacramento: ARB, December 16, 2010), http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capandtrade10.htm (accessed February 2012). 39 California Air Resources Board, California Cap-and-Trade Program. Final Resolution 10-42 (Sacramento: ARB, December 16, 2010), http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/res1042.pdf (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-12 the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The key elements of the Scoping Plan40 include: Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards Achieving a statewide renewables energy mix of 33 percent Developing a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system and caps sources contributing 85 percent of California’s GHG emissions Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to existing state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of California’s long-term commitment to AB 32 implementation o Senate Bill 375 SB 375 provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32.41 SB 375 includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as transit oriented development. SB 375 will be implemented over the next several years. SB 375 also requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) relevant to the project area (including the Association of Bay Area Governments [ABAG]) to incorporate a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) in their regional transportation plans (RTPs) that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by ARB. SB 375 is similar to the Regional Blueprint Planning Program, established by the California Department of Transportation, which provides discretionary grants to fund regional transportation and land use plans voluntarily developed by MPOs working in cooperation with Councils of Governments. On April 22, 2009, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) adopted the 2009 Regional Transit Plan (RTP) with AB 32 goals in mind. The 2013 RTP will be its first plan subject to SB 375. The Scoping Plan, adopted by ARB in December of 2008, relies on the requirements of SB 375 to implement the carbon dioxide emissions reductions anticipated from land use decisions. SB 375 also required the California ARB to appoint a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) by January 31, 2009, to recommend factors for the California ARB to consider and methodologies for it to use in setting GHG emission reduction targets for each region. The RTAC must include representation from the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, MPOs, developers, planning organizations, and other stakeholders. In January 2009, ARB appointed 21 members to the RTAC, from a variety of constituencies. On September 29, 2009, the RTAC released its recommendations to the California ARB, representing a key step in the establishment of regional targets 40 California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change (Sacramento: ARB, December 2008), http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed February 2012). 41 California, Senate Bill 375 (2007-2008 Reg. Session) Stats. (2008), ch. 728. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-13 for inclusion in sustainable community strategies.42 The RTAC recommendations focus largely on the manner in which the California ARB staff should interact with various stakeholders during the target- setting process, and how staff should use empirical studies and modeling in establishing regional GHG targets. Following the release of RTAC’s recommendations, the California ARB began the process of developing regional GHG reduction targets (Regional Targets) for the state’s MPOs. On September 23, 2010, the California ARB adopted Regional Targets applying to the years 2020 and 2035.43 For the area under ABAG’s jurisdiction—which includes the project area—the California ARB adopted Regional Targets of 7 percent for 2020 and 15 percent for 2035. On February 15, 2011, the California ARB’s Executive Officer approved the final targets.44 The California ARB filed a Notice of Decision two days later on February 17, 2011.45 Now that the California ARB has adopted these Regional Targets, the MPOs must begin the process of developing SCSs that meet these Regional Targets for inclusion in their RTPs or, if it is not possible to meet the Regional Targets, MPOs must develop alternative planning strategies demonstrating how the targets will be met. o SBx1 2 SBx1 2, called the California Renewable Energy Resources Act, obligates 33 percent of energy from California’s electricity providers to be from renewable resources by 2020. SBx1 2 will require limits be placed on the cost of renewables, will provide waivers and exemptions for providers unable to reach the targets under certain circumstances, and seeks to streamline permitting for renewable and transmission infrastructure projects. SBx1 2 includes all electricity providers and has set interim targets of 20 percent by 2013 and 25 percent by 2016. In order to qualify, power must be from a renewable electrical generation facility. This means that the facility must use biomass, solar thermal, photovoltaic, wind, geothermal, fuel cells using renewable fuels, small hydro, digester gas, trash conversion, landfill gas, ocean wave, ocean thermal, or tidal current generation. Public Utilities Code Section 399.16 requires that, by 2017, for renewable resources supplied under power purchase agreements executed after June 1, 2010, 75 percent of the renewable energy must be from California Content and no more than 10 percent from renewable energy credits (RECs). SBx1 2 sets a high bar for electrical firms to reach, however the success of the law depends on if it contains 42 Regional Targets Advisory Committee, Recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (2009), http://www.onebayarea.org/pdf/Regional_Targets_Advisory_Comm_Recs.pdf (accessed February 2012). 43 California Air Resources Board, Notice of Decision: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, SCH# 2010081021 (Sacramento: ARB, February 2011), http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/notice%20of%20decision.pdf (accessed February 2012). 44 California Air Resources Board, Executive Order No. G-11-024: Relating to Adoption of Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (Sacramento, CA: ARB, February 2011). 45 California Air Resources Board, Notice of Decision: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, SCH# 2010081021 (Sacramento: ARB, February 2011), http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/notice%20of%20decision.pdf (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-14 costs, accelerates transmissions, streamlines development works in practice, and on if the clauses that authorize waivers and exemptions will jeopardize the objectives. o Assembly Bill 1493 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 required the California ARB to adopt regulations by January 1, 2005, to reduce GHG emissions from noncommercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and after.46 The bill required the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) to develop and adopt protocols for the reporting and certification of GHG emissions reductions from mobile sources for use by the California ARB in granting emission reduction credits. The bill authorized the California ARB to grant emission reduction credits for reductions of GHG emissions prior to the date of the enforcement of regulations, using model year 2000 as the baseline for reduction. In 2004, ARB applied to the USEPA for a waiver under the Federal Clean Air Act to authorize implementation of these regulations. The waiver request was formally denied by the USEPA in December 2007. In January 2008, the state Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the USEPA challenging the denial of California’s request for a waiver to regulate and limit GHG emissions from these vehicles. In January 2009, President Barack Obama issued a directive to the USEPA to reconsider California’s request for a waiver, which the USEPA granted on June 30, 2009.47 o Senate Bill 97 Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), enacted in 2007, amends the CEQA statute to clearly establish that GHG emissions and the effects of GHG emissions are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis. In March 2010, the California Office of Administrative Law codified into law CEQA amendments that provide regulatory guidance with respect to the analysis and mitigation of the potential effects of GHG emissions, as found in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. To streamline analysis, CEQA provides for analysis through compliance with a previously adopted plan or mitigation program under special circumstances. o CEQA Amendments Pursuant to SB 97, OPR developed proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines (CEQA Amendments) for the feasible mitigation of GHG emissions and their effects, which it first submitted to the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) on April 13, 2009. After a public review and comment period, on December 30, 2009, the CNRA adopted the CEQA Amendments, which became effective on March 18, 2010. The CEQA Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions state in Section 15064.4(a) that lead agencies should “make a good faith effort, to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions. The CEQA Amendments note that an agency may identify emissions by either selecting a “model or methodology” to quantify the emissions or by relying on 46 California, Assembly Bill 1493 (2001-2002 Reg. Session), Stats. (2002), ch. 200. 47 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Granted, 74 Fed. Reg. 32744 (2009). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-15 “qualitative analysis or other performance based standards.”48 Section 15064.4(b) provides that the lead agency should consider the following when assessing the significance of impacts from GHG emissions on the environment: The extent a project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the environmental setting. Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project. The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.49 In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c) specifies that “[w]hen adopting thresholds of significance, a lead agency may consider thresholds of significance previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies, or recommended by experts, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence”.50 Similarly, the revision to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), which is often used as a basis for lead agencies’ selection of significance thresholds, does not prescribe specific thresholds. Rather, Appendix G asks whether the project would conflict with a plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions; or generate GHG emissions that would significantly affect the environment, indicating that the determination of what is a significant effect on the environment should be left to the lead agency. Accordingly, the CEQA Amendments do not prescribe specific methodologies for performing an assessment, do not establish specific thresholds of significance, and do not mandate specific mitigation measures. Rather, the CEQA Amendments emphasize the lead agency’s discretion to determine the appropriate methodologies and thresholds of significance consistent with the manner in which other impact areas are handled in CEQA.51 The CEQA Amendments indicate that lead agencies should consider all feasible means, supported by substantial evidence and subject to monitoring and reporting, of mitigating the significant effects of GHG emissions. These potential mitigation measures, set forth in Section 15126.4(c), may include (1) measures in an existing plan or mitigation program for the reduction of GHG emissions that are required as part of the lead agency’s decision; (2) reductions in GHG emissions resulting from a project through implementation of project design features; (3) off-site measures, including offsets, to mitigate a project’s emissions; and (4) carbon sequestration measures.52 48 California Natural Resources Agency, Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). 49 California Natural Resources Agency, Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). 50 California Natural Resources Agency, Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). 51 California Natural Resources Agency, Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). 52 California Natural Resources Agency, Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-16 Among other things, the CRNA noted in its Public Notice for these changes that impacts of GHG emissions should focus on the cumulative impact on climate change. The Public Notice states: While the Proposed Amendments do not foreclose the possibility that a single project may result in greenhouse gas emissions with a direct impact on the environment, the evidence before [CRNA] indicates that in most cases, the impact will be cumulative. Therefore, the Proposed Amendments emphasize that the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions should center on whether a project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is cumulatively considerable.53 Thus the CEQA Amendments continue to make clear that the significance of greenhouse gas emissions is most appropriately considered on a cumulative level. o Executive Order S-13-08 On November 14, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08 instructing California agencies to assess and prepare for the impacts of rising sea level associated with climate change.54 Rising sea levels could have devastating effects on California’s infrastructure, such as threatening the state’s water supply, highways, and airports. Pursuant to S-13-08, by June 30, 2009, the CNRA must have assessed California’s vulnerability to climate change impacts and outlined solutions to climate change problems. In 2009, the CNRA released the California Adaptation Strategy (CAS) report which summarizes the best known science on climate change impacts in the state to assess vulnerability and outlines possible solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency. Executive Order S-13-08 also requires the CNRA to request that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene an independent panel to complete the first California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. In October 2010, the Sea-Level Rise Task Force of the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Action Team released the State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document, noting that the final report from the NAS is unlikely to be released until 2012.55 The interim guidance is intended to “inform and assist state agencies as they develop approaches for incorporating [sea level rise] into planning decisions prior to the release of the NAS report and other technical reports”. While Executive Order S-13-08 declares executive goals, it does not establish any binding mandates. o California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to increase the baseline energy efficiency requirements. Although it was not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions, electricity 53 California Natural Resources Agency, Notice of Public Hearings and Notice of Proposed Amendment of Regulations Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Sacramento: CNRA, 2009), http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Notice_of_Proposed_Action.pdf (accessed February 2012). 54 State of California, Governor’s Executive Order No. S-13-08 (November 14, 2008). 55 Sea Level Rise Task Force of the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team, Ocean Protection Council’s Science Advisory Team, and the California Ocean Science Trust, State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (2010). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-17 production by fossil fuels results in GHG emissions and energy efficient buildings require less electricity. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased GHG emissions. The 2008 standards are the most recent version which went into effect on January 1, 2010. CCR Title 24, Part 11: California’s Green Building Standard Code (CALGreen) was adopted in 2010 and went into effect January 1, 2011. CALGreen is the first statewide mandatory green building code and significantly raises the minimum environmental standards for construction of new buildings in California. The Mandatory provisions in CALGreen will reduce the use of VOC-emitting materials, strengthen water conservation, and require construction waste recycling. • Regional o Bay Area Air Quality Management District As stated in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines, the BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for the reduction in climate change emissions for the entire SFBAAB. As discussed above, BAAQMD recently adopted updated BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. BAAQMD’s Guidelines include new thresholds of significance developed to assist local jurisdictions and agencies in complying with the requirements of CEQA regarding potentially adverse impacts on the global climate. As previously noted, the May 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were invalidated by the Alameda County Superior Court due to BAAQMD’s failure to conduct CEQA review analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Guidelines themselves. The City of South San Francisco believes the BAAQMD Guidelines are supported by substantial evidence, and has applied them to the analysis that follows (refer to CEQA Guidelines Section 5064.7(c)). The updated May 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that a land use development project would be considered to have a less-than-significant impact if it would meet at least one of the following thresholds: Be consistent with the policies of a qualified Climate Action Plan Produce emissions of no more than 4.6 MT CO2e per service population (SP)56 annually Produce emissions of no more than 1,100 MT CO2e annually BAAQMD did not adopt a GHG threshold with respect to construction emissions associated with either plan-level or individual development projects. However, BAAQMD recommended that the Lead Agency quantify and disclose construction emissions and make a significance determination of these emissions in relation to meeting the AB 32 GHG reduction goals. Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce GHG emissions during construction. BMPs may include, but are not limited to: Use of alternative-fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet Using local building materials of at least 10 percent 56 Service population is defined as the total number of residents and employees associated with the implementation of the project. For the project the Service Population (SP) is equal to 7,463 employees. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-18 Recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials o Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program. The Joint Policy Committee (composed of the ABAG, BAAQMD, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission [BCDC], and Metropolitan Transportation Commission [MTC]) approved the Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program on May 4, 2007 (amended July 20, 2007), to reduce potential effects of climate change. This program includes strategies to: Establish management priorities based on impacts, benefits, ease of implementation, and cost- effectiveness Increase public awareness and motivate action through workshops and grass-roots outreach Provide assistance such as standardization of procedures for determining impacts, maintaining and distributing data, model codes and other tools, funding for demonstration projects, and others Reduce driving and promote alternative modes of transportation through mechanisms such as road pricing, mode competitiveness, and regional development planning Prepare to adapt, because regardless of regional reductions in potential causes contributing to global climate change, the region will be affected by changing environmental conditions Increase the importance of CEQA review of CO2 emissions, conduct life-cycle costing of all capital projects, encourage energy-efficient development with sliding-scale permit fees, rebates and expedited permit review processes, and return the region’s freeways to a maximum of 55 miles per hour • Local o South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco currently has not adopted a plan or specific policies that address the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. However, many of the City’s existing ordinances and policies, including its aggressive Transportation Demand Management program, increased accessibility to BART extension into South San Francisco, encouraging mixed and transit oriented development, and designing communities to promote alternative transportation, achieve the same objectives. South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400 requires that all nonresidential development with more than 100 average daily trips reduce vehicle trips by ensuring a minimum of 28 percent alternative mode usage. o Genentech Genentech has developed both a Sustainability Plan and a Transportation Demand Management Program to reduce energy and transportation requirements and emissions as well as provide convenience for the Genentech employees. As of 2010, Genentech’s Transportation Demand Management Program (gRide) has reduced vehicle trips by its employees by 35 percent at its South San Francisco Campus.57 Program features include an intracampus bike share program; sixteen GenenBus routes, which boast a daily ridership of over 2,800; 57 Atkins, Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis (July 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-19 and provision of amenities to support employees, such as a cafeteria, food services, fitness center, child care, and on-site mobile venders for services such as carwashes, hair salons, and dental services. In 2010, gRide participation helped to reduce over 900,000 vehicle trips and approximately 14 million pounds of CO2 emissions. Anticipated development through 2012 will provide further support for the gRide program and include upgrading street lighting, installing bicycle storage in campus parking structures, installing bike lanes, and adding new sidewalks and crosswalks. The Sustainability Plan was introduced with 2009 as the baseline and requires that each site throughout the company develop an Energy Action Plan to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions from energy use at the site. Company-wide, Genentech’s energy usage between 2007 and 2009 increased from 2,303,000 gigajoules per year (GJ/year) to 2,481,000 GJ/year. Through the implementation of the Energy Action Plans Genentech is committed to reducing energy consumption from utilities by 15 percent from 2009 levels by 2014, and reduce solid waste by 50 percent from 2009 levels by 2014. As a result, emissions in 2010 were reduced by 2.3 percent to 2,425,000 GJ/year and are anticipated to continue to reduce as the Energy Action Plans continue to be implemented. As part of the Sustainability Plan the following measures are being implemented at the South San Francisco Campus: Lighting efficiency: Improve lighting efficiency in all buildings and parking areas through light fixture and lamp upgrades Lighting controls: Install occupancy sensing controls in all offices and laboratories Solar window film: Install solar window film at the south campus, Founder’s Resource Center (FRC), and Lower Campus buildings Retro commissioning (RCx): RCx are building tune ups of the HVAC system. RCx is anticipated to occur in all buildings Expand building automation system: These systems improve energy efficiency and allow for night and weekend HVAC setbacks. Setbacks will not include temperature setbacks in laboratories Chiller and boiler plant efficiency: Improve equipment and pumping efficiency through installation of controls and motor speed controls Air handler upgrades for efficiency and HVAC: Replace DX cooling air handlers in offices buildings to improve energy efficiency Exhaust system improvements: Install speed controls, automation equipment and replace ductwork to improve the laboratory and exhaust systems ▪ Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Analytic Method The 2007 MEIR did not evaluate GHG emissions. In 2010 the CEQA Guidelines were amended to include the analysis and mitigation of the effects of greenhouse gas emissions as described in the Regulatory Framework section. While the project description has not changed, this SMEIR evaluates full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, approximately 2,708,100 square feet (sf) of remaining development capacity. The impact analysis for the project is based on a GHG emissions analysis, which is presented below. GHG emissions associated with the development and operation of the project were estimated SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-20 using the CalEEMod Version 2011.1 software, trip generation data from the Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this SMEIR, emissions factors from the California Climate Action Registry, and other sources. The methodology and assumptions used in this analysis are detailed below for construction and operation activities. Refer to Appendix D (Greenhouse Gas Emission Supporting Data) for model output and detailed calculations. As discussed above, because the impact each GHG has on climate change varies, a common metric of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) is used to report a combined impact from all of the GHGs, which describes how much warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG emissions in this analysis are measured in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e). The Genentech project cannot generate enough GHG emissions to influence global climate change on its own. However, the project contributes to this environmental impact by its incremental contribution of GHG emissions that, when combined with the cumulative increase of all other anthropogenic sources of GHGs, could affect global climate change. Therefore, GHG emissions are analyzed as a cumulative impact. In order to determine whether a project would cause a significant effect on global climate change, the impact of the project must be determined by examining the types and levels of GHG emissions generated. The following describes the construction and operational emission sources and the methodology of how GHG emissions are estimated for the project. o Construction Construction activities can alter the carbon cycle in many different ways. Construction equipment typically utilizes fossil fuels, which generates GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Methane may also be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. The raw materials used to construct new buildings can sequester carbon; however, demolition of structures can result in the gradual release of the carbon stored in waste building materials as those materials decompose in landfills. Since the exact nature of the origin or make-up of the construction materials is unknown, construction-related emissions are typically based on the operation of vehicles and equipment during construction. Construction is a temporary source of emissions necessary to facilitate development of the project. Although these emissions are temporary, they must be acknowledged, as the impact from the emissions of GHGs is cumulative. The project development does not include the exact size and schedule of the individual development projects to be implemented through plan build-out. This precludes the ability to quantitatively evaluate emissions from construction activities. Therefore, emissions from construction of the project are discussed qualitatively in the document. o Operation The following activities are typically associated with the operation of commercial and industrial land uses that will contribute to the generation of GHG emissions: Vehicular trips. Vehicle trips generated by the project would result in GHG emissions through combustion of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions were determined based on the trip rates provided in the traffic impact analysis. The trip generation rates calculated in the traffic impact analysis for the SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-21 project were modified from CalEEMod default trip generation rates in order to reflect the effectiveness of the TDM and trip reduction strategies included in the gRide Program.58 Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions were estimated using the total vehicle miles traveled as determined by CalEEMod and USEPA emissions factors for on-road vehicles. On-site use of natural gas and other fuels. Natural gas would be used by the project for heating and laboratory uses resulting in a direct release of GHGs. The use of landscaping equipment would also result in on-site GHG emissions. Estimated emissions from the combustion of natural gas and landscape emissions is based on the square footage of nonresidential buildings and is estimated using the default project consumption rates as presented in the CalEEMod model. GHG emissions associated with building envelope energy use vary based on the size of structures, the type and extent of energy-efficiency measures incorporated into structural designs, and the type and size of equipment installed. Complete building envelope details could not be incorporated into the project inventory, as such information was not available at the time of the analysis. Therefore, it was assumed that the building envelopes would comply with the current minimal standards for new development at the project site. Electricity use. Electricity is generated by a combination of methods, which include combustion of fossil fuels. By using electricity, the project would contribute to the indirect emissions associated with electricity production. Estimated emissions from the consumption of electricity is based on the square footage of nonresidential building use and default electrical consumption rates as presented in the CalEEMod modeling output. CalEEMod calculates the emissions associated with the electricity consumption using an emissions factor specific to Pacific Gas and Electric, the electricity provider for the Genentech site. The CalEEMod default emission factors for PG&E was replaced with the most current PG&E emission factors which take into account PG&E’s renewable sources meeting 19 percent of electrical generation.59 Water use and wastewater generation. California’s water conveyance system is energy-intensive, with electricity used to pump and treat water. The project would contribute indirectly to emissions by consuming water and generating wastewater. Estimated emissions from the consumption of potable water and the generation of wastewater is based on the square footage of nonresidential building and default water consumption/waste water generation rates as presented in the CalEEMod model. The CalEEMod model was adjusted through “mitigation” to show a reduction of 20 percent in water consumption as required under the Title 24 Cal Green regulation. Solid waste. Disposal of organic waste in landfills can lead to the generation of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. By generating solid wastes, the project would contribute to the emission of fugitive methane from landfills, as well as CO2, CH4 and N2O from the operation of trash collection vehicles. Estimated emissions from the generation of solid waste is based on the square footage of nonresidential 58 Atkins, Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis (July 2012). 59 Pacific Gas and Electric, PG&E Tallies Renewable Energy Gains in 2011, News Release (January 11, 2012), http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/newsreleases/20120111/pgampe_tallies_renewable_energy_gains_in_2011.sht ml (accessed June 19, 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-22 building use and default waste generation rates as presented in the CalEEMod model. The Ox Mountain Landfill, where project waste is disposed of, has a gas-to-energy system in place and operating that reduces the emissions of CH4 anticipated from landfilling solid waste at this facility. Genentech has increased their solid waste diversion rate to 58 percent by 2010, in accordance with their Sustainability Plan.60 The CalEEMod model was adjusted through “mitigation” to show a 50 percent reduction in waste generation as implemented by the project and California regulations. • Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2012 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and the recently adopted BAAQMD Guidelines. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on global climate change if it would do any of the following: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases For the purposes of this analysis and based on full consideration of the available information, the BAAQMD previously recommended that GHG analysis for plans other than General Plans and Transportation Plans be analyzed using the project level emissions thresholds and methodology. The BAAQMD does not recommend or provide thresholds of significance for emissions from construction activities. They do recommend that emissions are quantified and disclosed and that the Lead Agency make a significance determination with respect to meeting the AB 32 reduction goals. The BAAQMD thresholds for project level operational emissions are: Compliance with a qualified Climate Action Plan or other plan that sets GHG emission reduction goals The project emits up to the screening threshold of 1,100 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e per year) The project emits up to 4.6 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population (MT CO2e/SP)61 annually The City does not have a qualified plan in place for the citywide reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and a project of this scope would be unlikely to generate less than 1,100 MT CO2e/year. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis significance with respect to operational emissions of GHGs will be based on the 4.6 MT CO2e/SP/year threshold. Although this threshold has been vacated by the court, in the absence of an alternative, applicable threshold, this SMEIR continues to use this formerly recommended threshold. 60 Genentech, Annual Report 2011: Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan (May 2011). 61 Service population is defined as the total number of residents and employees associated with the implementation of the project. For the project the Service Population (SP) is equal to 4,319 employees. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-23 o 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 MEIR with respect potential Climate Change impacts. • Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment. However, quantification of the greenhouse gas levels does not exceed the threshold established by the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. o Operation The GHG emissions associated with operation of the project were calculated using CalEEMod. As described above, the project would implement a substantial Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program in order to reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the project. The TDM reductions utilized in this analysis assume a 25 percent reduction in vehicle trips, consistent with the East of 101 traffic study. The vehicle trips associated with the TDM were provided as the project specific trip rates and therefore are presented in the CalEEMod model as part of the unmitigated emissions. Genentech participates in an energy reduction plan and has numerous sustainability programs and features as described in detail under the Regulatory Environment section above. Specifically, Genentech is committed to reducing energy consumption from utilities by 15 percent from 2009 levels by 2014, and to reducing solid waste by 50 percent from 2009 levels by 2014. These are reflected in the CalEEMod model as they correspond with the existing regulatory requirements. In addition, the reduction of water consumption by 20 percent was also included in the CalEEMod calculations as it is required by Title 24, Part 11. Table 4.2-1 (Project-Level GHG Emissions) shows the GHG emissions associated with operation of the project. As shown the unmitigated project emissions would generate approximately 2.98 MT CO2e per employee (based on a total of 7,463 employees). Therefore, operation of the project would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold for GHG emissions of 4.6 MT CO2e per service population, and would result in a less-than-significant impact. Assumptions and calculations are included as Appendix D. o Construction There are no adopted thresholds of significance for construction-related GHG emissions. However, BAAQMD does recommend that lead agencies quantify and disclose GHG emissions from construction activities. Further, lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate BMPs to reduce GHG emissions during construction, as applicable. The project would generate GHG emissions during the construction period from operation of construction equipment and the types and origin of building materials. Details of the construction of the project are undefined at this time and therefore, calculating construction emissions SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-24 would be speculative. The project buildings will be developed on an as-needed basis so it is unknown at what level or during what time period a site may be developed or if sites would be developed where construction phases of one site may overlap with construction phases of other sites. Therefore impacts Table 4.2-1 Project-Level GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/Year) Area 0.00 Energy 11,376.23 Mobile 9,220.12 Waste 385.68 Water 1,274.90 Total 22,256.93 Service Population 7,463 MT/SP (CalEEMod Reductions) 2.98 BAAQMD Threshold 4.60 Significant? No from construction activities are discussed qualitatively herein. The implementation of the following BAAQMD recommended best management practices to reduce GHG emissions, would serve to reduce the level of construction oriented GHG emissions. Using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent of the fleet Using local building materials of at least 10 percent of the total building area Recycling or reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials The predominant emission source is exhaust from the operation of construction materials and trips for delivering construction materials. If construction emissions could be quantified, by adding construction emissions to operational emissions and comparing that to the BAAQMD per service population threshold, emissions from construction activities would be accounted for. According to Table 4.2-1, operational emissions represent 2.98 MT CO2e per service population. If construction emissions are added to operational emissions then annual construction emissions could equal 1.53 MT CO2e per service population annually (11,418 MT CO2e) and the project would remain less than significant for GHG impacts. Further, construction emissions, when added to annual operational emissions, would be amortized over the life of the individual development. In other words, total project construction emissions would be divided by the average expected longevity of a project for 30 years. Therefore, total construction emissions for any subsequent development project would need to exceed 342,552 MT CO2e in order for construction emissions of the project to exceed the per service population threshold when combined with operational emissions. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-25 According to the BAAQMD, construction activities represent a relatively small percent (less than 3 percent) of the total San Francisco Bay Air Basin greenhouse gas emissions.62 Further, in 2005 South San Francisco emitted approximately 526,766 MT CO2e and is anticipated, without reductions, to emit 637,852 MT CO2e annually by 2020.63 In order for construction emissions from the project to exceed the service population threshold, annual emissions would need to exceed 11,418 MT CO2e or would be approximately 1.79 percent to 2.17 percent of the total anticipated emissions annual City emissions. While it is possible that if the entirety of the Genentech expansion was built in one year its construction emissions could represent the majority of the City’s annual construction, the fact that the Genentech expansion is to occur on an as-needed basis precludes this potential. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that with construction from the entire city representing less than 3 percent of total emissions, emissions from a single project would represent nearly 2 percent of total city emissions. Further, it is highly unlikely that a single 2,000,000 sf development would result in construction emissions equaling over half of the total annual operational emissions for the entire City. Annual construction-related emissions are typically much lower than the threshold for operational emissions, and would be one-time emissions. In addition, construction emissions would not exceed 11,418 MT CO2e annually and the best management practices are designed to reduce emissions from vehicle miles traveled from construction activities. As a result of these factors and because the project incorporates best management practices recommended by BAAQMD, impacts from construction-related GHG emissions on global climate would be considered less than significant. Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the project could conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. However, quantification of the greenhouse gas levels does not exceed the threshold established by the City; therefore, this impact would be less than significant. The proposed BAAQMD thresholds are designed such that a 90 percent capture rate is achieved. This 90 percent capture rate means that 90 percent of all development projects would need to incorporate some form of emission reductions in order to reduce emissions. These rates are established to be compliant with AB 32’s requirement to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Because the project is below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e/SP as discussed in detail under Impact 4.2-1, the project is considered to be consistent with AB 32. SB 375 establishes mechanisms for the development of regional targets for reducing passenger vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The California ARB has adopted vehicular greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for the San Francisco Bay Area that require a 7 percent reduction by 2020 and a 15 percent reduction by 2035 for each MPO. The aggressive gRide TDM program implemented by 62 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Working Draft Options Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance (April 2009). 63 City of South San Francisco, City of South San Francisco 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (January 2011). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-26 Genentech, and discussed under Regulatory Environment, above, achieves a reduction in at least 25 percent in employee vehicle trips. This reduction would exceed the 2035 reduction goal, thereby contributing to a reduction in citywide transportation emissions that are required for the region to meet both the 2020 and 2035 goals established under SB 375. Because the project is consistent with both the reduction goals of AB 32 and because it furthers the reduction goals set forth under SB 327, impacts for greenhouse gas emissions with the implementation of this project are considered less than significant. ▪ Cumulative Impacts The analysis of the project’s climate change impact, discussed above, is an analysis of the project’s contribution to a cumulatively significant global impact through its emission of GHGs. The cumulative impacts of the project, with respect to the issue of climate change, are therefore captured in the project- level analysis, and no further cumulative analysis is necessary. ▪ References Anderson, M. Chapter 6: Climate Change Impacts on Flood Management. In California Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Planning and Management of California’s Water Resources. Technical Memorandum Report, pp. 6-22 and 6-27, 2006. Atkins. Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis, July 2012. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. California Environmental Control Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011. ———. Working Draft Options Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, April 2009. California Air Resources Board. California Cap-and-Trade Program. Final Resolution 10-42. Sacramento: ARB, December 16, 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/res1042.pdf (accessed February 2012). ———. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory (millions of metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent) by IPCC Category. Sacramento: ARB, November 2007. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/archive/tables/ghg_inventory_ipcc_90-04_all_2007-11-19.pdf (accessed February 2012). ———. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. Sacramento: ARB, December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf (accessed February 2012). ———. Executive Order No. G-11-024: Relating to Adoption of Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. Sacramento, CA: ARB, February 2011. ———. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data 2002–2008, May 12, 2010. ———. Notice of Decision: Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375. SCH# 2010081021. Sacramento: ARB, February 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/notice%20of%20decision.pdf (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-27 ———. Rulemaking to Consider the Adoption of a Proposed California Cap on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Market-Based Compliance Mechanisms Regulation, Including Compliance Offset Protocols. Sacramento: ARB, December 16, 2010. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2010/capandtrade10/capandtrade10.htm (accessed February 2012). ———. Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures, July 2011. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf (accessed February 2012). ———. Summary of Board Meeting: Consideration of Recommendations for Discrete Early Actions for Climate Change Mitigation in California. Sacramento: ARB, June 21, 2007. ———. Summary of Board Meeting: Public Meeting to Consider Approval of Additions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and to Discuss Concepts for Promoting and Recognizing Voluntary Early Actions. Sacramento: ARB, October 25, 2007. California Climate Change Center. Cayan, D., P. Bromirski, K. Hayhoe, M. Tyree, M. Dettinger, and R. Flick. Projecting Future Sea Level: Table 3 Projected global sea level rise (SLR) (cm) for the SRES A1fi, A2, and B1 greenhouse gas emission scenarios. SLR for A2 and B1 scenarios is estimated by combining output recent global climate change model simulations with MAGICC projections for the ice melt component. SLR estimates for A1fi estimated from MAGICC based on A2 temperature changes scaled according to those in A1fi. A Report from the California Climate Change Center CEC-500-2005-2002-SF. p. 19, 2006. California Natural Resources Agency. Notice of Public Hearings and Notice of Proposed Amendment of Regulations Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Sacramento: CNRA, 2009. http://www.ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Notice_of_Proposed_Action.pdf (accessed February 2012). ———. Revised Text of Proposed Guideline Amendments. Sacramento: CNRA, 2009. http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/Text_of_Proposed_Changes.pdf (accessed February 2012). Genentech. Annual Report 2011: Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan, May 2011. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1,000 pp., 2007. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiative, February 2002. http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/20020214-5.html (accessed February 2012). Pacific Gas and Electric. Fighting Climate Change. http://www.pge.com/about/environment/pge/climate (accessed March 12, 2012). ———. PG&E Tallies Renewable Energy Gains in 2011. News Release, January 11, 2012. http://www.pge.com/about/newsroom/newsreleases/20120111/pgampe_tallies_renewable_energy _gains_in_2011.shtml (accessed June 19, 2012). Regional Targets Advisory Committee. Recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory Committee Pursuant to Senate Bill 375, 2009. http://www.onebayarea.org/pdf/Regional_Targets_Advisory_Comm_Recs.pdf (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-28 Sea Level Rise Task Force of the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team, Ocean Protection Council’s Science Advisory Team, and the California Ocean Science Trust. State of California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document, 2010. South San Francisco, City of. City of South San Francisco 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, January 2011. ———. Zoning Ordinance Update, December 17, 2009. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Sum of Annex I and Non-Annex I Countries without Counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), Predefined Queries: GHG total without LULUCF (Annex I Parties). Bonn, Germany, 2007. http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/predefined_queries/items/3814.php (accessed February 2012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. California Greenhouse Gas Waiver Granted, 74 Fed. Reg. 32744 (2009). ———. Ecosystems Impacts & Adaptation, 2012. www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/eco.html (accessed June 2012). ———. Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, December 2009. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/ (accessed February 2012). ———. Climate Change Indicators in the United States. Weather and Climate. www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentpsc.html (accessed February 2012). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-1 O LAND USE/PLANNING ▪ Background The 2007 MEIR evaluated the consistency of the project with plans and goals adopted by the City of South San Francisco, including development standards relating to building height, Floor Area Ratio and parking potential. Consequently, the Genentech Master Plan District was codified in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and future build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be subject to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, including the Genentech Master Plan District standards. The analysis in the 2007 MEIR as to planning standards remains valid. For purposes of this SMEIR, the only new information that has arisen since certification of the 2007 MEIR is the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) adoption of the October 2011 Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment to the previously adopted BCDC Bay Plan. This section therefore analyzes the project’s consistency with the BCDC Bay Plan (which now includes the Climate Change Amendment) and specifically focuses on changes to the regulatory requirements to land use/planning with respect to the potential effects from sea level rise. The sea level rise that has been estimated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on historical observations is about 16 inches over the past century, which is consistent with the estimates that traditional coastal developments have included in their design. However, based on climate change studies over the past two decades, the rate of sea level rise appears to be accelerating and climate change models are predicting greater rates of sea level rise in the future in response to warmer temperatures and the thermal expansion of melting ice caps. It should be noted that a recent court of appeal decision makes clear that CEQA does not require analysis of the impacts of sea level rise on a project (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.4th 455 [2d Dist. Ct. of Appeal, 2011]). Nevertheless, for informational purposes and to analyze consistency with land use plans, this SMEIR includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with sea level rise plans and policies.64 No comment letters addressing land use/planning were received in response to the IS/NOP circulated for the project. Data for this section were taken from the 2007 MEIR and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.3.6 (References). 64 In addition, some of the earliest superior court decisions on climate change held that the concept of climate change - and related laws and policies - is not “significant new information” within the meaning of CEQA. See American Canyon Community United for Responsible Growth et al. v. City of American Canyon et al., Case No. 26-27462 (Napa County Superior Court, May 22, 2007); Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Reclamation Board of the Resources Agency of the State of California, Case No. 06-CS 01228 (Sacramento County Superior Court, April 27, 2007). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-2 ▪ Environmental Setting • Regional and Project Location The MEIR Study Area is located along the western shoreline of central San Francisco Bay. The East of 101 Area generally slopes downward to the east, towards San Francisco Bay. The MEIR Study Area, itself, comprises a hilly region to the south, formed by southeast-trending Coyote Point Fault Zone, and low-lying areas to the northeast. Elevations range from 182 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) at the top of San Bruno Hill to approximately 0 feet AMSL at the low-lying areas in the northeast portion of the MEIR Study Area (USGS 1956). No portion of the MEIR Study Area is located in the 100-year or 500- year floodplains, which are the result of flooding in Colma Creek. However, according to the City’s General Plan, the eastern shoreline of the MEIR Study Area is subject to 100-year flood conditions as a result of coastal flooding and wave action. • General Plan/Zoning Designations The project site is currently zoned as Genentech Master Plan District (SSFMC Chapter 20.260), with a narrow strip of land that extends south along the coastline designated as Parks & Open Space (SSFMC Chapter 20.130). The majority of the project area is designated as Business and Technology Park, with the southern portion along the San Francisco Bay designated as Park and Recreation in the City’s General Plan. The small Park and Recreation General Plan land use category includes the Bay Trail and coastal beach areas. ▪ Regulatory Framework The 2007 MEIR did not address land use and planning as it pertains to sea level rise; therefore, the information below is updated from the 2007 MEIR. Consistency with other plans was addressed in the 2007 MEIR. • Federal There are no federal laws that pertain to land use/planning with respect to sea level rise that are applicable to the project. However, there are regulatory agencies and departments that are actively working to determine methods to protect shoreline and coastal resources from the potential threats to sea level rise. o Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) primarily functions to preserve and protect coastal resources. The objectives of the CZMA are to protect and preserve coastal ecosystems, manage coastal development, improve water quality, utilize economic and energy resources, and coordinate and simplify administrative procedures. The CZMA addresses sea level rise in its findings and policy declaration and in regulations implementing the statute: 16 USC §1452 (Section 303). To aid the states in developing programs that will help provide protection of natural resources, including wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, coral reefs, and fish and wildlife and their habitats within the coastal zone SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-3 and for the management of coastal development to minimize the loss of life and property caused by improper development in flood-prone, storm-surge, geological hazard, and erosion-prone areas and in areas likely to be affected by or vulnerable to sea level rise, land subsidence, and saltwater intrusion, and by the destruction of natural protective features such as beaches, dunes, wetlands, and barrier islands. o Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps flood zones based on potential flooding caused by rainfall, or a combination of rainfall, tides, storm surge, and wave motion. Flood zones are geographic areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community’s Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area. According to the FIRM for the City, no portion of the MEIR Study Area is located within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains. However, according to the City’s General Plan, the eastern shoreline of the MEIR Study Area is subject to 100-year flood conditions as a result of coastal flooding and wave action. The traditional approach to designing coastal developments is as specified by FEMA and local agency guidance policies, which is to set interior grades throughout a community such that finished floor elevations for buildings (e.g., the elevation of the first floor of inhabitable space) would be at or above the present-day Base Flood Elevation (BFE) (e.g., the water surface elevation that would occur during a 100-year flood event). Improvements along the shoreline are required only to protect nearby structures or facilities against storm wave run-up and overtopping during a flood event that has a one percent chance of occurring, as specified by FEMA (sometimes referred to as the “One Percent Annual Chance of Occurrence Event”). • State Of the various applicable state laws and plans that pertain to land use/planning, the primary applicable plan with respect to sea level rise is the Bay Plan, as amended by the BCDC in October 2011 (see below). In addition, there are regulatory agencies and departments that are actively working to determine methods to protect shoreline and coastal resources from the potential threat to sea level rise. o California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act of 1976 created a coastal zone extending 1,000 yards landward from the mean high tide line mark. The California Coastal Commission administers the Act and certifies local coastal programs. Development within the coastal zone is by permit, and must conform to the requirements of the local plan. However, the BCDC has jurisdiction over shoreline areas within the San Francisco Bay and has been active in planning for sea level rise in the Bay region, and in 2007 published Planning for Sea Level Rise in San Francisco Bay. o McAteer-Petris Act The McAteer-Petris Act of 1965 gives the BCDC jurisdiction over shoreline priority use areas. The McAteer-Petris Act gives BCDC jurisdiction over a 100-foot shoreline band around San Francisco Bay. The development of the bay and shoreline, economic and population growth; safety of fills; water-related industries; ports; commercial fishing; airports; recreation; wild life refuge, salt ponds and other managed SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-4 wetlands; transportation; other uses of the bay and shoreline; refuse disposal sites; public access; appearance, design, scenic views and water oriented recreation. o San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission The BCDC developed a Strategic Plan in 2007 that identifies the potential effects that climate change can have on ocean, coastal and near-coastal resources, and the need to consider these impacts in determining the priority of expenditures in the design and implementing funded infrastructure projects; to support others in order to improve our understanding of the effects of climate change; and to identify tools to mitigate and plan for a range of predicted changes. California Climate Change Center predicts that sea level in California would rise between 10.9 and 71.6 centimeters (cm) (0.36 and 2.3 feet) above existing mean sea level by 2099 as a result of climate change. The BCDC will consider the 16 inches (40 cm) by 2050 and 55 inches (140 cm) by 2100 sea level rise scenarios in assessing project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, to reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea level rise. On October 6, 2011, BCDC approved Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08 (referred to as the “Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment”) to address climate change and to update language on sea level rise policy. The Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment was based on the vulnerability assessment prepared by BCDC staff in 2008, titled Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline (as revised through September 23, 2011). The Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment added a new Climate Change section to the Bay Plan, and amended Bay Plan findings and polices related to tidal marshes and tidal flats, safety of fills, shoreline protection and public access, including recommendations to perform a risk assessment of 100-year flood risk based on best estimated sea level rise. The amendments also call for the BCDC to review projects in its jurisdictional zone “on a case-by-case basis to determine the project’s public benefits, resilience to flooding, and capacity to adapt to climate change impacts.” The analysis in this Chapter focuses on the policies set forth in the Climate Change section of the Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment as they apply to development of the 2007 Master Plan within the BCDC’s jurisdiction. The policies related to tidal marshes and tidal flats, safety of fills, shoreline protection and public access are not applicable to the development of the 2007 Master Plan. Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission helps to protect coastal and marine habitats, urban waterfronts and coastal watersheds through the administration of the Ocean Protection Council, and implementation of the California Coastal Trail and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Plan. Sea level rise is a dynamic process and BCDC is actively working to develop strategies to help protect the shoreline and resources. The BCDC has identified key strategies in protecting the shoreline and bay ecosystem. Preserve and enhance habitat in undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flooding and have current or potential value for important species. Include a buffer, where feasible, between shoreline development and habitats to protect wildlife and provide space for marsh migration as sea level rises. Design shoreline protection projects to include provisions for establishing marsh and transitional upland vegetation as part of the protective structure, wherever feasible. Conduct comprehensive Bay sediment research and monitoring to understand sediment processes necessary to sustain and restore wetlands. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-5 Update regional habitat conservation and restoration targets to achieve a Bay ecosystem resilient to climate change and sea level rise. The BCDC will continue to oversee and implement sea level protection along the shoreline and identify adaption measures to address sea level rise as a result of climate change including developing a long-term strategy to address sea level rise and storm activity and other Bay-related impacts of climate change. Strategies include providing a well-planned development that responds to the impacts of climate change and future sea level rise; collaborating with the Joint Policy Committee and other agencies to integrate mitigation and adaptation strategies at a regional scale; coordinating the adaptation responses of multiple government agencies; analyzing and addressing equity issues, and continuing to support research, provide recommendations and requirements to guide planning and permitting of development in areas vulnerable to sea level rise; and developing policies that promote wetland protection, creation, enhancement and migration. • Local There are no local laws that pertain to land use/planning with respect to sea level rise that are applicable to the project. ▪ Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Analytic Method The analysis in this section focuses on the consistency of the project that would occur within the BCDCs jurisdiction with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, specifically the Climate Change section of BCDCs Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment. • Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2012 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on land use/planning if it would do any of the following: Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect o 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 MEIR with respect to potential Land Use impacts. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-6 • Project Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Impact 4.3-1 The project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), this SMEIR discusses any inconsistencies between the project and applicable regional and local plans.65 Although analysis of the potential of sea level rise to affect a project is not required per CEQA (Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles, 201 Cal.App.4th 455 (2nd District, Ct. App. 2011), the predicted sea level inundation was identified to assess the applicability of the Bay Plan amendments. The predicted sea level rise for the MEIR Study Area was mapped and illustrated in Figure 4.3-1 (Areas of Inundation for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise). The areas of potential inundation are identified by the current BCDC 100-foot buffer zone and the future BCDC 100 feet. The outer perimeter line represents the 50-year inundation boundary based on the 16-inch sea level rise. The 50-year inundation is confined to the outer shoreline boundary. Currently, there are no stationary buildings or proposed buildings that will be erected in this area. Further, the current BCDC 100-foot buffer zone offset shares the same boundary. This is an area zoned for no construction. The area of impact is thus confined to the existing shoreline. The future BCDC 100-foot buffer zone offset represents the predicted 55-inch sea level rise in the year 2100. This boundary parallels the existing BCDC boundary but is shifted inland by approximately 100 feet. The area of inundation primarily impacts the shoreline, landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard. The inundation does not impact any of the existing major infrastructure facilities including any existing or proposed building structures. The inundation is confined to the outer perimeter including the landscape buffer areas, impervious area including the southwestern edge of Forbes Boulevard and parking lots. The MEIR Study does not pose a threat to the environment as a result of development and expansion within the areas potentially affected by sea level rise. Analysis of the applicable BCDC Climate Change Policies with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan that would occur within the BCDC’s jurisdiction are presented in Table 4.3-1 (BCDC Climate Change Consistency Analysis). As previously described, this analysis focuses on the BCDC’s Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment policies as they apply to development of the 2007 Master Plan. The policies related to tidal marshes and tidal flats, safety of fills, shoreline protection, and public access are not applicable to the development of the 2007 Master Plan. 65 As previously noted, the 2007 MEIR considered consistency with all other relevant plans, policies and regulations. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-7 Figure 4.3-1 Areas of Inundation for Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Page 1—color 8.5x11 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-8 Page 2—color 8.5x11 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-9 Table 4.3-1 BCDC Climate Change Consistency Analysis BCDC Climate Change Policies Project Consistency Policy 1a The findings and policies apply only to projects and activities located within the following areas: San Francisco Bay, the 100-foot shoreline band, salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain waterways, as these areas are described in Government Code section 66610, and the Suisun Marsh, as this area is described in Public Resources Code Section 29101. Policy 1b For projects or activities that are located partly within the areas described in subparagraph a and partly outside such area, the findings and policies apply only to those activities or that portion of the project within the areas described in subparagraph a. Applicable. The outer perimeter of the MEIR Study area falls within the 100-foot shoreline band and would be subject to the BCDC’s Climate Change Policy. This area includes the shoreline, landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard and parking lots. Policy 2 When planning shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects, a risk assessment should be prepared by a qualified engineer and should be based on the estimated 100-year flood elevation that takes into account the best estimates of future sea level rise and current flood protection and planned flood protection that will be funded and constructed when needed to provide protection for the project or shoreline area. A range of sea level rise projections for mid-century and end of century based on the best scientific data available should be used in the risk assessment. Inundation maps used for the risk assessment should be prepared under the direction of a qualified engineer. The risk assessment should identify all types of potential flooding, degrees of uncertainty, consequences of defense failure, and risks to existing habitat from proposed flood protection devices. Consistent. No new development is proposed within the mid- century and the 100-year flood areas as illustrated in the inundation maps. This area includes the shoreline, landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard and parking lots. Thus, the project is not a “larger shoreline project” and does not trigger the requirement for a risk assessment. As such, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this goal. Policy 3 To protect public safety and ecosystem services, within areas that a risk assessment determines are vulnerable to future shoreline flooding that threatens public safety, all projects––other than repairs of existing facilities, small projects that do not increase risks to public safety, interim projects and infill projects within existing urbanized areas––should be designed to be resilient to a mid-century sea level rise projection. If it is likely the project will remain in place longer than mid-century, an adaptive management plan should be developed to address the long-term impacts that will arise based on a risk assessment using the best available science- based projection for sea level rise at the end of the century. Consistent. No new development is proposed within the mid- century and the 100-year flood areas as illustrated in the inundation maps. This area includes the shoreline, landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard and parking lots. No new development would occur in an area vulnerable to future shoreline flooding that would threaten public safety. As such, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this goal. Policy 4 To address the regional adverse impacts of climate change, undeveloped areas that are both vulnerable to future flooding and currently sustain significant habitats or species, or possess conditions that make the areas especially suitable for ecosystem enhancement, should be given special consideration for preservation and habitat enhancement and should be encouraged to be used for those purposes. Not Applicable. No significant habitat occurs within the potential flood areas. This area includes the shoreline, landscape zones, storm drain easements and the edge of Forbes Boulevard and parking lots. Policy 5 Wherever feasible and appropriate, effective, innovative sea level rise adaptation approaches should be encouraged. Consistent. The full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would maintain a buffer between potential areas impacted by sea level rise and new development. The existing buffer zone (100-foot offset) from the shoreline shows compliance with the BCDC requirements. The future (2050) buffer zone may impact the outer perimeter of the Genentech site including landscape buffer areas and impervious areas. The zone was established to help protect and preserve the shoreline and protect wildlife, thereby providing appropriate setbacks as recommended by the BCDC. As such, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this goal. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-10 Table 4.3-1 BCDC Climate Change Consistency Analysis BCDC Climate Change Policies Project Consistency Policy 6 The Commission, in collaboration with the Joint Policy Committee, other regional, state and federal agencies, local governments, and the general public, should formulate a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy for protecting critical developed shoreline areas and natural ecosystems, enhancing the resilience of Bay and shoreline systems and increasing their adaptive capacity. The Commission recommends that: (1) the strategy incorporate an adaptive management approach; (2) the strategy be consistent with the goals of SB 375 and the principles of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy; (3) the strategy be updated regularly to reflect changing conditions and scientific information and include maps of shoreline areas that are vulnerable to flooding based on projections of future sea level rise and shoreline flooding; (4) the maps be prepared under the direction of a qualified engineer and regularly updated in consultation with government agencies with authority over flood protection; and (5) particular attention be given to identifying and encouraging the development of long-term regional flood protection strategies that may be beyond the fiscal resources of individual local agencies. Ideally, the regional strategy will determine where and how existing development should be protected and infill development encouraged, where new development should be permitted, and where existing development should eventually be removed to allow the Bay to migrate inland. Not applicable. BCDC will collaborate with the Joint Policy Committee (JPC); other regional, state, and federal agencies; local governments; and the general public to formulate a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy. This policy does not pertain to specific projects. Policy 7 Until a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy can be completed, the Commission should evaluate each project proposed in vulnerable areas on a case-by-case basis to determine the project’s public benefits, resilience to flooding, and capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. The following specific types of projects have regional benefits, advance regional goals, and should be encouraged, if their regional benefits and their advancement of regional goals outweigh the risk from flooding: a. remediation of existing environmental degradation or contamination, particularly on a closed military base; b. a transportation facility, public utility or other critical infrastructure that is necessary for existing development or to serve planned development; c. a project that will concentrate employment or housing near existing or committed transit service (whether by public or private funds or as part of a project), particularly within those Priority Development Areas that are established by the Association of Bay Area Governments and endorsed by the Commission, and that includes a financial strategy for flood protection that will minimize the burdens on the public and a sea level rise adaptation strategy that will adequately provide for the resilience and sustainability of the project over its designed lifespan; and d. a natural resource restoration or environmental enhancement project. The following specific types of projects should be encouraged if they do not negatively impact the Bay and do not increase risks to public safety: Consistent. The Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would incorporate adaptive management approaches to future development, including maintaining a setback between the shoreline and future development. Build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be consistent with the goals of SB 375 as Genentech provides for an aggressive gRide TDM program, as well as being served by existing public transportation. Additionally, the perimeter of the MEIR Study Area adjacent the Bay is currently and will continue to be utilized as part of the Bay Area Trail. As such, full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan is consistent with this goal. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-11 Table 4.3-1 BCDC Climate Change Consistency Analysis BCDC Climate Change Policies Project Consistency e. repairs of an existing facility; f. a small project; g. use that is interim in nature and either can be easily removed or relocated to higher ground or can be amortized within a period before removal or relocation of the proposed use would be necessary; and h. a public park. Policy 8.To effectively address sea level rise and flooding, if more than one government agency has authority or jurisdiction over a particular issue or area, project reviews should be coordinated to resolve conflicting guidelines, standards or conditions. Not applicable. BCDC will collaborate with the Joint Policy Committee (JPC); other regional, state, and federal agencies; local governments; and the general public to formulate a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy. This policy does not pertain to specific projects. Although sea level rise has a potential to impact the campus outer perimeter, these impacts would not affect any project infrastructure or project occupants. Thus, the nature of the impacts (to parking areas primarily) do not suggest that the project conflicts with the Bay Plan, as amended, and would not result in a conflict with a plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an impact to the environment. The existing and proposed BCDC 100-foot 50-year inundation runs parallel along the perimeter of the Genentech property. The existing buffer zone (100-foot offset) from the shoreline shows compliance with the BCDC requirements. The future (2050) buffer zone may impact the outer perimeter of the Genentech site including landscape buffer areas and impervious areas. The zone was established to help protect and preserve the shoreline and protect wildlife. The future buffer zone may impact the outer perimeter of the Genentech site including landscape areas, and parking lots. The project will not pose an impact to resources or non compliance with the city specific plan, zoning ordinance or coastal programs. Therefore impacts would be considered less than significant. No mitigation required. ▪ Cumulative Impacts Threshold Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Global climate change could alter the local hydrology and change the seasonal and annual rainfall and runoff patterns in the Bay Area; rainfall and runoff could increase, decrease, change in pattern and frequency, or not change at all. This would be a regional phenomenon, not just limited to the City. Thus, the cumulative context for sea level rise is the San Francisco Bay Area. Sea level rise-induced flooding, in combination with other hydrologic factors such as 100-year flood and additional stormwater runoff, could affect the upstream flow gradients within creeks and channels citywide, causing greater upstream flooding and groundwater-surface interactions such that storm drainage system capacity could be compromised. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to predict how cumulative conditions could be affected, given the current model constraints to accurately predict end- of-century conditions as it relates to cumulative development and sea level rise. For portions of the City’s SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-12 shoreline that could be susceptible to sea level rise where there is existing development, potential flood risks are expected to be addressed through adaptive management strategies. The City will comply with BCDC’s Climate Change policies as presented in the October 2011 Bay Plan amendments and take action to protect existing shoreline developments. As discussed in Policy 6 of the Bay Plan amendments, BCDC will collaborate with the Joint Policy Committee (JPC); other regional, state, and federal agencies; local governments; and the general public to formulate a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy. Among other things, the regional strategy will determine where and how existing development should be protected. Adaptation actions that protect existing development and infrastructure include protecting shorelines. The City will participate in the planning efforts by BCDC and the JPC. For new development, those locations subject to sea level rise, the City would review development proposals in order to ensure they address any impacts relative to a 16-inch rise by mid-century, and would address end-of-century sea level rise through adaptive management strategies. The shoreline portions of the MEIR Study Area could be vulnerable to sea level rise between 2050 and 2100. This would occur regardless of whether full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan occurs, and there are no aspects of the project that would change flood potential due to sea level rise because no new structures are proposed within the mid- or long-term flood areas. None of the development contemplated under the 2007 Master Plan is within BCDC’s jurisdiction concerning shoreline protection for sea level rise. The BCDC has recommended that Bayfront developments consider a 16-inch sea level rise value by 2050 (mid-term) and a 55-inch sea level rise value by 2100 (long-term). Although no specific design criteria related to sea level rise have been formally adopted by federal, state, or local agencies, the 2007 Master Plan has been designed to account for sea level rise as part of the planning process to prevent future flooding or loss of infrastructure resulting from shoreline erosion. Building structures are generally stationary whereas shoreline protection and storm drain systems can be adapted to adjust with the changes in sea levels. Because the project is consistent with the requirements and policies set forth in the BCDC Bay Plan with respect to sea level rise, it would not be considered cumulatively considerable. Therefore, this cumulative impact is less than significant. No mitigation is required. ▪ References Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles. Cal: Court of Appeal, 2d Appellate Dist., 3d Div., 2011. Genentech. Annual Report 2011: Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan, May 2011. San Francisco Bay Conservation & Development Commission. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline, as revised through September 23, 2011. ———. Bay Plan Amendment No 1-08 (Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment), October 6, 2011. South San Francisco, City of. South San Francisco Municipal Code, 1986 (and amended periodically). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-1 O TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ▪ Background This section provides an update of the traffic analysis that was conducted for the 2007 MEIR, by re- evaluating transportation and traffic impacts with information from the recently completed Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco (2011 East of 101 Study), dated October 21, 2011, and other information that has become available since certification of the 2007 MEIR. The goal is to determine whether the new information provided in the 2011 East of 101 Study indicates any new or substantially more severe significant traffic impacts than were identified in the 2007 MEIR. ▪ Introduction This section of the SMEIR analyzes the potential environmental effects on transportation/traffic from implementation of the project. SamTrans submitted a comment letter addressing transportation/traffic in response to the NOP circulated for the project, requesting that potential impacts to public service be included in the new traffic analysis. Impacts to roadway conditions present below in Section 4.4.5, includes all modes of transportation, including public transit. The California Department of Transportation also submitted a letter requesting a complete analysis of the build-out conditions and cumulative impacts for all study intersection scenarios including Synchro analysis. The original traffic impact analysis prepared by Korve Engineering and is contained in Appendix E of the 2007 MEIR. This SMEIR section analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on existing and future transportation and traffic conditions resulting from full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan, approximately 2,708,100 square feet (sf). The Initial Study (Appendix A) identified the potential for impacts associated with increased number of vehicle trips and traffic congestion, exceeding established levels of service of the county congestion management agency. The following issues were determined not to be potentially significant in the project’s IS and do not require additional analysis in the SMEIR; a change in air traffic patterns; potential conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation; increased hazards due to design features, and emergency access. Data for this section were taken from the East of 101 Study prepared by TJKM for the City. The purpose of East of 101 Study was to evaluate traffic impacts, identify short-term (2015) and long-term (2035) roadway and circulation needs, determine potential improvement measures beyond the 2007 East of 101 Planned Improvements, and identify any critical traffic issues that should be addressed in the on- going planning process. Additionally, data was taken from the Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis prepared in June 2012, and included as Appendix E (Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis). Full reference-list entries for all cited materials are provided in Section 4.4.6 (References). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-2 ▪ Environmental Setting • Comparison of Traffic Study Assumptions Following the approval of additional projects in the East of 101 Area, the City commissioned a traffic study conducted by TJKM Transportation Consultants in October 2011 to analyze area traffic patterns for the City. Consequently, an update of the 2007 MEIR traffic analysis was necessary. Given the programmatic nature of the 2007 Master Plan, the precise timing of the “as needed” construction of new facilities leading to build-out could not be precisely predicted. Therefore, in terms of land use assumptions, the 2007 MEIR modeled full build out of the Genentech campus by 2015, whereas the 2011 East of 101 Study assumed full build-out by 2035. This assumption was designed to address the rate of growth in the MEIR Study Area in 2009 (when data for the East of 101 Study was collected), which occurred at a much slower pace than anticipated in the 2007 MEIR. In addition, Genentech has demolished approximately 281,288 sf of existing structures since 2009 when the East of 101 Study was initiated (resulting in fewer net square feet of development). The 2011 East of 101 Study assumes a slower growth rate than what was analyzed in the 2007 MEIR. This is due to a steady decline in development in both the MEIR Study Area and the Larger East of 101 Area than was projected in the 2007 MEIR. Table 4.4-1 (Comparison of Genentech Development Assumptions in the 2007 MEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study) shows the differences in land use assumptions between the 2007 MEIR and the 2011 East of 101 Study, as well as the actual levels of development as they occurred for the sake of comparison (“Actual” Genentech Development). Actual development continues to lag and reflect a slower rate of build-out than assumed in either traffic study. Furthermore, although the 2007 MEIR 2015 Analysis and the 2011 East of 101 Study 2035 Analysis both assume that the Genentech Master Plan District will be “built out,” the 2011 East of 101 Study 2035 Analysis also assumes a higher level of development for the rest of the East of 101 area by 2035, due to new development plans that were not known for the 2007 MEIR. Therefore, as shown in Table 4.4-2 (Comparison of East of 101 Area Land Uses in the 2007 MEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study), the 2011 East of 101 Study assumes a much higher level of “background” growth at build-out. The 2007 MEIR utilized a base year of 2005/06, with most of the traffic count data having been collected in December 2005, with the existing land use data reflecting the size (in square feet) of Genentech in 2006. o Existing (2009) Plus Full Build-Out of 2007 Master Plan CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 directs that an EIR “must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. These environmental settings will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant” (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(a)). The Supreme Court further stated that “Environmental conditions may vary from year to year and in some cases it is necessary to consider conditions over a range of time periods. In some circumstances, peak impacts or recurring periods of resourc e scarcity may be as important SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-3 Table 4.4-1 Comparison of Genentech Development Assumptions in the 2007 MEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study Analysis Year/Location Actual Genentech Development for Traffic Studies Base Years 2007 MEIR 2011 East of 101 Study Assumptions Assumptions Existing 2006 — 2,828,366 — Actual 2007 2,815,000 — — Existing 2009 — — 3,573,188* Actual 2011 3,291,900 — — 2015 — 5,995,545 4,168,188 2035 — — 5,995,545 SOURCE: City of South San Francisco, Master EIR for Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update, SCH# 2005072165 (certified March 2007); TJKM Transportation Consultants, Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco (October 2011). * Genentech has demolished approximately 281,288 sf of existing structure since 2009 when the East of 101 Study was initiated. Table 4.4-2 Comparison of East of 101 Area Land Uses in the 2007 MEIR and 2011 East of 101 Study Analysis Size of Genentech Overlay Area (sf) Growth in rest of 2011 East of 101 Study Area (sf) Growth Years Source 2007 MEIR 2015 Assumptions 5,995,545 + 4,558,551 2006 to 2015 Table 5-1, on page 32 of the 2007 MEIR 2011 East of 101 Study 2035 Assumptions 5,995,545 + 10,830,602 2009 to 2035 Table IX on page 39 of the 2011 East of 101 Study SOURCE: Atkins (2012). environmentally as average conditions. Where environmental conditions are expected to change quickly during the period of environmental review for reasons other than the project, project effects might reasonably be compared to predicted conditions at the expected date of approval, rather than to conditions at the time analysis is begun” (Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management District, 48 Cal.4th 310, 328 [2010]). Therefore, while the SMEIR uses a baseline of 2011 (date of publication of the NOP), the East of 101 Study Existing Conditions Analysis relied on data collected in 2008 and 2009. The purpose of this SMEIR is to evaluate traffic impacts based upon new information and the East of 101 Study represents the new information considered; therefore, 2009 is used as the baseline for the impact analysis for the Existing Plus Project analysis and the remaining development capacity in the Genentech Master Plan District. The Existing (2009) Plus Project Scenario assumes 2009 conditions with the additional traffic that would result from full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-4 • Existing Conditions o Study Intersections The 2011 East of 101 Study utilized traffic count data from May of 2008, and June of 2009, and the existing land use data for 2011 East of 101 Study represents the size of Genentech in 2009. Most of the counts were taken in 2009, and therefore its Existing conditions traffic analysis reflects 2009 conditions. Twenty one intersections were evaluated as part of the traffic analysis conducted for this SMEIR. The study intersections are listed below in Table 4.4-3 (SMEIR Study Intersections), and are also shown in Figure 4.4-1 (SMEIR Study Intersections), while Figure 4.4-2 (Existing Conditions [2009 Without Project] Turning Movement Volumes) shows the Existing Conditions (2009) turning movement volumes for the study intersections. Table 4.4-3 SMEIR Study Intersections # Intersection Traffic Control (2008) In 2007 MEIR? In 2011 East of 101 Study? 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal Yes Yes 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal Yes Yes 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal Yes Yes 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard* Signal Yes No 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Two-way stop Yes Yes 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal Yes Yes 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal Yes Yes 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal Yes Yes 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield Yes Yes 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal Yes Yes 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbormaster Road/Forbes Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue One-way stop Yes Yes 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive One-way stop Yes Yes 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal Yes Yes 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal Yes Yes 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal Yes Yes 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal No Yes 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal No Yes SOURCE: Atkins (2012). *Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard was not included in the East of 101 Study, but was evaluated in the 2007 MEIR; therefore, is included in this updated analysis. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-5 Figure 4.4-1 SMEIR Study Intersections Page 1—color 8.5x11 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-6 Page 2—color 8.5x11 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-7 Figure 4.4-2 Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) Turning Movement Volumes Page 1—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-8 Page 2—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-9 Table 4.4-4 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Conditions [2009 Without Project]) identifies the AM and PM peak hour LOS. Table 4.4-4 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) # Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 26.3 C 25.2 C 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 33.1 C 24.8 C 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 13.1 B 55.9 E 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 29.2 C 22.6 C 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 26.8 C 30.1 C 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (1) Signal 24.1 C 29.6 C 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Two-way stop 28.7 D 15.9 C 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 29.3 C 16.7 B 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 41.8 D 32.6 C 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 6.5 A 3.5 A 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield 18.4 C 10.4 B 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 19.4 B 13.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 24.6 C 22.2 C 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 17.2 B 33.1 C 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue One-way stop 9.3 A 15.5 C 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive One-way stop 23.2 C 19.3 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 37.3 D 34.3 C 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 33.7 C 43.8 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 31.4 C 26.2 C 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 11.5 B 12.4 B 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 14.3 B 19.0 B SOURCE: Atkins (2012) (Synchro output is included in Appendix E). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. a. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard information from the PRDMEIR, Table 4.7-2 on page 21. b. All other intersections from East of 101 Study, Table IV on pages 22, 23. Under Existing Conditions, all signalized study intersections operate at acceptable City standards of LOS D or better except for the Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Northbound and Southbound Ramps intersection (LOS E during the PM peak hour). Also, under Existing Conditions, all unsignalized study intersections operate with an acceptable minor approach service level of LOS D or better. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-10 ▪ Regulatory Framework This section provides a summary of federal, state, regional and local regulations designed to address traffic impacts within the Bay Area and the City of South San Francisco. These regulations are unchanged since the 2007 MEIR. • Federal There are no federal regulations regarding transportation effects that apply to the project. • State There are no state regulations regarding transportation effects that apply to the project. • Local o San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan Roadway System The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG), as the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, is required to prepare and adopt a Congestion Management Program (CMP) on a biennial basis. The purpose of the CMP is to identify strategies to respond to future transportation needs, develop procedures to alleviate and control congestion, and promote countywide solutions. The CMP is required to be consistent with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) planning process that includes regional goals, policies, and projects for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The 2011 CMP, which was developed to be consistent with MTC’s Transportation 2035 Plan, provides updated program information and performance monitoring results for the CMP roadway system. Near the SMEIR Study Area, the CMP roadway system includes the US 101 segments only. The level of service (LOS) standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county border, the LOS standard was set as LOS E, in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing LOS in 1991 baseline was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS in the 1991 baseline was predicted to be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. The CMP standard for the US 101 study segments in the MEIR Study Area is LOS F (C/CAG 2011). The East of 101 Study utilized the CMP standards in its analysis of the US 101. o City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management) requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates, implement Transportation SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-11 Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development, pursuant to the city’s police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the city of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. As a result of the TDM measures imposed on larger nonresidential projects, the analysis prepared for the 2011 East of 101 Study assumes a 20 percent reduction in peak vehicle traffic generation rates by 2015 and a 25 percent reduction in peak vehicle traffic generation rates by 2035 for office and research and development land uses. The study also assumes a 15 percent reduction for manufacturing land use for both by 2015 and 2035. South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the program’s effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. o Genentech’s Transportation Demand Management Genentech’s TDM program, named gRide, provides a variety of flexible and convenient programs and services to get employees to and from work, as well as around campus. Genentech offers employees several programs as alternatives to commuting by private automobile. TDM policies and programs are outlined in the 2007 Master Plan. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips by incorporating project components that encourage increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Genentech has made public transit access a priority through dramatic increases in GenenBus service, and continued shuttle services to Caltrain and BART stations. Key elements of Genentech’s TDM program include City ordinance–required measures, annual survey monitoring, and triennial reporting. The plan has a variety of infrastructure and incentive-based measures that encourage all forms of alternative mode use such as carpools, vanpools, transit and shuttles, bicycling, walking, and telecommuting in accordance with the City’s menu of TDM programs. Other measures include an expansive commuter and internal shuttle program, a daily commute allowance subsidy program, a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program, preferential carpool parking, showers and bicycle facilities, commuter incentives, and a number of on-site amenities designed to support car-free employees. Although not a formal TDM plan measure, an important feature is the modest parking availability planned to discourage single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) use. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-12 Genentech offers fifteen GenenBus routes, which include two Caltrain/BART routes; four San Francisco routes; six East Bay routes; and three Peninsula/South Bay routes, and GenenBus ridership is over 2,800 rides per day. Additionally, Genentech recently introduced an intra-campus bike share program provides more connectivity for employees, further encourages gRide participation, and supplements the shuttle system. Participation in alternate transit modes has increased over 25 percent since the program inception in 2006, and a survey completed in October 2010 indicates that Genentech has been able to maintain the 35 percent alternative mode use attained for 2009 (Genentech 2011). Genentech currently markets its TDM through promotional programs and a comprehensive transportation intranet site. As required by the Section 18.2 of the TDM Program, Appendix D of the 2007 Master Plan, a TDM Annual Summary Report, prepared by an independent consultant, is annually submitted to the City (Genentech 2011). ▪ Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Analytic Method o East of 101 Study Assumptions Utilized for this Analysis The 2011 East of 101 Study utilized a long-term analysis year of 2035, and also assumed several planned capacity improvements will be made between 2005 and 2035. The East of 101 Study also assumed implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 MEIR. These improvements were factored into the year 2035 traffic model and are assumed as part of this analysis. The 2011 East of 101 Study also assumed that Genentech’s TDM program would be able to achieve a 25 percent reduction in peak hour traffic generation for office and R&D land uses, and a 15 percent reduction in peak hour traffic generation for manufacturing uses in the year 2035. This TDM rate is based upon the City’s requirements as well as the 35 percent reduction in peak hour traffic generation that Genentech is currently achieving through its TDM program, and represents a conservative estimate of Genentech’s TDM program. In order to determine potential impacts resulting from full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District, the following scenarios from the East of 101 Study were utilized: Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project)—based on recent traffic counts and field surveys, this scenario includes approximately 3,573,188 sf of existing development within the Genentech Master Plan District as analyzed in the East of 101 Study. 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project)—Assumes full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District, as well as build-out of the East of 101 Area as analyzed in the East of 101 Study. For the purposes of this SMEIR traffic analysis, two additional scenarios were developed in order to determine if build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District would result in new or more severe impacts than identified in the 2007 MEIR: SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-13 Existing Plus Project Scenario—This scenario assumes 2009 conditions with the additional traffic that would result from full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District. 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project)—This scenario includes full build-out of the East of 101 Area, but does not include new development in the Genentech Master Plan District. As previously stated, for the purposes of traffic impact analysis, this SMEIR evaluates the remaining development capacity within the Genentech Master Plan District, which is approximately 2,426,812 sf (i.e., the difference between the level of existing development in 2009 assumed in the East of 101 Study and full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan). For the purpose of the traffic analysis, the “project” is assumed to be the planned growth at Genentech Master Plan District between 2009 and 2035, as shown in Table 4.4-5 (Planned Growth in the Genentech Master Plan District). This SMEIR uses the year 2035 for full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District and the East of 101 Area to be consistent with the evaluation prepared for East of 101 Study. Table 4.4-5 Genentech Growth in Master Plan District Land Use 2009 (square feet)a Build-Out (square feet)b Net Change* Office 1,008,801 2,632,000 +1,623,199 Lab 1,012,674 2,000,000 +987,326 Manufacturing 1,482,213 1,046,000 -436,213 Amenities 69,500 322,000 +252,500 Total 3,573,188 6,000,000 +2,426,812 SOURCES: a. City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Study (October 21, 2011), Table IX (Planned East of 101 Developments by 2035). b. 2007 Approved Capacity under Master Plan/Genentech Master Plan District. While the SMEIR uses a baseline of 2011, the East of 101 Study Existing Conditions Analysis relied on data collected in 2008 and 2009. Consistent with the East of 101 Study, 2009 is used as the baseline for the impact analysis for the Existing Plus Project analysis and the remaining development capacity in the Genentech Master Plan District for this SMEIR. o Project Trip Generation The resulting net change in vehicle trips traveling to and from the Genentech Master Plan District in the AM and PM peak hours is shown in Table 4.4-6 (Project Trip Generation [Net Increase in Vehicle Trips]—Genentech Master Plan District). As previously stated, a key assumption in the estimation of vehicle trips generated by the project is that Genentech will be able to achieve the target travel demand management (TDM) vehicle trip reductions as established by the City. The City has mandated a 25 percent reduction by 2035 for office and research and development (R&D) land uses. Mixing different land uses in close proximity will also contribute to a reduction in the number of vehicle trips generated. For example, a Genentech employee who walks from their office to one of the on-site restaurants for lunch, as opposed to getting in their car and driving to an off-site restaurant. Project trips were distributed based on the same percentages used in the East of 101 Study. The trip distribution assumptions were made in consultation with City staff and are a refinement of the assumptions contained in the East of 101 Study. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-14 Table 4.4-6 Project Trip Generation (Net Increase in Vehicle Trips)—Genentech Master Plan District Land Use Growth 2009– 2035 (square feet) TDM Reduction Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trip Rate per KSF Trip Rate per KSF Percent- age in, out In Out Total Trip Rate per KSF Percent- age in, out In Out Total Office 1,623,199 25% 4.94 0.77 87, 13 1,087 162 1,250 0.58 17, 83 160 781 941 Lab 987,326 25% 3.28 0.48 83, 17 393 81 474 0.37 16, 84 58 307 365 Manufacturing -436,213 15% 3.25 0.62 78, 22 -211 -59 -270 0.62 36, 64 -97 -173 -270 Amenities 252,500 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,426,812 1,270 184 1,453 121 915 1,036 SOURCE: Atkins (2012). o Existing Plus Project The Existing Plus Project scenario was created from the Existing Conditions (2009 Without Project) scenario that was conducted for the East of 101 Study. The number of vehicle trips that would be generated by build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District in the AM and PM peak hours was estimated using the trip generation rates and trip distribution percentages from the East of 101 Study. Project-generated vehicle trips were added to the Existing Conditions turning movement volumes, and are shown in Figure 4.4-3 (Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Volumes). Table 4.4-7 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project without East of 101 Planned Improvements) shows the resulting LOS (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project). However, it should be noted that this analysis is hypothetical because the actual build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District is anticipated to occur incrementally as business conditions require approximately over the next two decades. Additionally, the Existing Plus Project analysis does not include the committed East of 101 improvements identified in the 2007 MEIR (and shown in Appendix E of this SMEIR). Therefore, this analysis should be used for informational purposes only. Under Existing Plus Project, all study intersections operate at an acceptable LOS except for the following: Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive—This intersection would operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing—This intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-15 Figure 4.4-3 Existing Plus Project Turning Movement Volumes Page 1—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-16 Page 2—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-17 Table 4.4-7 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—Existing Plus Project without East of 101 Planned Improvements # Intersection Traffic Control East of 101 Existing Conditions (2009) Estimated Existing Plus Project w/o East of 101 Improvements (2009) Significant impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM PM Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 26.3 C 25.2 C 26.4 C 25.2 C 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 33.1 C 24.8 C 33.1 C 33.0 C 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 13.1 B 55.9 E 13.1 B 71.3 E Yes 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 29.2 C 22.6 C 43.8 D 26.8 C 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 26.8 C 30.1 C 106.1 F 103.0 F Yes Yes 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Signal 24.1 C 29.6 C 75.6 E 32.5 C Yes 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Two-way stop 28.7 D 15.9 C 28.7 C 15.9 C 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 29.3 C 16.7 B 29.8 C 17.6 B 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 41.8 D 32.6 C 64.5 E 34.8 C Yes 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 6.5 A 3.5 A 6.5 A 3.5 A 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off- Ramp One-way yield 18.4 C 10.4 B 22.6 C 10.4 B 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 19.4 B 13.5 B 72.9 E 13.7 B Yes 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 24.6 C 22.2 C 25.0 C 22.2 C 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 17.2 B 33.1 C 17.2 B 39.9 D 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue One-way stop 9.3 A 15.5 C 9.3 A 15.5 A 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive One-way stop 23.2 C 19.3 C 23.2 A 19.3 B 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 37.3 D 34.3 C 37.3 D 38.3 D 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 33.7 C 43.8 D 33.7 C 49.4 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 31.4 C 26.2 C 31.4 C 27.2 C 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 11.5 B 12.4 B 12.3 B 15.1 B 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 14.3 B 19.0 B 144.5 F 39.0 D Yes SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-18 Table 4.4-8 Updated 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) and East of 101 Planned Improvements* # Intersection Traffic Control (2035) 2035 Plus Project (includes East of 101 Planned Improvements) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 46.4 D 45.3 D 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 45.2 D 67.2 E 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 36.5 D 41.6 D 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 217.0 F 133.8 F 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 136.2 F 38.5 D 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard** Signal 257.8 F 209.5 F 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Signal 6.3 A 8.2 A 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 28.1 C 21.1 C 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 85.2 F 61.2 E 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 10.7 B 13.8 B 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield 11.8 B 8.5 A 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 22.3 C 16.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 173.4 F 61.1 E 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 90.6 F 88.0 F 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Signal 10.9 B 15.8 B 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive Signal 9.9 A 21.1 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 33.4 C 65.4 E 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 19.9 B 36.8 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 62.2 E 49.0 D 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 123.4 F 149.9 F 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 185.0 F 21.5 C SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. *The East of 101 Analysis was updated to include the 475 Eccles Avenue project **Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard was not included in the East of 101 Study, but was evaluated in the 2007 MEIR; therefore, is included in this updated analysis. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue—This intersection would operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour Note that with inclusion of the East of 101 Planned Improvements, two intersections that showed significant impacts in the “Existing Plus Project” analysis, Dubuque Ave/US 101 Ramps, and East Grand/East Grand Overcrossing, would perform acceptably. The remaining four intersections with significant impacts would still perform unacceptably and are included in the list above. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-19 o 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) As previously described, the East of 101 Study provides analysis of the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) scenario. In the East of 101 Study, this scenario assumes full build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District, as well as build-out of the East of 101 Area. Based on consultation with the City, the analysis for this SMEIR was updated to include the 475 Eccles Avenue project. While the 475 Eccles Avenue project has not been approved at this time, the City has begun the environmental review and permitting process. It is anticipated that the 475 Eccles Avenue Project would be completed by 2035. The land use and trip generation for the 475 Eccles Avenue project is shown in Appendix E. Figure 4.4-4 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [With Project] Turning Movement Volumes) shows the intersection turning volumes at all study intersections, and Table 4.4-8 (Updated 2035 Long- Term Cumulative Conditions [With Project] and East of 101 Planned Improvements) identifies the AM and PM peak hour LOS with the East of 101 Planned Improvements. Under 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project), the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS: Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour and LOS E in the PM peak hour. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/ Forbes Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peak hours. Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour. South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue—This intersection is expected to operate at LOS F in the AM peak hour. o 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) In order to identify any significant impacts due to the full build out of the 2007 Master Plan, Atkins conducted a 2035 Without Project analysis. The 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-20 Project) scenario was created from the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) analysis that was conducted for the East of 101 Study and described above. To derive the 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) traffic operations, vehicle trips generated by the build-out of the Genentech Master Plan District were subtracted from the 2035 With Project turn volumes. These volumes are shown in Figure 4.4-5 (2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project] Turning Movement Volumes). Table 4.4-9 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project]) shows the resulting LOS, both with and without the East of 101 Planned Improvements.66 As shown in Table 4.4-10 (Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [With and Without Project] [Includes East of 101 Planned Improvements]), under 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions [Without Project], all study intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service with the East of 101 Planned Improvements except for the following nine intersections: Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue—Expected to operate at LOS E during both the AM and PM peak hours. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On- and Off-Ramps—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour and LOS F during the PM peak hour. Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue—Expected to operate at LOS E during the AM peak hour. • Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on the 2012 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this SMEIR, implementation of the project may have a significant adverse impact on transportation/traffic if it would do any of the following: 66 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan, City of South Francisco Amended General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6 (updated and amended December 2003). SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-21 Figure 4.4-4 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With Project) Turning Movement Volumes Page 1—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-22 Page 2—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-23 Figure 4.4-5 2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) Turning Movement Volumes Page 1—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-24 Page 2—color 11x17 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-25 Table 4.4-9 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (Without Project) # Intersection Traffic Control (2035) Without East of 101 Planned Improvements With East of 101 Planned Improvements AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 47.0 D 44.4 D 44.8 D 44.1 D 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 28.5 C 180.4 F 27.8 C 50.5 D 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 128.3 F 41.6 D 23.0 C 37.0 D 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 151.9 F 100.2 F 150.3 F 121.4 F 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 154.9 F 40.0 D 134.0 F 28.9 C 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Signal 138.5 F 76.6 E 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Signal 10.7 B 18.2 C 4.5 A 7.4 A 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 30.5 C 23.1 C 28.1 C 21.0 C 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 68.2 E 66.8 E 62.6 E 58.0 E 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal - - - - 10.7 B 12.2 B 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield 21.1 C 10.5 B 11.8 B 8.5 A 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 31.8 C 16.9 B 21.6 C 16.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 116.2 F 77.5 E 170.5 F 51.1 D 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 160.4 F 156.5 F 56.1 E 83.2 F 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Signal 9.7 A 21.8 C 9.3 A 15.2 B 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive Signal 39.4 E 82.2 F 9.6 A 17.3 B 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 35.3 D 92.0 F 33.4 C 51.9 D 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 26.9 C 189.0 F 19.6 B 36.2 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 63.5 E 51.0 D 62.2 E 48.7 D 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 72.9 E 188.2 F 55.3 E 96.4 F 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 63.7 E 47.4 D 63.3 E 17.4 B SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-26 Table 4.4-10 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service—2035 Long-Term Cumulative Conditions (With and Without Project) (Includes East of 101 Planned Improvements) # Intersection Traffic Control (2035) 2035 2035 Plus Project Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS AM PM 1 Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal 44.8 D 44.1 D 46.4 D 45.3 D 2 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramps Signal 27.8 C 50.5 D 45.2 D 67.2 E Yes 3 Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps Signal 23.0 C 37.0 D 36.5 D 41.6 D 4 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 150.3 F 121.4 F 217.0 F 133.8 F Yes Yes 5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal 134.0 F 28.9 C 136.2 F 38.5 D 6 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Signal 138.5 F 76.6 E 257.8 F 209.5 F Yes Yes 7 Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue Signal 4.5 A 7.4 A 6.3 A 8.2 A 8 Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal 28.1 C 21.0 C 28.1 C 21.1 C 9 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal 62.6 E 58.0 E 85.2 F 61.2 E Yes 10 Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue Signal 10.7 B 12.2 B 10.7 B 13.8 B 11 Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp One-way yield 11.8 B 8.5 A 11.8 B 8.5 A 12 East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal 21.6 C 16.5 B 22.3 C 16.5 B 13 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal 170.5 F 51.1 D 173.4 F 61.1 E Yes 14 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard Signal 56.1 E 83.2 F 90.6 F 88.0 F Yes 15 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Signal 9.3 A 15.2 B 10.9 B 15.8 B 16 East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive Signal 9.6 A 17.3 B 9.9 A 21.1 C 17 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue Signal 33.4 C 51.9 D 33.4 C 65.4 E Yes 18 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal 19.6 B 36.2 D 19.9 B 36.8 D 19 South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On and Off Ramps Signal 62.2 E 48.7 D 62.2 E 49.0 D 20 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard Signal 55.3 E 96.4 F 123.4 F 149.9 F Yes Yes 21 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue Signal 63.3 E 17.4 B 185.0 F 21.5 C Yes SOURCE: Atkins (2012). Bold indicates unacceptable LOS conditions. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-27 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways The City uses the following criteria to determine whether a project results in a significant traffic impact at intersections: Degrade a signalized intersection from LOS A, B, C, or D to LOS E or F. Cause the level of service at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under future baseline conditions to deteriorate to LOS F. Increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by five or more seconds (attributable to project generated traffic) at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions. Degrade an unsignalized intersection at one or more approaches to worse than LOS D as a result of project generated traffic, and if Caltrans signal warrants are met (i.e., if traffic volumes along the major and minor streets require a signal). Increase the average vehicle delay by five or more seconds at the worst approach of an unsignalized intersection that operates at LOS E or F under existing or future baseline conditions, and if Caltrans signal warrants are met. o 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures This analysis assumes compliance with the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures. Additionally, the East of 101 Study also incorporated these mitigation measures into the future (year 2035) analysis. The following mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 MEIR to reduce traffic related impacts: MM4.7-1(a) Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramp: Create additional westbound right-turn lane. MM4.7-1(b) Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramp: Add an additional lane on northbound Dubuque Avenue between the US 101 Ramps intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Reconfigure the northbound approach to Oyster Point Boulevard to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. As part of this widening, eliminate the left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque Avenue approach to the US 101 Ramps intersection (which serves mini warehouse facilities) and allow southbound left turns from the southbound through lane. This will allow provision of five full northbound travel lanes on Dubuque Avenue between the northbound Off-Ramp intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Adjust signal timing. MM4.7-2 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard: Create an additional through lane on westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-28 MM4.7-3 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive: Widen northbound Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one through/right-shared lane and adjust signal timing; Existing signal modification. MM4.7-4 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard: The existing westbound shared through/right-turn lane shall be reconfigured to be a right-turn only lane; The westbound right-turn movement shall have an overlap phase with the southbound movement; The southbound right-turn movement shall have an overlap phase with the eastbound left-turn phase. MM4.7-5 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Re-stripe existing southbound Airport Boulevard right turn lane to a shared through-right lane and southbound shared through/left lane to a left turn lane Widen eastbound Grand Avenue to add two left turn lanes; re-stripe the eastbound through/left shared lane to a through lane and eastbound right turn lane to shared through/right lane Provide a third left-turn in the westbound approach and restrict truck traffic on westbound Grand Avenue Exiting signal modification MM4.7-6(a) East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard: Widen westbound Grand Avenue to add one additional through lane and one additional left turn lane. Widen southbound Forbes Boulevard to add one through lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane Widen northbound Harbor Way to add one through lane, one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a right turn lane to a through lane New signal installation Signal interconnection installation MM4.7-6(b) East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard: The eastbound approach to this intersection shall be widened to allow the existing shared through/right-turn lane to be reconfigured into separate through and right-turn lanes and southbound right-turn overlap. MM4.7-7 East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue: New signal installation Signal interconnection installation MM4.7-8(a) East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive: New signal installation Add one southbound Grandview Avenue right turn lane; add one northbound Grandview Avenue thru lane (merging back to one lane after 110 feet); re-stripe eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide one left turn lane and one shared left/through lane. Signal interconnection installation. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-29 MM4.7-8(b) East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive: The westbound shared through/right-turn lane shall be reconfigured into a right-turn only lane. The southbound right-turn lane would then be able to become a free right turn, and shall be striped as such. These reconfigurations would cause the southbound approach to require less green time, creating more available green time for the eastbound approach. MM4.7-9 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue: Widen westbound Airport Boulevard to add one additional left-turn lane and re-stripe the existing through/left shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. Modify northbound Produce Avenue to bring the southbound 101 to eastbound Airport Boulevard traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the merging and weaving conflicts on eastbound Airport Boulevard New signal installation MM4.7-10 South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard: Widen eastbound Airport Boulevard to add one additional right-turn lane; re-stripe the existing through/left shared lane to a through lane Widen Mitchell Avenue to add two additional through lanes and a right-turn lane Widen southbound Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the existing shared through-right lane to another right-turn lane New signal installation MM4.7-13 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Off-Ramp: Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards the re-stripe (reconfigure) of the eastbound Grand Avenue approach from an existing exclusive right turn land and a shared through/left turn lane to provide an exclusive left turn land and a shared through/right turn lane. Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards the re-stripe (reconfigure) of the southbound Airport Boulevard approach from an existing left, shared through/left turn, exclusive through and exclusive right turn lane configuration to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, an exclusive through lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Adjust signal timing. MM4.7-14 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/US 101 SB Fly-Over Off-Ramp: Adjust signal timing. Implement MM4.7-2. MM4.7-15 Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. NB On-Ramp: Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards the addition of a second exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach. Implement MM4.7-1(b). Adjust signal timing. MM4.7-16 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Implement measures identified in mitigation measure MM4.7-13. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-30 Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Miller Avenue. MM4.7-17 Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue: Implement measures identified in mitigation measure MM4.7-15. Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards the re-stripe of the US 101 NB Off-Ramp approach to Dubuque Avenue from an existing exclusive left, shared through/left and exclusive right turn lane to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a shared through/right turn lane. MM4.7-18 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue: Provide a fair-share contribution, as determined by City Engineer, to provision of a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the US 101 mainline at the Dubuque Avenue off- ramp. MM4.7-19 Southbound Fly-Over Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard: Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards the construction of a second southbound off-ramp lane connection to the US 101 mainline at the Oyster Point Boulevard off-ramp. MM4.7-20 Northbound off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane: Provide a fair-share contribution towards the provision of a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the US 101 mainline at the South Airport off-ramp. (This measure is already programmed as part of the East of 101 capital improvement program). MM4.7-21 Northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive: Provide fair share contribution (as determined by the City Engineer) towards the construction of a second northbound off-ramp lane connection to the US 101 mainline at the East Grand Avenue off-ramp. • Project Impacts and Mitigation Applying the City’s traffic criteria, the traffic analysis indicates significant impacts that would require additional mitigation above and beyond the planned East of 101 Area improvements due to full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan related traffic. The following describes the intersections that would have an unacceptable LOS in the year 2035 with implementation of the project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts and identifies the results of the mitigation measures. All identified mitigation measures would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program. The East of 101 Study Fee Program is an existing funding mechanism for development that occurs in the East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Study Fee Program is updated every five years, with the last revision occurring in 2007 and the City is in the process of updating the 2012 East of 101 Study Fee Program. Through the East of 101 Study Fee Program, development projects within the East of 101 Area contribute a pro rata share based on factors such as square footage and the type of use proposed. The East of 101 Study Fee Program allows the City to establish priorities for specific traffic improvements, and these improvements are implanted at the time the development occurs and thus, at the time of the anticipated impact. Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of the mitigation measures. Relevant identified mitigation measures will be implemented by the City prior to the SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-31 construction of each element of the 2007 Master Plan, as scheduled in the East of 101 Area Plan and/or as actual area traffic warrants, within the City’s discretion. There are nine intersections where operations would experience a significant impact in 2035 after implementation of the current East of 101 Planned Improvements. This section describes the additional mitigation that would be required at these intersections in more detail. All the traffic mitigation measures will be incorporated into the East of 101 Program prior to approval of this SMEIR. Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nonmotorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Impact 4.4-1 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of signalized intersections to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/ US 101 NB on-ramp. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Assuming the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramp operates at LOS C (27.8 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (50.5 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS E (67.2 seconds of delay) conditions during the PM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements, as well as the proposed mitigation measure MM4.4-1, would reduce the project’s impact. MM4.4-1 Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 NB On-Ramp: The signal for the right turn movement for the westbound approach shall be modified to provide a protected overlap for the right turn (allowed during the westbound through and northbound through phases) Convert one of the westbound through lanes to a shared through/right-turn lane in the PM As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1. With implementation of these measures, and the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures MM4.7-1a and MM4.7-1b, operation at this intersection will be an acceptable LOS D (43.0 seconds of delay). Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-2 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue will operate at LOS E (63.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS B (17.4 seconds of delay) in SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-32 the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (185.0 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the project’s impact. MM4.4-2 Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue: Widen eastbound approach of Oyster Point Boulevard to create shared through/right-turn lane, and two dedicated through lanes Mitigation measure MM4.4-2 would require the new lane be carried through the intersection of Oyster Point/Eccles to the next driveway to the east (Monogram Biosciences), and a transition from 2 eastbound to 3 eastbound lanes between the Monogram Biosciences driveway and the Oyster Point/Gull Drive intersection. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-2. With implementation of this measure, operation at this intersection will be an acceptable LOS C (30.9 seconds of delay). Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-3 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard operates at LOS E (56.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (83.2 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (90.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements, the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures MM4.7-6a and MM4.7-6b, and the mitigation measure MM4.4-3 shown below would reduce the impact. MM4.4-3 East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard: Eastbound Grand Avenue shall be widened from two eastbound through lanes to three eastbound through lanes Northbound Harbor Way Road shall be modified to create variable lanes that meet the following: In AM: one dedicated left-turn, two dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane In PM: two dedicated left-turn lanes, one dedicated through, and one shared through/right-turn lane Southbound Harbor Way shall be modified to create variable lanes that meet the following: In AM: one dedicated left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and two dedicated right-turn lanes In PM: one shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and two dedicated right- turn lanes SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-33 Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3 assumes that intersection splits are optimized to account for the new lanes. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard would be reduced to LOS D (45.1 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS D (51.2 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-3. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-4 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue will operate at LOS C (33.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.9 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS E (65.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements, the 2007 MEIR mitigation measure MM4.7-9, and the mitigation measure MM4.4-4 would reduce the impact. MM4.4-4 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue: On southbound approach, create one dedicated left-turn lane, two dedicated through lanes, and one shared through/right-turn lane This mitigation would involve removal of the pork-chop islands, and signal masts, as well as re-striping. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue would be reduced to LOS D (52.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-4. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-5 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard will operate at LOS E (55.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (96.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by more than 5 seconds during both the AM and PM peak hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements and mitigation measure MM4.4-5 shown below would reduce the impact. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-34 MM4.4-5 Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard: The two right-turn lanes for southbound Veterans Boulevard shall be reduced to one right-turn lane and overlap with the eastbound left-turn lane Convert the westbound approach along Oyster Point Boulevard from two through lanes to three through lanes by converting westbound right-turn to a through and shared right-turn lane Convert the eastbound approach along Oyster Point Boulevard to one dedicated left-turn lane, a shared through/left-turn lane, one dedicated through lane, and a shared through/right-turn lane Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5 assumes the elimination of the planted median on the east side of the intersection. After implementation of both the planned East of 101 Area improvements, and mitigation measure MM4.4-5, the impact at the Oyster Point/Veterans Boulevard intersection would be reduced to less than significant. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Veterans Boulevard would be reduced to LOS C (32.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (54.6 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-5. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-6 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard operates at LOS F (170.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.1 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS E (61.1 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of the planned East of 101 Area improvements and the mitigation measure MM4.4-6 would reduce the impact. MM4.4-6 East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard: Along northbound Gateway Boulevard, add a second dedicated right-turn lane and adjust intersection splits—change northbound left to split phase Along southbound Gateway Boulevard, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through/right-turn lane Along eastbound East Grand Avenue, convert the dedicated right-turn lane to a shared through/right-turn lane. One shared through/right-turn lane, three dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated left-turn lane. After implementation of the additional mitigation measures, the impact at the East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard intersection would be reduced to LOS D (37.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (37.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-35 contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-6. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-7 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-7 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard operates at LOS F (138.5 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS E (76.6 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (257.8 seconds) in the AM peak hour and LOS F (209.5 seconds) in the PM peak hour. This would be a potentially significant impact. MM4.4-7 Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard: Along southbound Gull Drive, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane Along eastbound Forbes Boulevard, create a dedicated left-turn lane, and three through lanes Along westbound Forbes Boulevard, create two dedicated through lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane (yield) Implementation of the 2007 MEIR mitigation measure MM4.7-4, and the additional mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a LOS C (32.7 seconds) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (51.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-7. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-8 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-8 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue operates at LOS E (62.6 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour and LOS E (58.0 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would result in LOS F (85.2 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and an increase in the average critical movement delay by more than 5 seconds. This would be a potentially significant impact. MM4.4-8 Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Along eastbound Grand Avenue, create two dedicated left-turn lanes, and one dedicated right-turn lane After implementation of the 2007 MEIR mitigation measure MM4.7-13, and the additional mitigation measure, the impact at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection would be reduced to LOS D (54.4 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS D (45.7 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. As previously identified, all identified mitigation would be included in the East of 101 Study Fee SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-36 Program, and Genentech would contribute its fair share to the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee towards the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-8. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Impact 4.4-9 Full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would result in a degradation of a signalized intersection to an unacceptable LOS at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.4-9 would reduce this impact, but not to a less-than- significant level. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this would remain significant and unavoidable. With the planned East of 101 improvements, the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard operates at LOS F (150.3 seconds of delay) in the AM peak hour, and LOS F (121.4 seconds of delay) in the PM peak hour. Implementation of the project would increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by more than 5 seconds during both the AM and PM peak hours. This would be a potentially significant impact. MM4.4-9 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard: Eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard: add a through lane to both eastbound approaches (from the US 101 off-ramp, and Oyster Point Boulevard) Implementation of the 2007 MEIR mitigation measure MM4.7-14, and the additional mitigation measure would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level in the AM or PM peak hour. It would remain a LOS F with 102.5 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour, and LOS F with 111.3 seconds of delay in the PM peak hour. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Threshold Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Impact 4.4-10 Implementation of the project would conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. This is considered a potentially significant impact. As potential mitigation measures to reduce this impact would require approvals from outside agencies and are outside the City’s jurisdiction, this would remain significant and unavoidable. The 2011 East of 101 Study analyzed Freeway Level of Service of US 101. The analysis assumes no future widening of the freeway mainline segments and ramps. The purpose of the analysis was to highlight the expected level of service for freeway facilities in the study area with the planned land use for the East of 101 Area, including full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan. As shown in Table 4.4-11 (2035 SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-37 Conditions Freeway Mainline Analysis) all freeway segments will operate unacceptably at LOS E or worse in all directions of travel during both peak hours under year 2035. Implementation of the project would contribute to the identified unacceptable LOS along the freeway mainline. Mitigation of this impact would require widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Finally, implementation of such mitigation measures would be beyond the jurisdiction of the City. Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 4.4-10 is not feasible, as defined by CEQA (see Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21061.1 [defining “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished … taking into account economic … and technological factors”]). Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the project (see CEQA Section 21081(a)(3) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15021(d)). Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure (see CEQA Section 21081(a)(3)). This is considered a potentially significant impact. Because no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, this would remain significant and unavoidable. ▪ Cumulative Impacts The analysis in the preceding section takes into account cumulative projects and background growth through the year 2035. No additional cumulative analysis is required. Table 4.4-11 2035 Conditions Freeway Mainline Analysis US 101 Segment Direction No. Lanes 2035 with Project AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS Volume (vph) Density (pc/mi/ln) LOS US 101North of Oyster Point Boulevard NB 4 9,449 >45 F 8,777 >45 F SB 4 10,047 >45 F 7,930 36.7 E US 101South Airport Boulevard to Oyster Point Boulevard NB 4 10,924 >45 F 8,874 >45 F SB 4 9,147 >45 F 9,967 >45 F US 101/I-380 to South Airport Boulevard NB 5 13,610 >45 F 8,772 29.6 D SB 5 8,623 28.9 D 11,907 >45 F SOURCE: TJKM Transportation Consultants, Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco (October 2011) vph = vehicles per hour; pc/mi/ln = passenger car per mile per lane; LOS = level of service Bold indicates unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. ▪ References Atkins. 2012. Genentech MEIR Update Traffic Impact Analysis, June. South San Francisco, City of. 2007. Master EIR for Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update. SCH# 2005072165, certified March 2007. SECTION 1.2 Findings of Fact City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 1.2-38 TJKM Transportation Consultants. 2011. Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area: In the City of South San Francisco, October. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-1 ○ Other CEQA Considerations CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires that all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, this SMEIR must discuss (1) new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects of the project that were not analyzed in the 2007 MEIR and new feasible mitigation measures proposed to minimize these effects, (2) new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, (3) new or substantially more severe significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the project and were not analyzed in the 2007 MEIR, (4) growth-inducing impacts of the project that were not analyzed in the 2007 MEIR, and (5) previously identified and new mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects. In addition, this section also discusses CEQA considerations for environmental effects for certain issue areas including cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality, about which comments were submitted during the NOP comment period. O NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED As discussed in Chapter 4 of this SMEIR, the project would result in significant impacts to construction and operational air quality emissions and transportation/traffic with no available feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to less than significance that were not previously analyzed in the 2007 MEIR. Otherwise, information regarding the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts resulting from the project is the same as discussed in the 2007 MEIR, and no new information has arisen that would affect the conclusions of the 2007 MEIR regarding significant and unavoidable impacts. That information is hereby incorporated by reference. O SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Information regarding significant irreversible environmental changes caused by the project is the same as discussed in the 2007 MEIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. No new information has arisen and no changes in circumstances have occurred that affect this analysis. O GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Information regarding growth-inducing impacts caused by the project is the same as discussed in the 2007 MEIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. No new information has arisen and no changes in circumstances have occurred that affect this analysis. CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-2 O MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT Appendix B (2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures) provides a comprehensive identification of the adopted mitigation measures from the 2007 MEIR. Additionally, Chapter 2 (Summary), Table 2-1 (Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures) identifies the new environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures identified in this SMEIR. O ADDITIONAL CEQA CONSIDERATION During the NOP comment period, comments were received regarding potential impacts to cultural resources and hydrology and water quality. These comments are summarized and responded to below. ▪ Cultural Resources The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) sent one comment letter regarding the treatment of previously unidentified cultural resources and the appropriate mitigation to reduce potential impacts to any resources unearthed during project implementation. There is no new information showing a new or more severe significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred. All previously adopted mitigations continue to apply to the project. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describe the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and no further environmental review is required. As discussed in the 2007 MEIR, previously unidentified archaeological resources eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR may be located within the Study Area or its immediate vicinity during project construction. Construction of the project could result in ground disturbance associated with grading, excavating, and trenching, which could damage or destroy previously unidentified, significant archaeological resources. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to comply with the identified mitigation measures MM4.10-1(a) and MM4.10-1(b). There are no changes to the project. Thus, the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 MEIR remain sufficient mitigation for potential impacts to cultural resources. ▪ Hydrology/ Water Quality The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) provided verbal comments via phone communication with the City during the NOP comment period. This comment was regarding the change in the SFRWQCB permits. Since the adoption of the 2007 MEIR, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) was adopted in 2009 and amended in 2011, and now includes Provision C.3 (New Development and Redevelopment). The MRP covers stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo. The goal of Provision C.3 is for the Permittees to use their planning authorities to include CHAPTER 6 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-3 appropriate source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in new development and redevelopment projects to address both soluble and insoluble stormwater runoff pollutant discharges and prevent increases in runoff flows from new development and redevelopment projects. This goal is to be accomplished primarily through the implementation of low impact development (LID) techniques. Adherence to the MRP and the goal of Provision C.3 would help further reduce the impacts related to hydrology and water quality. This new information does not therefore affect the analysis or conclusions in the 2007 MEIR, or warrant further environmental analysis. There is no new information showing a new or more significant effect beyond those identified in the 2007 MEIR, and no substantial change in the circumstances under which the 2007 Master Plan will be implemented have occurred with regard to hydrology and water quality. There are no changes to the project since the 2007 MEIR. The previously certified 2007 MEIR adequately describes the impacts and mitigations associated with the 2007 Master Plan, and the full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would be required to comply with the identified project requirement PR 4.13-1(a) through PR 4.13-1 (b), and mitigation measures MM4.13-2(a) through MM4.13-2(d). Hydrology and water quality does not require further environmental review and is not analyzed in this SMEIR. There are no changes to the project. Thus, the mitigation measures identified in the 2007 MEIR remain sufficient mitigation for potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. ▪ Alternatives CEQA requires an evaluation of the comparative effects of a range of reasonable alternatives that would attain most of the basic objectives of the project and avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant adverse effects of the project, including alternatives that are more costly or could otherwise impede the attainment of the project’s objectives. The 2007 MEIR evaluated a number of different alternatives to the 2007 Master Plan, including a no- project alternative and a reduced development alternative. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no new information of substantial importance has become available showing either that (1) alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, or (2) alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2007 MEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, and (3) that the project proponents have declined to address the alternative. Accordingly, the analysis and conclusions contained in the 2007 MEIR remain adequate and there is no need for further environmental review in this SMEIR. City of South San Francisco Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update SMEIR 6-1 ○ Report Preparers O LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS Table 6-1 List of EIR Preparers Name Issue Area/Role Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco Susy Kalkin Chief Planner Girard Beaudin Principal Planner Linda Ajello Associate Planner Sam Bautista, PE City Engineer Steven Mattas City Attorney Genentech Shar Zamanpour Principal Planner John Flynn Senior Planner Andrew Keller Senior Planner EIR Consultant Team: Atkins Kim Avila, AICP Project Director, Technical Lead Julian F. Capata Project Manager, Air Quality Heather Dubois Senior Scientist, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Brad Lane Senior Planner, Traffic Mohan Garakhalli Project Manager, Traffic Joel Miller Document Production James Songco Graphics Appendix A Initial Study/Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures Appendix C Air Quality Supporting Data Appendix D Greenhouse Gas Emissions Supporting Data Appendix E Traffic Memorandum CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION AND MASTER PLAN UPDATE Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2005072165 Draft SMEIR Executive Summary Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by Atkins 475 Sansome Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94111 August 2012 Exhibit C Final SMEIR Exhibit D Errata Sheet for the Final SMEIR ERRATA SHEET FOR FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL MASTER EIR Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Expansion and Master Plan Update Final Supplemental Master Environmental Impact Report 8.2 TEXT CHANGES Lead agency staff has initiated the following additional changes to text: Page 4.1-14, first paragraph and mitigation measures MM4.3-1(a) and MM4.3-1(b) 2007 MEIR Mitigation Measures This analysis assumes compliance with the 2007 MEIR mitigation measures. The 2007 MEIR measures were based on the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines measures for dust control. It should be noted that the 2011 BAAQMD Guidelines have updated the recommended dust control measures. These updated measures are described and incorporated as mitigation for the project as detailed below. The updated mitigation measures set forth in MM4.1-1(a), MM4.1-1(b), and MM4.1-2 provide the same or an increased level of mitigation as the 2007 MEIR measures, and therefore deletion of the 2007 MEIR measures does not in and of itself reduce the mitigation for construction related air quality impacts. The following mitigation measures were identified in the 2007 MEIR to reduce construction related air quality impacts: MM4.3-1(a) Implement appropriate dust control measures recommended by the BAAQMD as outlined below. The project contractor(s) shall comply with these dust control strategies. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements or measures shown to be equally effective: ■ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose construction and demolition debris from the site, or require all such trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 2 ■ Water all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces in active construction areas at least twice daily. ■ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nontoxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. ■ Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas. ■ Provide daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. ■ Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply nontoxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). ■ Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. ■ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. ■ Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ■ Install wheel washers for all existing trucks, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. ■ Install wind breaks at the windward side(s) of construction areas. ■ Suspend excavation and grading activity when winds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph over a 30-minute period or more. ■ To the extent possible, limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other dust-generating construction activity at any one time. MM4.3-1(b) Designate a dust control coordinator. All construction sites shall post in a conspicuous location the name and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator who can respond to complaints by suspending dust-producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. [[With corresponding change to Table 2-2]] Page 4.1-17, Impact 4.1-2 Impact 4.1-2 Construction activities associated with full build-out of the 2007 Master Plan would include excavation, grading, and construction activities which could result in emissions of criteria pollutants that exceed the established thresholds. This would be a temporary but potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.3-1(a) and MM4.3-1(b) as identified in the 2007 MEIR, and mitigation measures MM4.1-1(a) through MM4.1-2 would reduce 3 this impact, but not to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. [[With corresponding change to Table 2-2]] Page 4.1-18, mitigation measure MM4.1-1(b) MM4.1-1(b) Genentech and its construction contractor shall implement the appropriate BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, as follows. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the following requirements: ■ … [[With corresponding change to Table 2-2]] Page 4.1-19, first paragraph Therefore, if it is determined that future individual development projects were to exceed any construction related threshold for criteria pollutant established in this SMEIR, mitigation measure MM4.4-2 MM4.1-2 would be implemented and would include the following: 1981625.1