The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About494 Forbes Recirculated 2012 EIR Update (2)l •-' Y �'�ti•�•'.. " - T I�o 'CAM. ` - �� `4 . e f' e.. p . k 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR SCH #2006092054 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by: Impact Sciences, Inc. 555 12 Street, Suite 1650 Oakland, California 94607 (510) 267 -0494 April 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... ..........................1.0 -1 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ..........................2.0 -1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ ..........................3.0 -1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION ......................... ..........................4.0 -1 4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... ..........................4.2 -1 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .............................................................. ..........................4.4 -1 4.7 Noise ................................................................................................................ ..........................4.7 -1 4.8 Transportation and Circulation .................................................................... ..........................4.8 -1 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -1 6.0 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... ..........................6.0 -1 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION ........................................................................................... ..........................7.0 -1 8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... ..........................8.0 -1 Appendices (on CD) 1.0 Comments and Responses to the EIR Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Comments on the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 4.2 URBEMIS Operational Emissions 4.4 Environmental Hazards Documentation Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Environmental Investigation Activities Report Technical Memorandum 4.7 Noise Level Calculations Existing Noise Levels 2015 Without Project Noise Levels 2015 With Project Noise Levels 2035 Without Project Noise Levels 2035 With Project Noise Levels 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations Impact Sciences, Inc. 1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 LIST OF FIGURES Fi 3.0 -1 Project Location ............................................................................................................ ..........................3.0 -3 3.0 -2 Project Site Plan ............................................................................................................ ..........................3.0 -6 3.0 -3 View of Garage and Building B from Allerton Avenue .......................................... ..........................3.0 -7 3.0 -4 View of Building A from Forbes Boulevard ............................................................. ..........................3.0 -8 4.7 -1 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration ................................................................ ..........................4.7 -5 4.7 -2 Noise Monitoring Locations ....................................................................................... ..........................4.7 -8 4.8 -1 Study Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control .................................................... ..........................4.8 -3 4.8 -2 Roadway System Map ................................................................................................. ..........................4.8 -6 4.8 -3 Public Transportation Routes .................................................................................... .........................4.8 -11 4.8 -4 Existing Intersection AM Peak Hour Volumes ....................................................... .........................4.8 -14 4.8 -5 Existing Intersection PM Peak Hour Volumes ........................................................ .........................4.8 -15 4.8 -6 2015 Future Without Project Intersection AM Peak Hour Volumes .................... .........................4.8 -30 4.8 -7 2015 Future Without Project Intersection PM Peak Hour Volumes ..................... .........................4.8 -31 4.8 -8 Year 2015 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control ............................................ .........................4.8 -36 4.8 -9 2035 Future Without Project Intersection AM Peak Hour Volumes .................... .........................4.8 -41 4.8 -10 2035 Future Without Project Intersection PM Peak Hour Volumes ..................... .........................4.8 -42 4.8 -11 Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control ............................................ .........................4.8 -45 4.8 -12 Existing and Year 2015 AM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution ........................ .........................4.8 -52 4.8 -13 Existing and Year 2015 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution ......................... .........................4.8 -53 4.8 -14 2015 Future With Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................ .........................4.8 -54 4.8 -15 2015 Future With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................. .........................4.8 -55 4.8 -16 Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution ............................................... .........................4.8 -56 4.8 -17 Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distribution ................................................ .........................4.8 -57 4.8 -18 2035 Future With Project AM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................ .........................4.8 -58 4.8 -19 2035 Future With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes ................................................. .........................4.8 -59 4.8 -20 Existing Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control ............................. .........................4.8 -62 4.8 -21 Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control .......................... .........................4.8 -65 4.8 -22 2035 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control ................................... .........................4.8 -74 4.8 -23 Year 2015 Project Driveway AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................ .........................4.8 -81 4.8 -24 Year 2035 Project Driveway AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes ............................ .........................4.8 -82 Impact Sciences, Inc. 11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 LIST OF TABLES 11 2.0 -1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................................... ..........................2.0 -4 4.2 -1 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site ................ ..........................4.2 -3 4.2 -1 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site ................ ..........................4.2 -3 4.2 -2 Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................................................. ..........................4.2 -7 4.2 -3 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Construction - related Criteria Pollutant and PrecursorEmissions .................................................................................................... .........................4.2 -16 4.2 -4 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions ............................ .........................4.2 -17 4.2 -5 Estimated Construction Emissions ........................................................................... .........................4.2 -19 4.2 -6 2015 Estimated Operational Emissions .................................................................... .........................4.2 -22 4.2 -7 Estimated Unmitigated Construction DPM Emissions .......................................... .........................4.2 -28 4.2 -8 Summary of Maximum Modeled DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks ......... .........................4.2 -30 4.2 -9 Summary of Non - Cancer Health Impacts ................................................................ .........................4.2 -31 4.7 -1 Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation ......................................................................... ..........................4.7 -2 4.7 -2 Existing Short -Term Noise Data Summary .............................................................. ..........................4.7 -6 4.7 -3 Existing Long -Term Noise Data Summary ............................................................... ..........................4.7 -7 4.7 -4 Existing Off -Site Noise Levels .................................................................................... ..........................4.7 -7 4.7 -5 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment .............................. .........................4.7 -10 4.7 -6 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria .................................................................. .........................4.7 -10 4.7 -7 City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standards ............................................... .........................4.7 -11 4.7 -8 Project Off -Site Noise Contributions in dB(A) ........................................................ .........................4.7 -16 4.7 -9 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment .................................................. .........................4.7 -17 4.7 -10 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment ........................................................ .........................4.7 -19 4.7 -11 Cumulative (2035) Off -Site Noise Contributions in dB(A) .................................... .........................4.7 -21 4.8 -1 Public Transportation Service ..................................................................................... ..........................4.8 -9 4.8 -2 Caltrain /BART Shuttle Service ................................................................................... .........................4.8 -12 4.8 -3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ..................................................... .........................4.8 -16 4.8 -4 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria ................................................ .........................4.8 -17 4.8 -5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... .........................4.8 -19 4.8 -6 Intersection Signalization Requirements .................................................................. .........................4.8 -20 4.8 -7 95 Percentile Vehicle Queues ................................................................................... .........................4.8 -21 4.8 -8 Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes ............................................................................. .........................4.8 -23 4.8 -9 On -Ramp Capacity and Volumes ............................................................................. .........................4.8 -24 4.8 -10 Summary of Existing U.S. 101 Freeway Operation ................................................. .........................4.8 -25 4.8 -11 Existing Freeway Mainline Levels of Service .......................................................... .........................4.8 -26 4.8 -12 2015 Future Without Project Trip Generation ......................................................... .........................4.8 -32 4.8 -13 Year 2015 Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................... .........................4.8 -37 4.8 -14 2035 Future Without Project Trip Generation ......................................................... .........................4.8 -40 4.8 -15 2035 Future Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................... .........................4.8 -44 4.8 -16 Year 2035 95 Percentile Vehicle Queues ................................................................. .........................4.8 -47 4.8 -17 2035 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service .................................................... .........................4.8 -49 4.8 -18 Project Trip Generation ............................................................................................... .........................4.8 -50 4.8 -19 Project Trip Distribution ............................................................................................. .........................4.8 -51 Impact Sciences, Inc. 111 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 LIST OF TABLES (continued) 11 4.8 -20 Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service ................................................ .........................4.8 -66 4.8 -21 2015 95 Percentile Vehicle Queue Analysis ........................................................... .........................4.8 -68 4.8 -22 2015 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service .................................................... .........................4.8 -72 4.8 -23 2035 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service .......................................................... .........................4.8 -75 4.10 -1 Top Five GHG Producer Countries, and the European Union (Annual) ............ .........................4.10 -5 4.10 -2 GHG Emissions in California ..................................................... ............................... .........................4.10 -6 4.10 -3 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions ................................. ............................... ........................4.10 -19 4.10 -4 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions ................................... ............................... ........................4.10 -21 6.0 -1 Project Trip Generation -0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative .................................... ..........................6.0 -7 6.0 -2 Project Trip Generation -0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative ..................................... .........................6.0 -12 6.0 -3 Summary Comparison of 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project Alternatives ....... .........................6.0 -15 Impact Sciences, Inc. iv 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS C2H3CL vinyl chloride ug /M3 micro grams per cubic meter aam annual arithmetic mean AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments. The regional planning agency in the San Francisco Bay area working to help solve problems in areas such as land use, housing, environmental quality, and economic development. ADT Average Daily Traffic ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APCD Air Pollution Control District AQMD Air Quality Management District ARB Air Resources Board AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District. A nine - county regional air district created under the provisions of the California Health and Safety Code Section 40200. It consists of nine member counties: all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The BAAQMD is responsible for the developing the overall attainment strategy for its respective geographic area (see SFBAB above) and has the authority to regulate stationary sources, some area sources, and some aspects of mobile sources. BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BAT Best Available Technology BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BCT Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology bgs Below ground surface BMP Best Management Practice BOD Biological Oxygen Demand CALINE4 A line source model developed by Caltrans Impact Sciences, Inc. v 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 CAA Clean Air Act. The basic federal air pollution control statute first passed in 1963, following a 1955 federal statute authorizing research and technical assistance. The 1965 and 1967 amendments began automobile and stationary source standards. The most recent amendments of the CAA were passed in 1990. CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAG California Association of Governments CAP Clean Air Plan CARB or ARB California Air Resources Board. The state's lead air quality agency consisting of an eleven- member board appointed by the Governor. CARB is responsible for attainment and maintenance of the state and federal air quality standards, and is fully responsible for motor vehicle pollution control. It oversees county and regional air pollution management programs. Cal /EPA California Environmental Protection Agency. The state agency established in 1991 for unifying environmental activities related to public health protection in the State of California. The Cal /EPA boards, departments, and offices are directly responsible for implementing California environmental laws, or play a cooperative role with other regulatory agencies at regional, local, state, and federal levels. There are six boards, departments, and offices under the organization of Cal /EPA including the California Air Resources Board (ARB), California Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB), Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act. The state law that was passed in 1988 to provide the basis for air quality planning and regulation independent of federal regulations. A major element of the CCAA is the requirement that local air districts in violation of the CAAQS must prepare attainment plans that identify air quality problems, causes, trends, and actions to be taken to attain and maintain California's air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. CCR California Code of Regulations CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act CGS California Geological Survey Impact Sciences, Inc. vi 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 CHP California Highway Patrol CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CLUP San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan CMP Congestion Management Plan CMU Commercial Mixed Use CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO Carbon Monoxide CPT Cone Penetrometer Test CRPAQS California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study. A multi -year effort of meteorological and PM10/PM2.5 air quality monitoring, emission inventory development, data analysis, and air quality simulation modeling. CRPAQS monitoring occurred during a 14 -month study period, between December 1999 and February 2001. CWA Clean Water Act CWSC California Water Service Company db(A) Decibel /Level of Noise Measurement DBH Diameter at Breast Height DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DOT Department of Transportation DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWR Department of Water Resources (California) EIR Environmental Impact Report ESA Environmental Site Assessment ESL Environmental Screening Level FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR Floor Area Ratio (or) Federal Aviation Regulations FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FINDS Facility Index System FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FTA Federal Transit Administration Impact Sciences, Inc. vii 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 g gravity (unit of) GAC Granular Activated Carbon GFRC Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete gpd gallons per day H2S hydrogen sulfide HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant. Chemicals that cause serious health and environmental effects. Health effects include cancer, birth defects, nervous system problems, and death due to massive accidental releases. Hazardous air pollutants are released by sources such as chemical plants, dry cleaners, printing plants, and motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses. etc.). HOV High - Occupancy Vehicle HMSO Hazardous Materials Storage Ordinance HUD Housing and Urban Development Administration JPB Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board LTS Less Than Significant LOS Level of Service LU South San Francisco Land Use Policy LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MGD Million Gallons per Day MEIR Master Environmental Impact Report MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale mph Miles Per Hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MRF /TS Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station MSW Municipal Solid Waste MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NO2 Nitric Oxide NOC Notice of Completion NOD Notice of Determination NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NOx Nitrous Oxide NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Impact Sciences, Inc. viii 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 NWIC Northwest Information Center Os Ozone OSHA Occupational Safety & Health Administration PI Planned Industrial PM2.5 Particulate Matter — 2.5 microns or smaller PM10 Particulate Matter — 10 microns or smaller POTW Publicly -Owned Treatment Works ppb Parts per billion ppd Pounds per day pphm Parts per hundred million ppm Parts per million PS Potentially Significant PUC Public Utilities Commission RBSL Risk -Based Screening Level RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System R &D Research and Development RMS Root Mean Square ROG Reactive Organic Gases RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S Significant SCH California State Clearinghouse SFBAB San Francisco Bay Air Basin SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SFO San Francisco International Airport SFWD San Francisco Water District SIM Transportation Modeling Program SIP State Implementation Plan SLM Sound Level Meter SMCFCD San Mateo County Flood Control District SMCHSA San Mateo County Human Services Agency SMWP Stormwater Management Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide Impact Sciences, Inc. ix 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 SO4 Aluminum Potassium Sulfate Sox Sulfur Oxide SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SSF South San Francisco SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department SSFMC South San Francisco Municipal Code STOPP San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program SUZ Special Use Zone TAC Toxic Air Contaminant TCM Transportation Control Measure TDM Transportation Demand Management TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TPH -g Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons as Gasoline TRAFFIX Transportation Modeling Program TSS Total Suspended Solids UBC Uniform Building Code URBEMIS Air Quality Modeling Software US EPA Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey UST Underground Storage Tank UWMP Urban Water Management Plan VMT Vehicle -Miles Traveled VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WGCEP Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities Impact Sciences, Inc. x 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared for the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project. The applicant proposes to develop approximately 7.48 acres of land in the City of South San Francisco's "East of 101" area into a research and development (R &D) complex. The project site is located within the Business Technology Park Zone District (BTP) and the project is consistent with the existing zoning. Additionally, the project site is situated within the "Business and Technology Park" General Plan Land Use designation which supports R &D projects. A Draft EIR for this project was published in April 2007 (SCH #2006092054) and a Partial Recirculated Draft EIR was published in August 2010, but a Final EIR was not published or certified. Since the publication of the Draft EIR and the Partial Recirculated Draft EIR, traffic conditions in the project area have changed as a result of a number of new projects proposed in the area east of Highway 101. Consequently, the previous traffic analysis completed for the project no longer reflects the impacts of the proposed project accurately. In addition, the characteristics of the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project have changed slightly since the publication of the April 2007 Draft EIR and the August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR with the applicant now proposing to provide 931 parking spaces (with a 47 -space parking reserve) instead of 1,036 spaces as previously proposed. No other project characteristics have changed and the proposed project still consists of the construction of two buildings to house R &D uses and a parking structure. The applicant has clarified the project schedule and anticipates that project construction would commence upon project approval in 2012 with completion by 2014 and occupancy by 2015. The City of South San Francisco (City), which is the lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed project, has determined that because the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken have changed and the project has been modified to include fewer parking spaces, in order to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines, those portions of the Draft EIR that are affected by these changes will be recirculated. The changes do not affect the project's impacts on aesthetics, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use, and utilities as analyzed in the 2007 Draft EIR. This 2nd Recirculated Draft EIR will fully replace the analysis in the August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR and will be used, in conjunction with the April 2007 Draft EIR, to inform City decision makers, responsible and trustee agencies, other public agencies, and members of the public of the potential environmental effects associated with the implementation of the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project. Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 1.0 Introduction 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS 2ND PARTIAL RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR This 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but prior to certification. The term "information" can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse impact of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect. The City has commissioned a new traffic analysis for the project and has determined that the revised traffic analysis, along with traffic - related air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and noise analyses, represent significant new information and therefore the revised sections of the Draft EIR must be recirculated to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the project's impacts and proposed mitigation measures. 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS RECIRCULATED DRAFT EIR According to Section 15088.5(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, if the revisions to the previously circulated Draft EIR are limited to a few chapters of the EIR, the lead agency is required to recirculate only those portions of the EIR that have been modified by the changes in the project or the project's environmental setting. The City has decided to prepare a partial 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR and recirculate only those sections of the previously circulated Draft EIR that are affected by the change in traffic conditions in the project area or the minor changes to the project description. The City has also determined that a revised greenhouse gas emissions analysis must be prepared and circulated because updated guidelines have been put forth by the Bay Area Air Quality Monitoring District (BAAQMD) for evaluating the impacts of a project proposed in the Bay Area on global climate. In view of changes in traffic impacts, and traffic - related air quality and noise impacts, and the inclusion of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission impacts, the alternatives chapter of the Draft EIR has also been revised. Issues addressed in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR include the following: • Air Quality (replacing Section 4.2 of the April 2007 Draft EIR and August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR) • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (replacing Section 4.4 of the April 2007 Draft EIR) • Noise (replacing Section 4.7 of the April 2007 Draft EIR and August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR) • Transportation and Circulation (replacing Section 4.8 of the April 2007 Draft EIR and August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR) Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 1.0 Introduction • Greenhouse Gas Emissions (replacing Section 4.10, Global Climate Change of the August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR) • Alternatives (replacing Section 6.0 of the April 2007 Draft EIR and August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR) The resource topics are discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.10, and the revised alternatives analysis is presented in Section 6.0 of the 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088.5(f)(2), the City is requesting that reviewers of this document submit new comments only on the revised impact analyses presented in the Recirculated EIR sections. The comments on the April 2007 Draft EIR and the August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR have become part of the administrative record and those comments regarding issues not addressed in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR will be responded to in the Final EIR. Comments pertaining to the previous traffic analysis have been addressed in the revised traffic impact assessment. Similarly, comments pertaining to the air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and hazards and hazardous materials impact assessments have been addressed in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Any comments that pertain to any of the topics addressed in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR must be resubmitted during the public comment period for this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR if the commenter wishes to receive a written response in the Final EIR. 1.4 REPORT ORGANIZATION This 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR is organized into the following sections with the revised sections numbered to correspond with the same sections in the previously circulated Draft EIR: Section 1.0, Introduction, summarizes the purpose and organization of the 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Section 2.0, Executive Summary, summarizes environmental consequences that would result from the implementation of the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project, provides a summary table that identifies any significant environmental impacts, describes mitigation measures, and indicates the level of significance of impacts before and after mitigation. Section 3.0, Project Description, describes the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project and related entitlement approvals. This section is substantially the same as Section 3.0 in the April 2007 Draft EIR, as the proposed project is unchanged from before; however, this section has been revised to reflect changes in the conditions at the site or in the surrounding area since 2007. Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 1.0 Introduction Section 4.0, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation, describes the environmental setting, including applicable plans and policies, provides an analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and cumulative impacts, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts. This section includes revised Sections 4.2, 4.4, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.10. Section 6.0, Alternatives, summarizes alternatives to the project and the comparative environmental consequences and benefits of each alternative. This section includes an analysis of the No Project Alternative, among others as required by CEQA. Section 7.0, Report Preparation, identifies the Lead Agency and consultants involved in the preparation of this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Section 8.0, References, identifies the references, organizations, and persons consulted during preparation of this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Appendices to this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR include the air quality impact assessment modeling, hazards and hazardous materials studies, and noise impact assessment modeling. 1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The City has filed a Notice of Completion with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (State Clearinghouse), indicating that this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR has been completed and is available for review and comment (SCH No. 2006092054). In addition, the notice has been provided to every agency, person, and organization that commented on the previously circulated Draft EIRs as required by CEQA. The 2 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR will be available for review by the public and interested parties, agencies, and organizations for a review period of at least 45 days, as required by California law. In reviewing the 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR, reviewers should focus on the document's adequacy in identifying and analyzing the project's significant effects on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a)). Comments should be focused only on the revised impact analyses presented in this Recirculated Draft EIR. As previously noted, the Final EIR will respond to comments submitted on the April 2007 Draft EIR and the August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR, which relate to topics not addressed in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 1.0 Introduction Comments may be submitted in writing during the 45 -day public review period to: Linda Ajello Associate Planner 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Linda.ajello @ssf.net Pursuant to state law (Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(3)) the City will accept e -mail comments in lieu of mailed or hand - delivered comments; however, reviewers are encouraged to follow up any email comments with letters. At the end of 45 -day public review period, the City will prepare written responses to all comments received on the 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR as well as the April 2007 Draft EIR and the August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. These responses will be incorporated into the Final EIR. The Final EIR will be available to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certification, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The City will review the Final EIR for adequacy and will exercise its independent judgment regarding certification pursuant to the requirements of Section 15090 of the State CEQA Guidelines. If the City certifies the Final EIR, it will then consider the project separately for approval or denial. If the City chooses to approve the project, findings on the feasibility of avoiding or reducing the project's significant environmental effects will be made and, if necessary, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be prepared. If the City approves the proposed project, a Notice of Determination (NOD) will be prepared and filed with the State Clearinghouse. The NOD will include a description of the project, the date of approval, and an indication of whether Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations were prepared. The NOD will also provide the address where the EIR and record of project approval are available for review. Impact Sciences, Inc. 1.0 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section summarizes the information and analyses presented in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require an EIR to include a brief summary of the information presented in an EIR in language as clear and as simple as reasonably practical. In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines, this section presents a brief description of the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of the project and the measures recommended to mitigate these impacts. 2.2 PROJECT SUMMARY The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, south of the City of Brisbane and north of the City of San Bruno. The City of South San Francisco is built on the Bay plain and on the northern foothills of the Coastal range. The City is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The project site is located within the City's East of 101 Area. This area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east side, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The East of 101 Area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The approximately 7.48 -acre project site is located at the intersection of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. The proposed project would result in the development of the project site with two new research and development buildings, totaling 326,020 square feet. It is anticipated that the project would be constructed by 2014 and occupied by 2015. Building A would be five stories and would consist of 188,076 square feet, while Building B would be four stories and would consist of 137,944 square feet. Building B would be located closest to Forbes Boulevard, while Building A would be located between the parking garage and Building B. The project would provide parking for a total of 978 automobiles, including a four -level parking garage (all above ground) and a 47 -space parking reserve. The parking garage would be a separate structure located toward the rear of the site, behind Building A. The garage would provide 848 parking spaces, while surface parking areas would provide parking for an additional 130 vehicles. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Three loading docks would be attached to the research and development buildings, one to Building B, and two to Building A. The loading docks would be located next to the trash, chemical storage, electrical room, and generator enclosures for each building. Building A would measure 85 feet in height (102 feet for the portion that includes the mechanical equipment area on the roof), while Building B would measure 68 feet in height (85 feet for the portion that includes the mechanical equipment area on the roof). The project would include landscaped areas with plants and design features appropriate for the climate throughout the site. A mixture of ground cover, vines, shrubs, and trees would be planted along the streets, buildings, sidewalks, walkways and in the private open spaces. 2.3 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Responses to the Notice of Preparation for this EIR, which was prepared and circulated for review by the City of South San Francisco, identified key issues to be addressed during the environmental review of the proposed project. These issues included the following: 2.3.1 Land Use • Because the project site is located within the Federal Aviation Regulations FAR Part 77 Conical Surface airspace protection area for the San Francisco International Airport, an FAA Form 7460 -1 (Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration) shall need to be filed. 2.3.2 Noise • Because the site is located under the Shoreline Departure Route for aircraft departing on Runway 28 at San Francisco International Airport, frequent occurrences of high - single -event noise levels and aircraft overflight in the vicinity of the project site could occur. • Proposed structures should be designed and built to achieve an interior noise level of not more than 45 decibels, based on aircraft noise events. 2.3.3 Traffic • The Traffic Impact Study should show project access in relation to nearby state roadways. • The assumptions and methodologies used to develop project - related trip generation, distribution, and assignment should be detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis. • Average daily traffic, AM and PM peak hour volumes, and levels of service should be analyzed for all significantly affected roadways. • The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual should be used for analyzing impacts to state facilities. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary • The project's consistency with both the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Agency's Congestion Management Plan should be evaluated. • The project's fair -share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities, and lead- agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all mitigation measures. • A project impact would be considered significant if the project resulted in the 95th percentile intersection queue lengths that exceed the available storage on state facilities and /or if 95th percentile intersection queue lengths extend back onto state facilities. • The project should apply a cumulative time horizon of 20 years after project completion. 2.4 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES Table 2.0 -1, Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the impacts identified for the proposed project as well as mitigation measures that would reduce impacts associated with the project. This table also includes the level of impact significance after mitigation, if applicable. This table reports the impacts of the proposed project on aesthetics, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use, and utilities as analyzed in the 2007 Draft EIR and the impacts of the project on air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, traffic, and greenhouse gas emissions as analyzed in this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Table 2.0 -1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation AESTHETICS Impact 4.1 -1 Implementation of the project would introduce two No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A new office/R &D buildings and a parking structure, and remove trees, which could degrade the visual character of the site. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.1 -2 Construction of project buildings would impact No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A scenic vistas such as the San Bruno Mountains. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.1 -3 Implementation of the project would introduce new No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A sources of light and glare into the project area, which could adversely affect daytime and nighttime views in the area. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation AIR QUALITY Impact 4.2 -1 Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1: Construction of the proposed project would No mitigation is required for criteria pollutant emissions resulting from construction of the Less than significant generate emissions that would not result in a proposed project. However, the Bay Area Air Quality monitoring District (BAAQMD) does violation of an air quality standard or contribute recommend implementing basic mitigation measures for fugitive dust control on all projects. substantially to an existing or projected air quality These measures are listed in Table 8 -1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and violation. This would result in a less than reproduced below. The construction contractor shall apply these measures as applicable and significant impact. feasible. BAAQMD Recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times daily. • 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 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. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation AIR QUALITY (continued)' Impact 4.2 -2 Research and Development Uses envisioned by the No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A project would not generate substantial criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles associated with employee trips and area sources (e.g., natural gas combustion) that could violate an air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.2 -3 The proposed project would increase carbon No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A monoxide concentrations at busy intersections and along congested roadways in the project vicinity but would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.2 -4 Mitigation Measure 4.2 -4: The project operations may or may not expose The CC &Rs for the proposed development shall include a provision which requires tenants that N/A nearby sensitive receptors to concentrations of toxic propose wet laboratories to prepare a human health risk assessment demonstrating that the air contaminants in excess of acceptable levels. This human health risk from wet lab operations will be less than significant or will be rendered less impact conclusion is speculative. than significant with appropriate design elements and project refinements, including but not limited to location of fume hoods or other point sources as far away as possible from nearby receptors. The HRA will be submitted to the City by the tenant prior to occupancy. Impact 4.2 -5 Project construction activities would not expose No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A nearby sensitive receptors to concentrations of toxic air contaminants in excess of acceptable levels. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.2 -6 The proposed project would not create No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0-6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation AIR QUALITY (continued)' Impact 4.2 -7 The proposed project would not result in a No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.2 -8 The proposed project would not result in a No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A cumulatively considerable increase in toxic air contaminants when combined with other construction projects, stationary sources, and mobile sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Impact 4.3 -1 Development of the project would expose people Mitigation Measure 4.3 -1: Less than significant and /or structures to substantial adverse effects from Foundation engineering and construction shall be in accordance with the recommendations of a strong seismic ground shaking. This would result in Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Further geotechnical a significant impact. study will be required to provide final design recommendations for any new structures planned at the site. The design -level geotechnical study would require additional subsurface exploration and a geotechnical laboratory- testing program in order to develop final design recommendations for seismic concerns. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2: The applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final design review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and would allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation GEOLOGY AND SOILS (continued) Impact 4.3 -2 Mitigation Measure 4.3 -3: Development of the site as envisioned by the project Further geotechnical study shall be conducted to determine the density, composition, and Less than significant would possibly expose structures to substantial thickness of fill. Foundation engineering and construction shall be in accordance with the adverse effects of differential settlements. This recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. would result in a significant impact. Further geotechnical study will be required to provide final design recommendations for any new structures planned at the site. The design -level geotechnical study will require additional subsurface exploration and a geotechnical laboratory testing program in order to develop final design recommendations. Impact 4.3 -3 The construction phase of the project would result Mitigation Measure 4.3 -4: Less than significant in a substantial increase in erosion and would The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction displace topsoil at the project site. This would be with the Grading Permit Application. The plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion, and considered a potentially significant impact. pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, with sediment basin design calculations. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the best management practices (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned construction access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques shall include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto City streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -5: In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to reduce soil erosion. This plan is required to obtain coverage under the General Plan for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 99- 08 -DWQ). Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Impact 4.4 -1 Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1: Contaminated soil and groundwater could be While not expected to occur on site, if contaminated soil and /or groundwater is encountered Less than significant exposed during excavation and grading activities, during excavation and /or grading activities, the construction contractor(s) shall stop work and exposing construction workers to hazardous immediately inform the appropriate applicant representative. An on -site assessment shall be materials. This would result in a less than conducted to determine if the discovered materials pose a significant risk to the public or significant impact. construction workers. For evaluation purposes, the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) established by the RWQCB for residential uses shall be used to assess the need for additional site investigation, remedial action, or a more detailed risk assessment. If the materials are determined to pose a risk, a remediation plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division to comply with applicable legal requirements to assure the proper handling and management of contaminated soil and /or debris, and the protection of human health and the environment for the new building. Soil remediation methods shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, excavation and on -site treatment, excavation and off -site treatment or disposal, and /or treatment without excavation. Remediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, on -site treatment, extraction and off -site treatment, and /or disposal. In the event that soil contamination concentrations exceed the DTSC remediation standards for residential uses, the developer shall work with the DTSC to prepare a risk assessment and implement any DTSC- required remedial actions, continuing until the DTSC verifies that concentrations meet the remediation standard established for the site and a No Further Action letter (or equivalent approval) is issued by the DTSC. If determined to be necessary by the County Environmental Health Division, air monitoring would be conducted at the construction site when remediation work is underway. The construction schedule shall be modified or delayed to ensure that construction will not inhibit remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to significant risks associated with hazardous conditions. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (continued) Impact 4.4 -2 Accident conditions during the transportation or Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2a: Less than significant use of hazardous substances during project All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site shall be in operation could create a spill of hazardous accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation materials which could create a significant hazard to regulations, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 31303 of the California Code of the public or environment. This would be Regulations, hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the California considered a potentially significant impact. Highway Patrol pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and all other state and local laws, ordinances and procedures including the posting of placards, signs and other identifying information. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2b: Tenants occupying the project shall complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan shall include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they might be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. The Business Plan shall take into consideration the proximity of the nearby childcare facility in determining the location of hazardous materials storage areas (including gaseous substances such as ammonia) as well as contingency plans that specifically address emergencies that could be of significance to the nearby childcare facility. Impact 4.4 -3 Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3: The project would be located within the jurisdiction To ensure compliance with the requirements of Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, "Hazards Less than significant of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco Near Airports Prohibited," which prohibits structural hazards near airports, the applicant shall International Airport and could conflict with the submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1) to the Federal Aviation Plan's policies. This would result in a less than Administration. An FAA permit for construction would not be required if the Federal Aviation significant impact. Administration determines that the construction, alteration, or growth does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. Impact 4.4 -4 Mitigation Measure 4.4 -4: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from The applicant shall continue to provide TLC Accutite access to the project site in order to monitor Less than significant contaminated groundwater may pose a risk to site groundwater at monitoring well MW -12, as required by the SMCHSA. Access to the monitoring users through inhalation of vapors released from well shall be provided until the SMCHSA has determined that the monitoring well is no longer the subsurface into indoor air. This would result in required. All monitoring shall be conducted according to SMCHSA guidelines. a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (continued) Impact 4.4 -5 Upon occupancy, the proposed project could emit No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. This would result in a less than significant impact. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Impact 4.5 -1 Implementation of the project would increase the No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A amount of runoff that flows from the site into the City's stormwater facilities and could exceed the capacity of the existing storm drain system. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.5 -2 Implementation of the project would increase the Mitigation Measure 4.5 -1: Less than significant amount of runoff that flows from the site into the The applicant shall develop an operational SWPPP prior to construction to protect water quality City's stormwater facilities, which could introduce after construction. The project SWPPP shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following sediments and other pollutants into the surface measures for project operation: water runoff and could potentially degrade water quality. This would be considered a potentially ' Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the project site. Industrial significant impact. activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed project site shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. • Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls uses as needed. • Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous; therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared daily of debris that may enter the storm drain system. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (continued) Impact 4.5 -2 (continued) • The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and /or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually in coordination with the STOPPP. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. The applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: (1) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping chemicals; (3) clean -up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and (4) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Mitigation Measure 4.5 -2: The applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil /water or oil /grit separator) on site to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater, prior to draining to the sanitary sewer. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to the impervious surface drainage area is important and shall be taken into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit model and size. Mitigation Measure 4.5 -3: The applicant shall incorporate, where feasible, alternative drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near large areas of impervious surfaces such as public plazas. Such solutions shall include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter /tree boxes, and ponds. Mitigation Measure 4.5 -4: The applicant shall incorporate rooftop or downspout retention into all building plans. Mitigation Measure 4.5 -5: The applicant shall ensure that all trash enclosure areas are covered. Mitigation Measure 4.5 -6: The applicant shall design loading areas and docks with a roof or overhang, and a surrounding curb or berm. The area shall be graded to direct flow toward an inlet with a shutoff valve or dead - end sump. The sump shall be designed with enough capacity to hold a spill while the valve is closed. If the sump has a valve, it shall be kept in the closed position and require an action to open it. All sumps shall have a sealed bottom so they cannot infiltrate water. Contaminated accumulated waste and liquid must not be discharged to a storm drain and may be discharged to the sanitary sewer only with the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's) permission. If it does not receive approval for discharge to the sanitary sewer, it shall be conveyed to a hazardous waste (or other off -site disposal) facility, and may require pretreatment. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation LAND USE AND PLANNING No impacts were identified for this resource. N/A NOISE Impact 4.7 -1 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or Noise Ordinance. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact 4.7 -2 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project nor would it expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or Noise Ordinance. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -14 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation NOISE (continued)' Impact 4.7 -3 The proposed project would result in temporary or Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3a: Less than significant periodic noise increases associated with The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far from existing sensitive construction activities. This would be a less than receptors as possible. If stationary sources must be located near existing receptors, they shall be significant impact. muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3b: The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls shall include improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds. Noise controls can reduce noise levels at 50 feet by 1 dB(A) to 16 dB(A), depending on the type of equipment. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3c: Equipment used for construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jackhammers) whenever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of a pneumatically powered tool is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. (A muffler could lower noise levels from exhaust by up to 10 dB(A)). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used when feasible, resulting in a reduction of up to 5 dB(A). Alternately, work involving pneumatically powered tools shall be conducted on weekends to avoid affecting the nearby childcare facility. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3d: The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures such as shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent businesses in advance of construction work. The City shall also require that prior to demolition and grading activities, signs must be posted with a phone number for information and noise complaints. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -14 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impacts Mitigation Measures Significance after Mitigation NOISE (continued)' Impact 4.7 -4 Mitigation Measure 4.7 -4: Project construction activities could generate The applicant shall notify all neighboring property owners within 300 feet of construction site of Less than significant groundborne vibration levels exceeding acceptable the planned schedule of vibration causing activities so that the occupants and /or researchers can limits. This would be a potentially significant take necessary precautionary measures to avoid negative effects to their activities and /or research. impact. Impact 4.7 -5 Construction of the proposed project, when No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A combined with other construction projects in the vicinity, would not result in a cumulative impact associated with a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact 4.7 -6 The operation of the proposed project, in No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A conjunction with the operation of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a cumulative impact associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. This would be a less than significant impact. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impact 4.8 -1 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1: Trips generated by the project would exceed 100 net The project sponsors shall implement a TDM program consistent with the City of South San Less than significant new trips during AM and PM peak hours. This Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and would be considered a potentially significant acceptable to C /CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life impact. of the development. The C /CAG Guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Impact 4.8 -2 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A result in any significant intersection level of service impacts under Existing with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -15 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -3 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A increase existing traffic at any unsignalized intersection such that it meets peak hour signal warrant criteria under Existing with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact 4.8 -4 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4: Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the Less than significant increase existing peak hour traffic volumes City Engineer to adjust signal timing at the Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection, as resulting in a 95th percentile vehicle queuing shown in Figure 4.8 -20. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to impact at one intersection under Existing with issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.8 -5 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5: Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the Less than significant increase existing AM peak hour volumes resulting City Engineer for a second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the US 101 in volumes that exceed acceptable capacity at one Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, as shown in Figure 4.8 -20, off -ramp under Existing with Project conditions. Existing Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The full share payment shall be This would be considered a potentially significant paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. impact. Impact 4.8 -6 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A increase the peak hour volumes at any study on- ramp above acceptable capacity limits under Existing with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact 4.8 -7 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under Existing with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -8 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -8: Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the Less than significant increase traffic volumes above acceptable limits at City Engineer for widening the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach from one left, one one study intersection under 2015 with Project combined through /right, and one right turn lane to provide one left, one through, one conditions. This would be considered a potentially through /right and one exclusive right turn lane at the East Grand Avenue /Forbes significant impact. Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Impact 4.8 -9 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -9: Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the Less than significant increase traffic volumes, which would cause a City Engineer towards signalizing the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Allerton Avenue. signal warrant to be met at one intersection under The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a Occupancy by the City. potentially significant impact. Impact 4.8 -10 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -10: Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution for the following Less than significant increase vehicle queuing at three intersections improvements. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the above levels determined to be acceptable by the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. — Restripe the Southbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one exclusive through lane and one shared through /right turn lane. Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue — Provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards adjusting signal timing. Ouster Point Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard /Airport Boulevard — Provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards adjusting signal timing. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -11 Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution for the following Significant and increase traffic volumes which would increase improvements. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the unavoidable backups extending to the freeway mainline at one Certificate of Occupancy by the City. off -ramp and result in operational impacts to one Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11a: U.S. 101 off -ramp under 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a potentially U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection significant impact. All of the following improvements (other than measures to the Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp, eastbound departure and southbound approach) are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and will be funded via the proposed project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The proposed project shall also provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the TIP. — Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach (extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp intersection. — Adjust signal timing. — Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, two through lanes and a combined through /right turn lane to a left, two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. — Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp approach from two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined through /right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP). — Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property driveway approach (not part of TIP). Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11b: U.S. 101 Southbound Off- Ram1(Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection — City Engineering staff has determined that providing a second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would not be feasible due to the existing limited distance between the flyover off -ramp diverge and the southbound off -ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -12 Implementation of the proposed project would No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A increase traffic volumes on the U.S. 101 freeway, but would not result in unacceptable operation on any study freeway segment under 2015 with Project conditions. Impact 4.8 -13 Implementation of the proposed project would No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A increase traffic volumes but would not result in any significant level of service operational impacts at study intersections under 2035 with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact 4.8 -14 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -14: Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the Less than significant increase traffic volumes at an unsignalized City Engineer towards improving the Forbes Boulevard /Allerton Avenue intersection. The fair intersection that would exceed signal warrant share contribution will be used to signalize the intersection when warranted and provide criteria levels under 2035 without Project exclusive left turn lanes on the Forbes Boulevard intersection approaches. The full fair share conditions. This would be considered a potentially payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the significant impact. City. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -15 Implementation of the proposed project would The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the Significant and increase vehicle queuing at two intersections under City Engineer for the following improvements. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the unavoidable 2035 with Project conditions above levels applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. determined to be acceptable by the City of South Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15a: San Francisco and Caltrans. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue — Restripe the Grand Avenue eastbound approach to provide a shared through /left turn lane and a shared through /right turn lane. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15b: Ouster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp — Provision of additional lanes on any of the intersection approaches to increase capacity would require either widening of bridge structures across the U.S. 101 freeway and /or the Caltrain rail line and possibly roadway diversion around the supports for the Southbound Flyover off -ramp. In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, City Public Works staff has determined that there are no feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -21 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -16 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -16: Implementation of the proposed project would The improvements that would be necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts to the Significant and increase backups extending to the freeway mainline off -ramps identified above are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. unavoidable at four off - ramps, and result in operational impacts U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection on one U.S. 101 off -ramp and one U.S. 101 on -ramp under 2035 with Project conditions. This would be — In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other considered a potentially significant impact. feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off -ramp storage. Additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an additional two to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard (through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would potentially be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the southbound flyover off -ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off -ramp widening would also require expansion of bridge structures, which would be prohibitively expensive. Provision of additional lanes would potentially require acquisition of additional righty -of -way along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off -ramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection. U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection — There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to South Airport Boulevard /Wondercolor Lane Intersection — There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive Intersection — There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -21 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -22 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -16 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -16: (continued) U.S. 101 Southbound Off- Ram1(Flyover) Diverge to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection — No improvements are feasible to mitigate the impact. Should it be desired to provide a second off -ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off - Ramp (flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard, it would potentially be necessary to move the Southbound Off -Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between the two southbound off - ramps. A second off -ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long (1,000 -foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of available space. This would be difficult given the restrictions imposed by the location of the northbound off -ramp overpass connection to Bayshore Boulevard. There is no room for provision of this lane. U.S. 101 Northbound One -Lane On -Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue Intersection — Provision of a second on -ramp lane (as recommended for 2015) would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. While this measure would accommodate the 2035 Future With Project volume of about 2,563 vehicles per hour, it would require the approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Impact 4.8 -17 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A result in operational impacts to any study freeway mainline segments under 2035 with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact 4.8 -18 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -18: Project - related traffic would turn from Forbes The applicant shall be responsible for the following safety improvements. These improvements Less than significant Boulevard and Allerton Avenue into project shall be completed before occupancy. driveways which would create safety impacts on . Provide at least a 75- foot -long left turn deceleration lane plus taper on the westbound Forbes Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. This would Boulevard approaches to both project driveways. result in a potentially significant impact. • Stripe a continuous two -way left turn lane along the project's Allerton Avenue frontage that would serve movements to /from both site driveways as well as to the businesses on the opposite side of the street. However, this would require removal of the Class II bike lanes recently striped along the street, or widening of the street by at least 8 feet. Alternatively, the Class II bike lanes could be replaced by a Class III signed bike route, which would allow striping of the continuous turn lane. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -22 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -23 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (continued) Impact 4.8 -19 On -site circulation would adequately conform to No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A City guidelines and good traffic engineering practice. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact 4.8 -20 Mitigation Measure 4.8 -20: The project as proposed would not provide a Provide sidewalks along the project's Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue frontages as well as Less than significant walkway from the project buildings to Allerton a connection between internal walkways and the Allerton Avenue sidewalk. Avenue or provide sidewalks along Forbes Boulevard or Allerton Avenue. This lack of infrastructure would result in a significant impact to pedestrian safety. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Impact 4.9 -1 Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1: The proposed project would increase demand for The applicant shall include methods of water conservation in the proposed project's buildings Less than significant water services in the project area. The increased and landscaping. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: demand could require off -site improvements. This . Install water - conserving appliances, such as such as water - efficient toilets, faucets, and would be considered a significant impact. showerheads. • Install water - efficient centralized cooling systems in all new buildings (this measure would not apply to process development or research development laboratory equipment). • Install water - conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and Evapotranspiration based irrigation controllers). • Gray water irrigation system (as detailed in General Plan Policy PF -7, but other elements of that policy do not apply here, such as wastewater treatment facilities). • Design landscaping with drought- resistant and other low- water -use plants. Impact 4.9 -2 The proposed project would generate increased No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A demand for wastewater services. This would be considered a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -23 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 2.0 Executive Summary Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -24 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Significance after Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (continued) Impact 4.9 -3 The proposed project would increase the amount of No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A runoff that flows from the site into the City's stormwater facilities. This would be considered a less than significant impact. Impact 4.9 -4 Implementation of the proposed project would not No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A exceed the solid waste permitted capacity for either However, future ordinances and waste reduction programs could be implemented in response to Scavenger Company's Blue Line MRF/TS or the Ox the CIWMB biennial review. The City could require that developers of the proposed project Mountain Sanitary Landfill. This would be contact the Scavenger Company at the more - detailed design stage to ensure that proper waste considered a less than significant impact. disposal procedures and access requirements for Scavenger Company and other special vehicles are met. Also, the City could require that contained space for recycling is provided for each building. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS' Impact 4.10 -1 Construction and operation of the proposed project No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A would generate GHG emissions both directly and indirectly. However the emissions would not have a significant impact on the environment. Impact 4.10 -2 The proposed project would not conflict with an No mitigation measures are required for this less than significant impact. N/A applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The impact would be less than significant. Impact Sciences, Inc. 2.0 -24 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION This section provides a description of the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project and the related discretionary actions that make up the project analyzed in this EIR. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that the project description in an EIR contain the following information: (1) location and site conditions of the proposed project; (2) a statement of the objectives of the project; and (3) a general description of the characteristics of the project, including the principal engineering proposals and supporting public service facilities. Each of these topics is addressed in this section. The State CEQA Guidelines also state that the project description need not be exhaustive, but should provide the level of detail needed for the evaluation and review of potential environmental impacts. The 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D project would result in the construction of a commercial R &D complex on a site that is currently undeveloped. Facilities would include two R &D buildings, a parking garage, paved parking areas, and landscape improvements. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, south of the City of Brisbane and north of the City of San Bruno. The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal range. The City is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The project site is located within the City of South San Francisco's East of 101 Area. This area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land, and is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the east and south sides, U.S. 101 and railway lines on the west, and the City of Brisbane on the north. San Francisco International Airport is located approximately 2 miles to the south of the project area. The Plan Area is mostly developed and has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development facilities. The approximately 7.48 -acre project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue and is currently undeveloped, with the exception of an existing parking lot located in the northern portion of the site. The relatively flat site is located east of U.S. 101, north of San Francisco International Airport (SFO), southeast of San Bruno Mountain State Park, and west of the San Francisco Bay (see Figure 3.0 -1, Project Location). The property is owned by HCP Forbes, LLC. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 3.0 Project Description Site vegetation consists of native and non - native mature trees and overgrown bushes and shrubs located along the perimeter of the site. A number of eucalyptus trees, varying in size from 5 inches to 24 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), and redwood trees, varying in size from 8 inches to 24 inches DBH, as well as pine trees which vary in size from 84 inches to 42 inches DBH are present on the site. A railroad right -of -way measuring approximately 20 feet in width is located along the southern boundary of the project site. This area is not part of the proposed project site. 3.3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT Much of the surrounding area is developed with a mix of bioscience research and development, industry, warehouses, retail, offices, marinas, and hotels. The project site is located west of a childcare facility on the Genentech campus. The childcare facility accommodates up to 500 children. The project site has been occupied by numerous users since approximately 1938. From 1967 through 2006, the project site was occupied by various clothing businesses within a two - story, 161,845- square -foot concrete warehouse and R &D building. The property also included the existing parking lot as well as two loading docks. The concrete building was demolished in May of 2006 and as a result, no structures are currently located on the site. However, the site does include various mature trees and landscaping, many of which would be preserved with development of the proposed project. The project site is not located within an area that would potentially be exposed to a 55 -inch sea level rise by the end of the century (BCDC 2009). 3.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT 3.4.1 Project Goals and Objectives As part of its application, the applicant provided the City of South San Francisco with the following list of project goals and objectives: • Convert the under - utilized vacant lot to a higher and better use; • Permit campus -style office, high - quality office and R &D uses (General Plan Guiding Policy 3.5 -G -3); • Capitalize and expand upon the high - quality office and R &D development recently built near the project site; Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 r Project Site 1� San Jose (Train Stati isting Reg ion al/ Arterial/Col lector Proposed Street 0.6 0.26 0 0.6 t 101 Overlay District Eas of tL APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES Area Boundary City Limit SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. — January 2007, City of South San Francisco — 1997 FIGURE 3.0 - 1 Project Locatior 868-001.03/07 San Ramon 8 ( Marina Hayward F remont Redw o J Wb.d.ide kty San Jose (Train Stati isting Reg ion al/ Arterial/Col lector Proposed Street 0.6 0.26 0 0.6 t 101 Overlay District Eas of tL APPROXIMATE SCALE IN MILES Area Boundary City Limit SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. — January 2007, City of South San Francisco — 1997 FIGURE 3.0 - 1 Project Locatior 868-001.03/07 3.0 Project Description • Retain the flexibility to develop more or less R &D space than office space to respond to market conditions and opportunities; • Build a project that has the potential to create quality jobs for residents of South San Francisco; • Build a project that is economically viable in the East of 101 Area based on market conditions and projected service requirements for the area; • Generate net property taxes, sales taxes and other fees from the project and enhance property values; • Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Business and Technology Park; and • Take advantage of views of the Bay from proposed new buildings and open spaces. 3.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROJECT As illustrated in Figure 3.0 -2, Project Site Plan, Figure 3.0 -3, View of Garage and Building B from Allerton Avenue, and Figure 3.0 -4, View of Building A from Forbes Boulevard, the proposed project, as analyzed in this EIR, involves the development of the project site with two new research and development buildings (Buildings A and B), totaling 326,020 square feet. It is anticipated that the project would be built by 2014 and occupied by 2015. The project would provide parking for a total of 978 automobiles, including a four -level parking garage, constructed at grade level and a 47 -space parking reserve. The parking garage would be a separate structure located toward the southern end of the site, behind Building A. Major landscape improvements would also be included. 3.5.1 Research and Development Buildings Building A would have five stories and 188,076 square feet of floor space, and Building B would have four stories and 137,994 square feet of floor space. Building B would be located closest to Forbes Boulevard, while Building A would be located between the parking garage and Building B. Because each floor would be built out to the specific needs of the individual tenant, it is unknown exactly how many people would occupy each floor. Interior spaces of the buildings would be subdivided for separate commercial uses as required by the individual tenants. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 3.0 Project Description Three loading docks would be attached to the buildings, one to Building B and two to Building A. Loading docks would be located next to the trash, chemical storage, electrical room, and generator enclosures for each building. Building A would measure 85 feet in height (102 feet for the portion that includes the mechanical equipment area on the roof), while Building B would measure 68 feet in height (85 feet for the portion that includes the mechanical equipment area on the roof). General elements to be included in the construction of the project are: • Central green space /open space; • Retention of existing mature trees to the extent feasible; • Rooftop metal trellises; • Metal fascia and corrugated metal panels; • Extensive reveals and architectural interest; • Rooftop equipment screened with raised parapet and mechanical penthouse and /or roof screens; • Transformer, generator, services tucked away (back of house), screened with concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls and trees; and • Structural steel frame with curtain wall and glass fiber reinforced concrete (GFRC) cladding. 3.5.2 Landscaping The project would include landscaped areas throughout the site with plants and design features appropriate for the climate. A mixture of ground cover, vines, shrubs, and trees would be planted along the streets, buildings, sidewalks, and walkways, and in the on -site open spaces. A water - conserving automatic irrigation system would be installed on the site, in accordance with the requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Figure 3.0 -2, Project Site Plan, shows the proposed landscape elements for the project. Hardscape elements within the project site would include walkways, an entry plaza, and a patio. Landscaping maintenance would be provided by a private landscaping contractor. Some existing trees along the northern and southern ends of the project site adjacent to Allerton Avenue, and along the southwest border of the project site, would be incorporated into the landscaping plan. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 t 188 94 0 188 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SOURCE: DES Arc M1RecK Intl Engineers — August 2010 FIGURE 3.0 -2 Project Site Plan 0868 -001 -01/12 SOURCE: DES Arc M1RecK Intl Engineers — August 2010 FIGURE 3.0-3 View of Garage and Building B from Allerton Avenue 0868 -001 -01/12 1 � i 1 1 ! 1 U h, 1� y 1 SOURCE: DES Arc M1RecK Intl Engineers — August 2010 FIGURE 3.0-4 View of Building A from Forbes Boulevard 0868 -001 -01/12 3.0 Project Description 3.5.3 Access and Parking Access Access to the general project area would be from U.S. 101, via Oyster Point Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, or Gateway Boulevard. Vehicle access to the project site would occur from the existing driveway and a new driveway on Forbes Boulevard, as well as two new driveways located along Allerton Avenue. All driveways would be constructed according to the City of South San Francisco Fire Department guidelines and policies for adequate emergency access. The project would also comply with the City's standard design guidelines for ingress and egress areas. Parking As described previously, a four -level parking garage is proposed in the southern portion of the project site. The garage would include parking for 848 vehicles, with level one providing about 222 parking spaces, levels two and three with about 225 parking spaces each, and a rooftop level with about 176 parking spaces. In addition, approximately 83 surface parking spaces would be provided around the proposed circulation corridors and a 47 -space parking reserve. The project would provide a total of 978 vehicle parking spaces, including the parking reserve, and 20 spaces for handicapped and van pool parking. 3.5.4 Infrastructure Drainage System Storm water from the project site would be collected on site via catch basins and storm drains connected to the City's stormwater drainage system. Implementation of the project would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. Implementation of the project would result in conversion of 61 percent of the project site to impervious surfaces. Utilities The City of South San Francisco would be responsible for ensuring that adequate utility infrastructure and services are provided to the project site. This would be accomplished through the conditions of development project approval and building permits. Coordination would be required with the various utility suppliers, including CalWater and Pacific Gas & Electric. Electrical, telephone, cable, and Internet service would be extended from existing service mains in the project area. Due to the age of the site and the increased density of the proposed project, new domestic Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 3.0 Project Description water, sanitary sewer, and natural gas lines would be extended throughout the project site and would be connected to existing lines located within existing right -of -ways. 3.6 SITE DEVELOPMENT 3.6.1 Project Phasing Development of the project would occur in two staggered but overlapping phases, beginning with the construction of Building B. Construction of Building A would begin approximately one year later, with each construction phase taking approximately 70 weeks to complete. 3.6.2 Grading Demolition of the pre- existing warehouse was completed in May 2006. Consequently, no major demolition or grading activity would be required at the project site. However, some minor grading would be required to form new berms planned as part of the project, as well as for preparation of the proposed parking structure and parking areas. 3.6.3 Construction At its peak, construction of the project would include a maximum of approximately 260 construction workers, with an overall average of approximately 150 workers on the site during typical working hours. Construction hours would be limited to those allowed by the City, which are from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Additional construction hours on Saturdays would be allowed only as permitted by the City. Senior construction staff would be on site at all times during construction. Construction fencing would surround the entire site and the site would have a locked gate. A security guard would monitor the site at night when there is no construction activity. This would occur once construction begins and would remain until the buildings are occupied and the tenant has installed its own security measures. 3.7 INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR This EIR will be used to provide decision makers with relevant information to use when considering approval or denial of the development project by the City of South San Francisco. Following certification of the Final EIR by the City of South San Francisco, the City would use the Final EIR as environmental documentation to support the approval or denial of the project and various permits and entitlements. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 3.0 Project Description 3.7.1 Discretionary Approvals The project will be subject to review and approval according to the regulatory approval processes in the City of South San Francisco. The project would require the following approvals from the City: • Use Permit to ensure the project complies with zoning requirements for the project area; • Design Review Board approval to ensure that the project's design is compatible with surrounding development; • Adoption of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program; and • Approval of the project by the South San Francisco City Council. In addition to the above, as project construction would disturb a site that is greater than 1 acre in area, the project would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) requirements. The construction contractor for the project will be required to submit a Notice of Intent to the State Water Resources Control Board and obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges associated with Construction Activities. Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION 4.0.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains an analysis of each issue affected by the change in traffic conditions since publication of the April 2007 Draft EIR and August 2010 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR for the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project. The scope of the analysis and key attributes of the analytical approach are presented below to assist readers in understanding the manner in which the impact analysis has been conducted in this Draft EIR. 4.0.2 LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Draft EIR uses a variety of terms to describe the levels of significance of adverse impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis. The following are definitions of terms used in this Draft EIR: • Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. • Significant Impact. Impacts that exceed the defined standards of significance but can be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. • Potentially Significant Impact. Significant impacts that may ultimately be determined to be less than significant; the level of significance may be reduced in the future through implementation of policies or guidelines (that are not required by statute or ordinance), or through further definition of the project detail in the future. Potentially Significant Impacts may also be impacts about which there is not enough information to draw a firm conclusion; however, for the purpose of this Draft EIR, they are considered significant. Such impacts are equivalent to Significant Impacts and require the identification of feasible mitigation measures. • Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts that are adverse but that do not exceed the specified standards of significance. • No Impact. The project would not create an impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0 -1 0868.001 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR April 2012 4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation 4.0.3 FORMAT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TOPIC SECTIONS Each environmental topic considered in Section 4.0 includes four primary sections: Introduction; Existing Conditions; Regulatory Considerations; and Impacts and Mitigation Measures. An overview of the general organization and the information included in the sections is provided below. 4.0.3.1 Introduction The introduction section describes the topic to be analyzed and the contents of the analysis. It also provides the sources used to characterize existing conditions and evaluate the project's impacts. 4.0.3.2 Existing Conditions The existing conditions section for each environmental topic generally provides a description of the applicable physical setting for the project site and its surroundings (e.g., existing land uses, existing soil conditions, existing traffic conditions). 4.0.3.3 Regulatory Considerations The overview of regulatory considerations for each environmental topic is organized by agency that administers applicable federal, state, regional, and local (City) policies. The City of South San Francisco's General Plan policies, goals, and actions relevant to each environmental topic are detailed. The project's consistency with applicable regulations is evaluated. 4.0.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures This subsection begins with a discussion of the thresholds of significance. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a significant impact is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change to the environment. The State CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. Each subsection includes a summary of significance criteria used to evaluate the project's impacts. These criteria have been developed using Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, applicable policies of the City of South San Francisco, and guidance issued by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the evaluation of the impacts of project - generated air emissions on air quality and global climate. The thresholds of significance are followed by a discussion of the project -level and cumulative impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topic. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation 4.0.4 APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts, in addition to project- specific impacts. In accordance with CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the project alone. According to Section 15355 of the State CEQA Guidelines: "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time. Section 15130(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines further states that "a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." Section 15130(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines also requires that EIRs discuss the cumulative impacts of a project when the project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable. " Where a Lead Agency is examining a project with an incremental effect that is not cumulatively considerable, it need not consider the effect significant but must briefly describe the basis for its conclusion. If the combined cumulative impact associated with the project's incremental effect and the effects of other projects is not significant, Section 15130(a)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires a brief discussion in the EIR of why the cumulative impact is not significant and why it is not discussed in further detail. Section 15130(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires supporting analysis in the EIR if a determination is made that a project's contribution to a significant cumulative impact is rendered less than cumulatively considerable and, therefore, is not significant. CEQA recognizes that the analysis of cumulative impacts need not be as detailed as the analysis of project - related impacts, but instead should "be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)). The discussion of cumulative impacts in this draft EIR focuses on whether the impacts of the proposed project are cumulatively considerable. 1 Under Section 15065(a)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively considerable" means that "the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.0 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation The fact that a cumulative impact is significant does not necessarily mean that the project contribution to the cumulative impact is significant as well. Instead, under CEQA, a project - related contribution to a significant cumulative impact is only significant if the contribution is "cumulatively considerable." To support each significance conclusion, the Draft EIR provides a cumulative impact analysis; and where project- specific impacts have been identified that, together with the effects of other foreseeable projects, could result in cumulatively significant impacts, these potential impacts are documented. Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines consideration of the following two elements as necessary to provide an adequate discussion of cumulative impacts: "(A) a list of past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the Agency, or (B) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In this Draft EIR, a combination of these two methods is used depending upon the specific environmental topic being analyzed. To evaluate traffic and traffic - related air quality and noise impacts, the cumulative impacts were evaluated using the projected growth in traffic through 2035 based on the City's East of 101 Area Traffic Study and the Oyster Point Specific Plan. However, to evaluate other cumulative impacts such as construction noise and air quality impacts, the list -based approach was used. The nearest project that could potentially be under construction at the same time as the proposed project is the 259 East Grand Avenue project. This project is located more than 1,000 feet from the proposed project site and, therefore, would not be close enough to the project site to have the potential to result in construction- related air quality and noise impacts that cumulate with the impacts of the proposed project. Although additional development has been approved and not yet constructed under the Gateway Master Plan and the Genentech Master Plan Update, there are no other projects in the vicinity that are proposed to be under construction at the same time as the proposed project. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 SECTION 4.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 4.10.1 INTRODUCTION This section discusses the existing global, national, and statewide conditions related to greenhouse gases (GHG) and global climate change and evaluates the potential impacts on global climate from the construction and operation of the proposed project (project) located at 494 Forbes Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. The section also provides a discussion of the applicable federal, state, regional, and local agencies that regulate, monitor, and control GHG emissions. The assessment quantifies the project's GHG emissions and determines the potential for significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with the thresholds of significance recommended in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Copies of the calculations made to estimate GHG emissions associated with the proposed project and supporting technical data are found in Appendix 4.10 of this EIR. 4.10.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.4.2.1 Background Global climate change refers to any significant change in climate measurements, such as temperature, precipitation, or wind, lasting for an extended period (i.e., decades or longer) (US EPA 2008a). Climate change may result from: • natural factors, such as changes in the sun's intensity or slow changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun; • natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation, reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHG and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and • human activities that change the atmosphere's composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions According to scientists, human activities have resulted in a change in global climate. The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global tropospheric temperature of 0.2 degree Celsius ( °C) per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming is likely to occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current century (IPCC 2007). Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems, and to California, could include: • declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere's ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures (IPCC 2007); • rising average global sea levels primarily due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (model -based projections of global average sea level rise at the end of the 21St century (2090 -2099) range from 0.18 meter to 0.59 meter or 0.59 foot to 1.94 feet) (IPCC 2007); • changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones (IPCC 2007); • declining Sierra snowpack levels, which account for approximately half of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years (Cal EPA 2006); • increasing the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas located in the Southern California area and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21St century (Cal EPA 2006); • increasing the potential for erosion of California's coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta and associated levee systems due to the rise in sea level (California EPA 2006); • increasing pest infestation, making California more susceptible to forest fires (Cal EPA 2006); • increasing the demand for electricity by 1 to 3 percent by 2020 due to rising temperatures resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars in extra expenditures (Cal EPA 2006); and • summer warming projections in the first 30 years of the 21St century ranging from about 0.5 to 2 °C (0.9 to 3.6 °F) and by the last 30 years of the 21St century, from about 1.5 to 5.8 °C (2.7 to 10.5 °F) (Cal EPA 2006). The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere is called the "greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect traps heat in the troposphere through a threefold process as follows: (1) short -wave radiation in the form of visible light emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth as heat; (2) long -wave 1 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth's surface from 6 to 7 miles). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions radiation is re- emitted by the Earth; and (3) GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb or trap the long -wave radiation and re -emit it back towards the Earth and into space. This third process is the focus of current climate change actions. Increasing quantities of GHGs in the earth's atmosphere are resulting in a larger proportion of the long -wave radiation being retained, causing an overall increase in air and surface temperatures. While water vapor and carbon dioxide (CO2) are the most abundant GHGs, other trace GHGs have a greater ability to absorb and re- radiate long -wave radiation. To gauge the potency of GHGs, scientists have established a Global Warming Potential (GWP) for each GHG based on its ability to absorb and re -emit long -wave radiation over a specific period. The GWP of a gas is determined using CO2 as the reference gas, which has a GWP of 1 over 100 years (IPCC 1996). For example, a gas with a GWP of 10 is 10 times more potent than CO2 over 100 years. The use of GWP allows GHG emissions to be reported using CO2 as a baseline. The sum of each GHG multiplied by its associated GWP is referred to as "carbon dioxide equivalents" (CO2e). This essentially means that 1 metric ton of a GHG with a GWP of 10 has the same climate change impacts as 10 metric tons of CO2. 4.4.2.2 Greenhouse Gases State law defines GHGs to include the following compounds: • Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Carbon dioxide primarily is generated by fossil fuel combustion from stationary and mobile sources. Due to the emergence of industrial facilities and mobile sources over the past 250 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 35 percent (US EPA 2008b). Carbon dioxide is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (GWP of 1) for determining the GWP of other GHGs. In 2004, 82.8 percent of California's GHG emissions were carbon dioxide (California Energy Commission 2007). • Methane (CH4). Methane is emitted from biogenic sources (i.e., resulting from the activity of living organisms), incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines. In the United States, the top three sources of methane are landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation (US EPA n.d.[a]). Methane is the primary component of natural gas, which is used for space and water heating, steam production, and power generation. The GWP of methane is 21. • Nitrous Oxide (N2O). Nitrous oxide is produced by natural and human - related sources. Primary human - related sources include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production. The GWP of nitrous oxide is 310. • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). HFCs typically are used as refrigerants in both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is growing particularly 2 All Global Warming Potentials are given as 100 -year values. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft FIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions as the continued phase -out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) gains momentum. The GWP of HFCs ranges from 140 for HFC -152a to 6,300 for HFC- 236fa. • Perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Perfluorocarbons are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine. They are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semiconductor manufacturing. Perfluorocarbons are potent GHGs with a GWP several thousand times that of carbon dioxide, depending on the specific PFC. Another area of concern regarding PFCs is their long atmospheric lifetime (up to 50,000 years) (Energy Information Administration 2007). The GWPs of PFCs range from 5,700 to 11,900. • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6). Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity. Sulfur hexafluoride is the most potent GHG that has been evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with a GWP of 23,900. However, its global warming contribution is not as high as the GWP would indicate due to its low mixing ratio, as compared to carbon dioxide (4 parts per trillion [ppt] in 1990 versus 365 parts per million [PPM] of CO2) (US EPA n.d.[b]). 4.4.2.3 Contributions to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Global Worldwide anthropogenic (manmade) GHG emissions are tracked for industrialized nations (referred to as Annex I) and developing nations (referred to as Non -Annex I). Manmade GHG emissions for Annex I nations are available through 2007. Manmade GHG emissions for Non -Annex I nations are available through 2005. The sum of these emissions totaled approximately 42,133 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (MMTCO2E). It should be noted that global emissions inventory data are not all from the same year and may vary depending on the source of the emissions inventory data. The top five countries and the European Union accounted for approximately 55 percent of the total global GHG emissions according to the most recently available data (See Table 4.10 -1, Top Five GHG Producer Countries, and the European Union [Annual]). The GHG emissions in more recent years may differ from the inventories presented in Table 4.10 -1; however, the data is representative of currently available global inventory data. 3 The CO2 equivalent emissions commonly are expressed as "million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2E)." The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP, such that MMTCO2E = (million metric tons of a GHG) x (GWP of the GHG). For example, the GWP for methane is 21. This means that the emission of one million metric tons of methane is equivalent to the emission of 21 million metric tons of CO2. 4 The global emissions are the sum of Annex I and non -Annex I countries, without counting Land -Use, Land -Use Change and Forestry ( LULUCF). For countries without 2005 data, the UNFCCC data for the most recent year were used. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "Annex I Parties — GHG total without LULUCF," http: / /unfccc.int /ghg_ emissions_ data /ghg_ data_ from _unfccc /time_series_annex_i/ items /3841.php and "Flexible GHG Data Queries" with selections for total GHG emissions excluding LULUCF /LUCF, all years, and non -Annex I countries, http: // unfccc. int /di /FlexibleQueries /Event.do ?event= showProjection. n.d. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft FIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.10 -1 Top Five GHG Producer Countries, and the European Union (Annual) China 7,250 United States 7,217 European Union (EU), 27 Member States 5,402 Russian Federation 2,202 India 1,863 Japan 1,412 Total 25,346 Source: World Resources Institute, "Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT)," http: / /cait.wri.org /. 2010. Excludes emissions and removals from land use, land -use change and forestry (LULUCF). Note: Emissions for Annex I nations are based on 2007 data. Emissions for Non -Annex I nations (e.g., China, India) are based on 2005 data). United States As noted in Table 4.10 -1, the United States was the number two producer of global GHG emissions. The primary GHG emitted by human activities in the United States was CO2, representing approximately 84 percent of total GHG emissions (US EPA 2008a). CO2 from fossil fuel combustion, the largest source of GHG emissions, accounted for approximately 80 percent of U.S. GHG emissions. State of California CARB compiles GHG inventories for the State of California. Based on the 2008 GHG inventory data (i.e., the latest year for which data are available), California emitted 474 MMTCO2e including emissions resulting from imported electrical power in 2008 (CARB 2010c). Based on the CARB inventory data and GHG inventories compiled by the World Resources Institute, California's total statewide GHG emissions rank second in the United States (Texas is number one) with emissions of 417 MMTCO2e excluding emissions related to imported power (CARB 2010c). The primary contributors to GHG emissions in California are transportation, electric power production from both in -state and out -of -state sources, industry, agriculture and forestry, and other sources, which include commercial and residential activities. Table 4.10 -2, GHG Emissions in California, provides a summary of GHG emissions reported in California in 1990 and 2008 separated by categories defined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 5 Supra at 4. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 4.10 -2 GHG Emissions in California ENERGY 386.41 89.2% 413.80 86.6% Energy Industries 157.33 36.3% 171.23 35.8% Manufacturing Industries & Construction 24.24 5.6% 16.67 3.5% Transport 150.02 34.6% 173.94 36.4% Other ( Residential /Commercial /Institutional) 48.19 11.1% 46.59 9.8% Non - Specified 1.38 0.3% 0.00 0.0% Fugitive Emissions from Oil & Natural Gas 2.94 0.7% 3.28 0.7% Fugitive Emissions from Other Energy Production 2.31 0.5% 2.09 0.4% INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES & PRODUCT USE 18.34 4.2% 30.11 6.3% Mineral Industry 4.85 1.1% 5.35 1.1% Chemical Industry 2.34 0.5% 0.06 0.0% Non - Energy Products from Fuels & Solvent Use 2.29 0.5% 1.97 0.4% Electronics Industry 0.59 0.1% 0.80 0.2% Substitutes for Ozone Depleting Substances 0.04 0.0% 13.89 2.9% Other Product Manufacture and Use 3.18 0.7% 1.66 0.3% Other 5.05 1.2% 6.39 1.3% AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, & OTHER LAND USE 19.11 4.4% 24.42 5.1% Livestock 11.67 2.7% 16.28 3.4% Land 0.19 0.0% 0.19 0.0% Aggregate Sources & Non -CO2 Sources on Land 7.26 1.7% 7.95 1.7% WASTE 9.42 2.2% 9.41 2.0% Solid Waste Disposal 6.26 1.4% 6.71 1.4% Wastewater Treatment & Discharge 3.17 0.7% 2.70 0.6% EMISSIONS SUMMARY Gross California Emissions 433.29 477.74 Sinks from Forests and Rangelands -6.69 -3.98 Net California Emissions 426.60 473.76 Sources: California Air Resources Board, "California Greenhouse Gas 1990 -2004 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary," http:// www. arb. ca. govl cc /inventory/archive/archive.htm. 2010. (CARB 2010d) 2 California Air Resources Board, "California Greenhouse Gas 2000 -2008 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary," http:// www. arb. ca. gov /cclinventory/data/data.htm. 2010. (CARB 2010e) Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Between 1990 and 2008, the population of California grew by approximately 7.3 million (from 29.8 to 37.9 million) (U.S. Census Bureau 2009; Ca1DoF 2010). This represents an increase of approximately 27.2 percent from 1990 population levels. In addition, the California economy, measured as gross state product, grew from $788 billion in 1990 to $1.8 trillion in 2008 representing an increase of approximately 128 percent (over twice the 1990 gross state product) (CalDOF 2009). Despite the population and economic growth, California's net GHG emissions only grew by approximately 11 percent. The California Energy Commission (CEC) attributes the slow rate of growth to the success of California's renewable energy programs and its commitment to clean air and clean energy (CEC 2006). 4.10.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 4.4.3.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) established the IPCC in 1988. The goal of the IPCC is to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activities. Rather than performing research or monitoring climate, the IPCC relies on peer - reviewed and published scientific literature to make its assessment. While not a regulatory body, the IPCC assesses information (i.e., scientific literature) regarding human - induced climate change and the impacts of human - induced climate change, and recommends options to policy makers for the adaptation and mitigation of climate change. The IPCC reports its evaluations in special reports called "assessment reports." The latest assessment report (i.e., Fourth Assessment Report, consisting of three working group reports and a synthesis report based on the first three reports) was published in 2007. In its 2007 report, the IPCC stated that global temperature increases since the mid -20th century were "very likely" attributable to man -made activities (greater than 90 percent certainty) (IPCC 2007). 4.4.3.2 Federal In Massachusetts vs. EPA, the Supreme Court held that United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has the statutory authority under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate GHGs from new motor vehicles. The court did not hold that the US EPA was required to regulate GHG emissions; however, it indicated that the agency must decide whether GHGs from motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that is reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. Upon the final decision, the President signed Executive Order 13432 on May 14, 2007, directing the US EPA, along with the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture, to initiate a regulatory process that responds to the Supreme Court's decision. 6 The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is available online at http: / /www.ipcc.ch /. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions In December 2007, the President signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which sets a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022 and sets a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The act also contains provisions for energy efficiency in lighting and appliances and for the implementation of green building technologies in federal buildings. On July 11, 2008, the US EPA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( ANPRM) on regulating GHGs under the CAA. The ANPRM reviews the various CAA provisions that may be applicable to the regulation of GHGs and presents potential regulatory approaches and technologies for reducing GHG emissions. On April 10, 2009, the US EPA published the Proposed Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule in the Federal Register (US EPA 2009). The rule was adopted on September 22, 2009 and covers approximately 10,000 facilities nationwide, accounting for 85 percent of US GHG emissions. On September 15, 2009, the US EPA and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA) issued a joint proposal to establish a national program consisting of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light -duty vehicles that will reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. The proposed standards would be phased in and would require passenger cars and light -duty trucks to comply with a declining emissions standard. In 2012, passenger cars and light -duty trucks would have to meet an average standard of 295 grams of CO2 per mile and 30.1 miles per gallon. By 2016, the vehicles would have to meet an average standard of 250 grams of CO2 per mile and 35.5 miles per gallon.? These standards were formally adopted by the US EPA and DOT on April 1, 2010. On December 7, 2009, the US EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: • Endangerment Finding: The Administrator finds that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well -mixed GHGs (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator finds that the combined emissions of these well - mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. While these findings do not impose additional requirements on industry or other entities, this action was a prerequisite to finalizing the US EPA's proposed GHG emissions standards for light -duty vehicles, which were jointly proposed by the US EPA and DOT. On April 1, 2010, the US EPA and NHTSA issued 7 The CO2 emission standards and fuel economy standards stated are based on US EPA formulas. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft FIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions final rules requiring that by the 2016 model -year, manufacturers must achieve a combined average vehicle emission level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile, which is equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon as measured by US EPA standards. These agencies are currently in the process of developing similar regulations for the 2017 to 2025 model years. 4.4.3.3 State Title 24 Building Standards Code The California Energy Commission first adopted Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce energy consumption in the state. Although not originally intended to reduce GHG emissions; increased energy efficiency, and reduced consumption of electricity, natural gas, and other fuels would result in fewer GHG emissions from residential and nonresidential buildings subject to the standard. The standards are updated periodically to allow for the consideration and inclusion of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest revisions were adopted in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2010. Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code is referred to as the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code). The purpose of the CALGreen Code is to "improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings through the use of building concepts having a positive environmental impact and encouraging sustainable construction practices" (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC] 2009). The CBSC has released a 2010 Draft California Green Building Standards Code on its website (California Building Standards Commission 2010). The update to Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code became effective on January 1, 2011. Unless otherwise noted in the regulation, all newly constructed buildings in California are subject to the requirements of the CALGreen Code. Assembly Bill 1493 In response to the transportation sector's contribution of more than half of California's CO2 emissions, Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493, Pavley) was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires CARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles, light -duty trucks, and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation. CARB adopted the standards in September 2004. The new standards will be phased in during the 2009 -2016 model years. When fully phased in, the near term (2009 -2012) standards will result in a reduction of about 22 percent in GHG emissions compared to the emissions from the 2002 fleet, while the midterm (2013 -2016) standards will result in a reduction of about 30 percent. The Pavley standards also require additional reductions in CO2 emissions beyond 2016 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft FIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (referred to as Phase II standards). While the Phase II standards have yet to be fully developed, CARB has made it clear that the state intends to pursue additional reductions from motor vehicles in the 2017 through 2020 timeframe under the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Executive Order S -3 -05 and the Climate Action Team In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S -3 -05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The Secretary of Cal /EPA is required to coordinate efforts of various agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. Representatives from various state agencies comprise the Climate Action Team. The Cal /EPA secretary is required to submit a biannual progress report from the Climate Action Team to the governor and state legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastline, and forests, and reporting possible mitigation and adaptation plans to combat these impacts. The Climate Action Team also recommends future emission reduction strategies, such as using only low -GWP refrigerants in new vehicles, developing ethanol as an alternative fuel, reforestation, solar power initiatives for homes and businesses, and investor -owned utility energy efficiency programs. Assembly Bill 32 In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S -3 -05, the legislature enacted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32, Nunez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. AB 32 represents the first enforceable statewide program to limit GHG emissions from all major industries with penalties for noncompliance. AB 32 requires the State to undertake several actions — the major requirements are discussed below: Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions CARB Early- Action Measures CARB is responsible for carrying out and developing the programs and requirements necessary to achieve the goal of AB 32 —the reduction of California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The first action under AB 32 resulted in CARB's adoption of a report listing three specific early- action greenhouse gas emission reduction measures on June 21, 2007. On October 25, 2007, CARB approved six additional early- action GHG reduction measures under AB 32. CARB has adopted regulations for all early- action measures. The early- action measures are divided into three categories: • Group 1 — GHG rules for immediate adoption and implementation • Group 2 — Several additional GHG measures under development • Group 3 — Air pollution controls with potential climate co- benefits The original three adopted early- action regulations meeting the narrow legal definition of "discrete early - action GHG reduction measures" include: • A low- carbon fuel standard to reduce the "carbon intensity" of California fuels; • Reduction of refrigerant losses from motor vehicle air conditioning system maintenance to restrict the sale of "do -it- yourself" automotive refrigerants; and • Increased methane capture from landfills to require broader use of state -of- the -art methane capture technologies. The six additional early- action regulations adopted on October 25, 2007, also meeting the narrow legal definition of "discrete early- action GHG reduction measures," include: • Reduction of aerodynamic drag, and thereby fuel consumption, from existing trucks and trailers through retrofit technology; • Reduction of auxiliary engine emissions of docked ships by requiring port electrification; • Reduction of perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry; • Reduction of propellants in consumer products (e.g., aerosols, tire inflators, and dust removal products); • The requirement that all tune -up, smog check and oil change mechanics ensure proper tire inflation as part of overall service in order to maintain fuel efficiency; and • Restriction on the use of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from non - electricity sectors if viable alternatives are available. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions State of California Greenhouse Gas Inventory and 2020 Limit As required under AB 32, on December 6, 2007, CARB approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions inventory, thereby establishing the emissions limit for 2020. The 2020 emissions limit was set at 427 MMTCO2e. CARB also projected the state's 2020 GHG emissions under "business as usual" (BAU) conditions —that is, emissions that would occur without any plans, policies, or regulations to reduce GHG emissions. CARB used an average of the state's GHG emissions from 2002 through 2004 and projected the 2020 levels based on population and economic forecasts. The projected net emissions totaled approximately 596 MMTCO2e. Therefore, the state must reduce its 2020 BAU emissions by approximately 29 percent in order to meet the 1990 target. The inventory revealed that in 1990, transportation, with 35 percent of the state's total emissions, was the largest single sector, followed by industrial emissions, 24 percent; imported electricity, 14 percent; in -state electricity generation, 11 percent; residential use, 7 percent; agriculture, 5 percent; and commercial uses, 3 percent (these figures represent the 1990 values, compared to Table 4.10 -2, which presents 2006 values). AB 32 does not require individual sectors to meet their individual 1990 GHG emissions inventory; the total statewide emissions are required to meet the 1990 threshold by 2020. AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan As indicated above, AB 32 requires CARB to adopt a scoping plan indicating how reductions in significant GHG sources will be achieved through regulations, market mechanisms, and other actions. After receiving public input on their discussion draft of the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan released in June 2008, CARB released the Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan in October 2008 that contains an outline of the proposed state strategies to achieve the 2020 greenhouse gas emission limits. The CARB Governing Board approved the Climate Change Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. Key elements of the Scoping Plan include the following recommendations: • Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; • Achieving a statewide renewable 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; • Establishing targets for transportation- related greenhouse gas 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; and Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • 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 the state's long -term commitment to AB 32 implementation. Under the Scoping Plan, approximately 85 percent of the state's emissions are subject to a cap- and -trade program where covered sectors are placed under a declining emissions cap. The emissions cap incorporates a margin of safety whereas the 2020 emissions limit will still be achieved even in the event that uncapped sectors do not fully meet their anticipated emission reductions. Emissions reductions will be achieved through regulatory requirements and the option to reduce emissions further or purchase allowances to cover compliance obligations. It is expected that emission reduction from this cap- and -trade program will account for a large portion of the reductions required by AB 32. Executive Order S -1 -07 (Low Carbon Fuel Standard) On January 18, 2007, California further solidified its dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels sold within the state. Executive Order S -1 -07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2- equivalent gram per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The target of the LCFS is to reduce the carbon intensity of California passenger vehicle fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020. The LCFS will apply to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and will use market -based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the "fuel cycle" using the most economically feasible methods. The executive order requires the Secretary of Cal /EPA to coordinate with the CEC, CARB, the University of California, and other agencies to develop a protocol to measure the "life -cycle carbon intensity" of transportation fuels. CARB released a draft version of the LCFS in October 2008 and adopted the final regulation on April 23, 2009. Senate Bill 97 (State CEQA Guidelines) In August 2007, the legislature enacted SB 97 (Dutton), which directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines under CEQA for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. A number of actions have taken place under SB 97, which are discussed below. OPR Climate Change Technical Advisory On June 19, 2008, OPR issued a technical advisory as interim guidance regarding the analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents (OPR 2008). The advisory indicated that a project's GHG emissions, including those associated with vehicular traffic, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated. The advisory further recommended that the lead agency determine significance of the impacts and impose all mitigation measures that are necessary to reduce GHG emissions to a less than significant Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions level. The advisory did not recommend a specific threshold of significance. Instead, OPR requested that CARB recommend a method for setting thresholds that lead agencies may adopt (OPR 2009). CEQA Guideline Amendments In its work to formulate CEQA Guideline Amendments for GHG emissions, OPR submitted the Proposed Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions to the Secretary for Natural Resources on April 13, 2009. The Natural Resources Agency conducted formal rulemaking procedures in 2009 and adopted the CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30, 2009. They became effective in March 2010. Senate Bill 375 The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) on September 1, 2008, and SB 375 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger and chaptered into law on September 30, 2008. SB 375 requires CARB, working in consultation with the metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), to set regional greenhouse gas reduction targets for the automobile and light truck sector for 2020 and 2035. CARB must provide each MPO with its reduction target by September 30, 2010. The target must then be incorporated within that region's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which is used for long -term transportation planning, in a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS). Certain transportation planning and programming activities would then need to be consistent with the SCS; however, SB 375 expressly provides that the SCS does not regulate the use of land, and further provides that local land use plans and policies (e.g., general plan) are not required to be consistent with either the RTP or SCS. In accordance with SB 375, on January 23, 2009, CARB appointed a Regional Targets Advisory Committee (RTAC) to provide recommendations and methodologies to be used in the target setting process. The RTAC provided its recommendations in a report to CARB on September 29, 2009. On August 9, 2010, CARB staff issued the Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375 (CARB 2010f). CARB staff proposed draft reduction targets for the four largest MPOs (Bay Area, Sacramento, Southern California, and San Diego) of 7 to 8 percent for 2020 and reduction targets between 13 to 16 percent for 2035. For the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which is the MPO for the region in which the proposed project is located, CARB established a draft target of 8 percent for 2020 and 13 percent for 2035, subject to SCAG Board approval. CARB staff proposed a draft reduction target for the combined San Joaquin Valley MPOs of 5 percent for 2020 and 10 percent for 2035, acknowledging that the growth rate in the San Joaquin Valley is projected to be double that of most other areas of California. The remaining six MPOs represent about 5 percent of both the state's greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled from passenger vehicles. For these MPOs, CARB staff is proposing to use the most current greenhouse gas per capita projections from each Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -14 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions MPO, adjusted for the impacts of the recession, as the basis for individual MPO targets for this first target- setting cycle. This approach allows the focus of this first target- setting cycle to appropriately remain on the largest and fastest growing regions of the state. Of note, the proposed reduction targets explicitly exclude emission reductions expected from the AB 1493 and low carbon fuel standard regulations. CARB adopt the final targets (the same targets as the proposed draft targets) on September 23, 2010. CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change White Paper The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) prepared a white paper on CEQA and Climate Change in January 2008. The white paper contains a disclaimer that states the paper is intended to be used as a resource by lead agencies when considering policy options and not as a guidance document. The disclaimer also states that it "is not intended, and should not be interpreted, to dictate the manner in which an air district or lead agency chooses to address GHG emissions in the context of its review of projects under CEQA" (CAPCOA 2008). Specifically, the white paper discusses three possible approaches to evaluating the significance of GHG emissions and possible mitigation measures; however, CAPCOA does not endorse any particular approach. The three alternative significance approaches are (1) not establishing a significance threshold for GHG emissions, (2) setting the GHG emission threshold at zero, and (3) setting the GHG emission threshold at some non -zero level. The white paper evaluates potential considerations and pitfalls associated with the three approaches. At the end of the white paper, CAPCOA provides a list of potential mitigation measures and discusses each in terms of emissions reduction effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and technical and logistical feasibility. CARB Proposal for Significance Thresholds for GHGs under CEQA On October 24, 2008, CARB staff released a draft and preliminary proposal for determining whether the emissions related to proposed new projects are significant impacts under CEQA. While the proposal is focused on helping lead agencies determine under which conditions a project may be found exempt from the preparation of an EIR, the proposal also provides a guide for establishing significance thresholds for projects for which EIRs would be prepared regardless of the project's climate change impact. According to this proposal, the threshold for determining whether a project's emissions are significant is not zero emissions, but must be a stringent performance -based threshold to meet the requirements of AB 32. If the project meets certain specific yet to be developed performance standards for several categories of emissions, including construction emissions, building energy use, water use, solid waste, and transportation, and the project emits no more than a certain to be determined amount of metric tons of carbon equivalents per year, the project's impact would not be significant. According to CARB, California Energy Commission Tier II building energy use standards are proposed to be used, which generally Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -15 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions require a reduction in energy usage of 30 percent beyond Title 24 building code requirements. CARB has also proposed a 7,000 metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) threshold for industrial projects, but has not yet proposed thresholds for residential and commercial projects. The annual threshold does not explicitly include emissions associated with construction- and transportation - related activities. The draft proposal was very controversial and CARB Staff no longer has any plans to move forward with any final threshold. A key preliminary conclusion from the draft threshold, however, was that CARB staff, in setting a numerical threshold for industrial projects and suggesting performance standards, does not believe in 'zero threshold' mandated by CEQA. 4.10.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.10.4.1 Significance Criteria The impacts related to GHG emissions resulting from the construction and operation of the UCR EH &S building would be considered significant if they would exceed the following Standards of Significance, in accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines: • Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b), "the determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data." CEQA grants agencies with the general authority to adopt criteria for determining whether a given impact is "significant. " When no guidance exists under CEQA, the agency may look to and assess general compliance with comparable regulatory schemes. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has published significance thresholds in the BAAQMD Air Quality CEQA Guidelines in order to identify projects that would have an individually and 8 See Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21082. 9 See Protect Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal. App. 4th 1099, 1107 ["'[A] lead agency's use of existing environmental standards in determining the significance of a project's environmental impacts is an effective means of promoting consistency in significance determinations and integrating CEQA environmental review activities with other environmental program planning and resolution. " "']. Lead agencies can, and often do, use regulatory agencies' performance standards. A project's compliance with these standards usually is presumed to provide an adequate level of protection for environmental resources. See, e.g., Cadiz Land Co. v. Rail Cycle (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 74, 106 -09 (upholding use of regulatory agency performance standard). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions cumulatively significant impact on local air quality and global climate (BAAQMD 2011). Proposed projects that do not exceed the thresholds would not be considered as having a significant impact on the attainment of AB 32 goals. Significance thresholds established by the BAAQMD for evaluating the significance of a development project's GHG emissions are as follows: • 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MT CO2e /yr); or • 4.6 MT CO2e /service population (SP) /yr; or • Compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy. The BAAQMD CEQA guidelines recommend only quantifying and reporting GHG emissions from construction activities, and do not provide significance thresholds. Operational emissions may be compared to the absolute threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e /yr or an efficiency standard of 4.6 MTCO2e /SP /yr, where SP refers to service persons (residents plus employees) associated with the proposed project. The third option, which is compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, was disregarded as not applicable to this project as there is currently no qualified strategy applicable to the proposed project. 4.10.4.2 Methodology OPR in its Technical Advisory has recommended that GHG emissions from project - related traffic, energy consumption, water usage, and construction activities, should be identified and estimated, to the extent that data is available to calculate such emissions. In addition, CARB staff has considered extensively the value of indirect emissions in a mandatory reporting program. CARB believes that indirect energy usage provides a more complete picture of the emissions footprint of a facility. According to CARB, "As facilities consider changes that would affect their emissions — addition of a cogeneration unit to boost overall efficiency even as it increases direct emissions, for example — the relative impact on total (direct plus indirect) emissions by the facility should be monitored. Annually reported indirect energy usage also aids the conservation awareness of the facility" For these reasons, CARB has proposed requiring the calculation of direct and indirect GHG emissions as part of the AB 32 reporting requirements, and this analysis does so (CARB 2007). 10 The significance thresholds under BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines were challenged by the CA Building Industry Association. The Alameda County Superior Court recently ruled that BAAQMD must set aside the approval of the Guidelines and not approve any new Guidelines until the District complies with CEQA. The Court did not rule on or question the adequacy of the evidentiary basis supporting the significance thresholds that are contained in the 2010 CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD- recommended impact assessment methodologies. Therefore, a lead agency has the discretion to use the significance thresholds and methodology for analyzing air quality impacts under CEQA based on the evidence and technical studies supporting the Guidelines. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) has stated that the information needed to characterize GHG emissions from manufacture, transport, and end -of -life of construction materials (often referred to as lifecycle emissions) would be speculative at the CEQA analysis level (CAPCOA 2008). Since accurate and reliable data does not exist for estimating lifecycle emissions for the proposed project, this analysis does not assess such lifecycle GHG emissions. The construction emissions associated with the proposed project were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions estimator model. Operational emissions were estimated using the BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM), an add -on module to URBEMIS2007 developed by the BAAQMD. The assumptions and methodology used for GHG estimates using URBEMIS2007 and BGM are identical to those described in Section 4.2 Air Quality. 4.10.4.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed project consists of the construction and operation of two new research and development office buildings, totaling approximately 326,020 square feet (sf) of space, and a parking garage on the undeveloped lot at 494 Forbes Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. Construction is estimated to require approximately 2.5 years, starting in 2012 and finishing in 2014, for occupancy in 2015. Impact 4.10 -1: Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate GHG emissions both directly and indirectly. However the emissions would not have a significant impact on the environment. (Less than Significant) Construction and operation of the proposed project result in the generation of GHG emissions, both directly and indirectly. These emissions are discussed separately below. Construction Emissions During construction, the proposed project would directly generate GHGs from the exhaust of construction equipment and construction workers' vehicles. The manufacture of construction materials used by the project would indirectly contribute to climate change (upstream emission source). These upstream GHG emissions for this project, which may also include perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, were not estimated in this impact analysis because they are not within the control of the applicant and the lack of data precludes their quantification without speculation. The primary GHG emissions during construction are CO2, CH4, and N2O. These emissions are the result of fuel combustion by construction equipment and motor vehicles. The other GHGs defined by state law (hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride) are typically associated with specific Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions industrial sources and processes and would not be emitted during construction of the proposed project. The URBEMIS2007 model was used to estimate the construction - related CO2 emissions using the same assumptions described in Section 4.2, Air Quality, for the construction portion of the air quality analysis. CARB has adopted measures for reducing construction - related GHG emissions in its Climate Change Scoping Plan for AB 32. For example, when in effect, SPM -5, Low Carbon Fuel Standard is expected to result in a 7.2 percent reduction in transportation GHG emissions; SPM -7, Vehicle Efficiency Measures for passenger vehicles is expected to reduce transportation GHG emissions by 2.8 percent; and SPM -10, Heavy /Medium -Duty Vehicles is expected to result in a 2.9 percent reduction in transportation GHG emissions from vehicle hybridization and energy efficiency standards adopted for medium - and heavy - duty vehicles. Since the implementation schedule for these measures has not yet been determined, reductions from these measures were not applied and so emissions estimates should be seen as conservative. As mentioned, the BAAQMD has not adopted significance thresholds for GHG emissions due to construction activities. Instead, the BAAQMD recommends quantifying and reporting construction emissions. The estimated construction - related GHG emissions are provided in Table 4.10 -3, Estimated Construction GHG Emissions. Table 4.10 -3 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions 2012 336.8 2013 579.2 2014 447.5 Total GHG Emissions 1,363.5 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., (2011). Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.10. Note: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding. Operational Emissions The proposed project would be operational in 2015. The project's operational emissions, primarily CO2, CH4, and N2O, would be the result of fuel combustion in building heating systems and motor vehicles. Building and motor vehicle air conditioning systems may use HFCs (and HCFCs and CFCs to the extent that they have not been completely phased out at later dates); however, these emissions are not quantified since they would only occur through accidental leaks. It is not possible to estimate the frequency of accidental leaks without some level of speculation. It should be noted that CARB has drafted Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions a proposed "Regulation for Management of High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants" that would reduce emissions of these refrigerants from stationary refrigeration and air - conditioning systems by requiring persons subject to the rule to reclaim, recover, or recycle refrigerant and to properly repair or replace faulty refrigeration and air conditioning equipment (CARB 2009). Direct Emissions Direct emissions of CO2 emitted from operation of the proposed project are primarily due to natural gas consumption and mobile source emissions. Area and mobile source emissions were calculated using URBEMIS2007 and the BGM using default assumptions for office building land use types. BGM automatically adjusts mobile source emissions according to the implementation schedule for both the Light -Duty Vehicle GHG (Pavley) Standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Indirect Emissions The proposed project would also result in indirect GHG emissions due to the electricity demand. The emission factors for GHG due to electrical demand are taken from the California Climate Action Registry's General Reporting Protocol, Version 3.1 (CCAR 2009). The cited factors are based on data collected by the California Climate Action Registry. The emission factors take into account the current mix of energy sources used to generate electricity and the relative carbon intensities of these sources, and includes natural gas, coal, nuclear, large hydroelectric, and other renewable sources of energy. Electricity consumption was based on default data found in BGM. In addition to electrical demand, the project would also result in indirect GHG emissions due to water consumption, wastewater treatment, and solid waste generation. GHG emissions from water consumption are due to the electricity needed to convey, treat, and distribute water. The default BGM assumptions were used for GHG emissions from water consumption, wastewater production, and solid waste generation. Summary of Operational Emissions A summary of the operational emissions at full occupancy of the buildings is provided below in Table 4.10 -4, Estimated Operational GHG Emissions. Detailed emission calculations are provided in Appendix 4.10. The emissions represent buildout under "business as usual" conditions — that is GHG emissions that would occur as a result of development of the proposed project without reductions from any proposed policies, strategies, and mitigation measures. According to the BAAQMD guidelines, land development projects that result in GHG emissions below 4.6 MTCO2e per year per service population would be considered to result in a less than significant Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft FIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions impact related to GHGs. While the service population of the proposed project is unknown, the default assumption for occupancy rates used by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air - conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) as well as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is five persons per 1,000 square feet of space in an office building (ASHRAE 2004). Given 326,020 square feet of total building space in the proposed project, the expected service population would be 1,630 persons. Based on this service population, as shown in Table 4.10 -4, the project would result in 3.4 metric tons CO2e /year of emissions which is less than the BAAQMD threshold. Therefore, the project's impact would be considered less than significant. Table 4.10 -4 Estimated Operational GHG Emissions Electricity 1,818 Natural Gas 403 Water & Wastewater 44 Solid Waste 1,073 Operational GHG Emissions 5,530 Emissions per Service Population 3.4 BAAQMD Threshold per Service Population 4.6 Exceeds Threshold? NO Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.10. Mitigation Measures: No mitigation is required. Impact 4.10 -2: The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. (Less than Significant) The project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions if the project was in conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation concerning GHG reductions. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which is the governing authority for air quality planning in the region. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are intended to meet the requirements of AB 32, which are the Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -21 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Transportation (Mobile Sources) 2,193 Area Sources 0.23 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions basis for controlling and reducing GHG emissions in California. The BAAQMD GHG significance thresholds are calculated such that projects with emissions below the threshold would not impair attainment of AB 32 requirements within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. As the GHG emissions associated with the proposed project would be well below the BAAQMD thresholds, the proposed project would not conflict with the BAAQMD plan for reducing GHG emissions in the nine - county Bay Area. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: No mitigation is required. 4.10.4.4 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures As the impact from a project's GHG emissions is essentially a cumulative impact, the analysis presented in the section provides an adequate analysis of the proposed project's cumulative impact related to GHG emissions. No further analysis is required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.10 -22 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 AIR QUALITY 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the 2nd Recirculated Draft EIR describes the emissions of air pollutants expected during the construction and occupancy phases of the proposed project. Air pollutants are primarily generated by two types of sources: stationary and mobile. Stationary sources include "point sources," which have one or more emission sources at a single facility, and "area sources," which are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Point sources are usually associated with manufacturing and industrial uses but can include emergency generators in commercial /R &D buildings; area sources include lawn maintenance equipment, and consumer products such as cleaning agents. Mobile sources are non - stationary sources such as motor vehicles. This section was prepared in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines, updated May 2011. 4.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4.2.2.1 Regional Climate and Topography The project area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (the Basin). The topography and climate of the Basin combine to make it an area in which poor air quality could occur. The climate of the Bay Area is Mediterranean in character, with mild, rainy winter weather from November through March and warm, dry weather from June through October. In summer, the Pacific high - pressure system typically remains near the coast of California; subsidence of warm air over the cooler marine air associated with the Pacific high creates frequent summer atmospheric temperature inversions. Subsidence inversions may be several hundred to several thousand feet deep, effectively trapping pollutants in a stagnant volume of air near the ground with little dispersion ability. In winter, the Pacific high - pressure system moves southward, allowing ocean - formed storms to move through the region. The frequent storms and infrequent periods of sustained sunny weather are not conducive to ozone formation. Radiational cooling during the evening, however, sometimes creates thin inversions and concentrates air pollutant emissions near the ground. The City of South San Francisco (City) is located on the Peninsula, an area that extends from northwest San Jose to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. The Santa Cruz Mountains, as part of the Pacific Coast Ranges, extend north from the center of the Peninsula adjacent to the City. The Santa Cruz Mountains create a rain shadow on the western side as moist marine air travels over peaks that range in elevation from 500 to 2,000 feet. The San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains, lies to the Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality north of the City and extends from the ocean on the west to the San Francisco International Airport to the east. The City is bounded by the City of Brisbane to the north and the City of San Bruno to the south, and is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and the Union Pacific Railroad. The Santa Cruz Mountains greatly influence the Peninsula's climate. Since the average elevation of South San Francisco is below 200 feet, the marine layer flows across the city, making its climate cool and windy. The blocking effect of the Santa Cruz Mountains can be seen in the summertime maximum temperatures. In this part of the Peninsula, the mean maximum temperatures are low 80s degrees Fahrenheit (F) during the summer and low 60s during the winter. Mean minimum temperatures range from high 50s in the summer to the low 40s in the winter (BAAQMD 2011). Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the Peninsula. Since the San Bruno Gap is oriented in the same northwest to southeast direction as the prevailing winds, it commonly allows the marine layer to pass across the Peninsula. Prevailing winds in South San Francisco are westerly. Also, because the elevations along the gap are less than 200 feet, marine air is easily able to penetrate into the bay. Rainfall amounts on the east side of the Peninsula are somewhat lower than on the west side with San Francisco and Redwood City reporting an average of 19.5 inches per year. On the west side, Half Moon Bay reports 25 inches per year. 4.2.2.2 Regional Air Quality To monitor ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants, the BAAQMD operates 31 air quality monitoring stations throughout the Air Basin. The nearest monitoring station to the project site is located at 10 Arkansas Street Station in San Francisco, at which carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (Os), particulate matter of 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller (PMio), and particulate matter of 2.5 micrometers in diameter or smaller (PM2.5), among other air pollutants, are monitored. Table 4.2 -1, Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site, lists the concentrations registered and the exceedances of California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) that have occurred at this monitoring station from 2008 through 2010. During this period, the station registered one day above the 24 -hour federal standard for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). No other exceedances of the state or federal standards were registered at this station between 2008 and 2010. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2 -1 Ambient Pollutant Concentrations Measured Nearest the Project Site NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.062 Year 0.093 Pollutant Standards 1 2008 2009 2010 OZONE (Oa) 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.082 0.072 0.079 Maximum 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.057 0.051 Number of days exceeding state 1 -hour standard 0.09 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding state 8 -hour standard 0.070 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding federal 8 -hour standard 0.075 ppm 0 0 0 NITROGEN DIOXIDE (NO2) Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 0.062 0.059 0.093 Annual average concentration (ppm) 0.016 0.015 0.013 Number of days exceeding state 1 -hour standard 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)2 Maximum 1 -hour concentration (ppm) 5.7 4.3 N/A Maximum 8 -hour concentration (ppm) 2.29 2.86 1.37 Number of days exceeding state 8 -hour standard 9.0 ppm 0 0 0 Number of days exceeding federal 8 -hour standard 9 ppm 0 0 0 SULFUR DIOXIDE (S02) Maximum 1 -hour concentration in ppm 0.021 N/A N/A Maximum 24 -hour concentration in ppm 0.004 N/A N/A Number of days exceeding state 1 -hour standard 0.25 ppm 0 N/A N/A Number of days exceeding state 24 -hour standard 0.04 ppm 0 N/A N/A PARTICULATE MATTER (PM1o) Maximum 24 -hour concentration, state (pg /m 3 ) 4 41.3 36.0 39.7 Maximum 24 -hour concentration, federal (pg /m 3 ) 5 41.2 35.3 38.6 Annual arithmetic mean concentration (pg /m 3 ) 4 21.9 18.6 19.3 Number of samples exceeding state 24 -hour standard 50 pg /m 0 0 0 Number of samples exceeding federal 24 -hour standard 150 pg /m 0 0 0 PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5) Maximum 24 -hour concentration (pg /m 3 ) 5 29.4 35.5 N/A Annual arithmetic mean concentration (pg /m 3 ) 6 9.8 9.7 N/A Number of samples exceeding federal 24 -hour standard 35 pg /m 0 1 N/A N/A = not available. Source: California Air Resources Board, "iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics," http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /adam /wcicomc.html. 2010. 1 Parts by volume per million of air (ppm), micrograms per cubic meter of air (pg /m or annual arithmetic mean (aam). 2 Carbon monoxide 1 -hour monitoring data was obtained from the BAAQMD's Bay Area Air Pollution Summary from 2008 through 2009 (http: / /www.baagmd.gov /Divisions /Communications - and - Outreach/ Air - Quality -in- the - Bay- Area /Air - Quality- Summaries.aspx). 3 Sulfur dioxide 1 -hour monitoring data was obtained from the U.S. EPA's AirData website (http: / /www.epa.gov /air /data /geosel.html). 4 Using state methods for sampling. 5 Using federal methods for sampling. z PMzs annual arithmetic mean data was obtained from the BAAQMD's Bay Area Air Pollution Summary from 2008 through 2009 (http: / /www.baagmd.gov /Divisions /Communications - and - Outreach/ Air - Quality -in- the - Bay- Area /Air - Quality- Summaries.aspx). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality 4.2.2.3 Local Air Quality South San Francisco South San Francisco is largely composed of single -use areas, with industry, office /research, and development /commercial /industrial in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single - family homes in the north and western portions of the city, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multi - family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. The project site is surrounded by land zoned for planned industrial and research and development uses, and by the Genentech campus. Major roadways traversing South San Francisco in the vicinity of the project site include U.S. 101, I -280, I -380, and El Camino Real, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality, due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, which allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. Although South San Francisco's pollutant emissions are high, winds are generally fast enough to carry the pollutants away before they can accumulate (BAAQMD 2011). The San Francisco International Airport lies within 2 miles of the project vicinity and is a source of air pollutants. The point and area sources associated with the airport include a sludge gas burner, high temperature hot water generator, reverse airflow auto -track spray booth, and diesel field lighting generators. In addition, mobile sources include jets, mobile equipment, and motor vehicles associated with airport operations. This facility and other neighboring land uses generate substantial mobile source emissions. The BAAQMD maintains an inventory of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants in the Bay Area. This inventory can be searched using a Google Earth Stationary Source Screening Analysis tool. According to this tool, there are no major stationary emissions sources within the 1,000 -foot zone of influence for the project site (BAAQMD 2011). Sensitive Receptors Land uses such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because infants and children, the elderly, and people with health afflictions, especially respiratory ailments, are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air - quality - related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are also considered to be sensitive to air pollution Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of time, resulting in sustained exposure to any pollutants present. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive receptors would include children using the childcare center on the Genentech campus, which is located adjacent to the project site, at 444 Allerton Avenue. Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Traffic - congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. The BAAQMD monitoring stations have not recorded any exceedances of the state or federal CO standards since 1991. However, because elevated CO concentrations are generally localized, heavy traffic volumes and congestion at specific intersections or roadway segments can lead to high levels of CO, or hot spots, while concentrations at the nearest air quality monitoring station may be below state and federal standards. Site - Specific Emissions The project site currently consists of approximately 7.48 acres that, except for an existing paved parking lot, are undeveloped. No structures are currently located on the site, but the site does include mature trees along the perimeter of the site, many of which would be preserved with development of the proposed project. Since the site is vacant, there are no emission sources present on site. 4.2.2.4 Toxic Air Contaminants Federal Regulation of toxic air contaminants (TACs), termed Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under federal regulations, is achieved through federal and state controls on individual sources. Federal law defines HAPs as noncriteria air pollutants that have the potential to result in short -term (acute) and /or long -term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. The 1990 federal Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments offer a comprehensive plan for achieving significant reductions in both mobile and stationary source emissions of HAPs. Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, a total of 189 chemicals or chemical families were designated HAPs because of their adverse human health effects. Title III of the 1990 federal CAA Amendments amends Section 112 of the CAA to replace the former program with an entirely new technology -based program. Under Title III, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) must establish maximum achievable control technology emission standards for all new and existing "major" stationary sources. Major stationary sources of HAPs are required to obtain an operating permit from the BAAQMD pursuant to Title V of the 1990 CAA Amendments. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality State California law defines TACs as air pollutants having carcinogenic or other health effects. A total of 245 substances have been designated TACs under California law; they include the (federal) Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) adopted as TACs in accordance with AB 2728. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588) seeks to identify and evaluate risk from air toxics sources; AB 2588 does not regulate air toxics emissions directly. Under AB 2588, sources emitting more than 10 tons per year of any criteria air pollutant must estimate and report their toxic air emissions to the local air districts. Local air districts then prioritize facilities on the basis of emissions, and high priority facilities are required to submit a health risk assessment and communicate the results to the affected public. Depending on risk levels, emitting facilities are required to implement varying levels of risk reduction measures. The BAAQMD is responsible for implementing AB 2588 in the Air Basin. The BAAQMD is currently working to control TAC impacts from local hot spots and from ambient background concentrations. The control strategy involves reviewing new sources to ensure compliance with required emission controls and limits, maintaining an inventory of existing sources to identify major TAC emissions, and developing measures to reduce TAC emissions. The BAAQMD maintains a database of stationary sources of TACs as well as estimated health risks and PM2.5 concentrations associated with those sources. It also publishes similar information for local highways and major roadways. This information is available to the public through Google Earth map tools, which provide the location and associated health risks and PM2.5 concentrations for stationary sources and highways. One of the TACs controlled by the BAAQMD is particulate matter from diesel - fueled engines, also known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Compared to other TACs, DPM emissions are estimated to be responsible for about 70 percent of the total ambient air toxics risk. On a statewide basis, the average potential cancer risk associated with these emissions is over 500 potential cancer cases per million exposed people. In addition to these general risks, diesel exhaust particulate can also present elevated localized or near - source exposures. Depending on the activity and nearness to receptors, these potential risks can range from small to 1,500 cancer cases per million exposed people (CARB 2010a). 4.2.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Air quality within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly as well as individually to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policymaking, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies primarily responsible for improving the air quality within the Basin are discussed below along with their individual responsibilities. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality 4.2.3.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing the 1990 Amendments to the federal CAA and the federal ambient air quality standards that it establishes. The NAAQS identify levels of air quality for seven criteria pollutants that are considered the maximum levels of ambient (background) air pollutants considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. The seven criteria pollutants are Os, CO, NO2, S02, PMio, PM2.5, and lead. Particulate matter is the general term used for a mixture of solid particles and liquid droplets found in the air. For air quality purposes, these particles are classified by size: fine particulates (PM2.5) have a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers, and respirable or coarse particulates (PMio) have a diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers. The federal ambient air quality standards and the relevant health effects of the criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2 -2, Ambient Air Quality Standards. The Air Basin is currently classified by the U.S. EPA as a nonattainment area for the federal 8 -hour standard for Os (the 1 -hour standard was revoked as of June 15, 2005). The Air Basin was also designated as nonattainment for the federal 24 -hour PM2.5 standards. It has been designated as an attainment area or unclassified for all other federal standards (BAAQMD 2011). In response to its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) describing how the state will achieve the federal standards by specified dates, depending on the severity of the air quality within the state or air basin. Table 4.2 -2 Ambient Air Quality Standards Ozone 0.070 ppm, 8 -hr. avg. 0.075 ppm, 8 -hr avg. (a) Short -term exposures: (1) Pulmonary 0.09 ppm, 1 -hr avg. (3 -year average of function decrements and localized lung annual 4th- highest edema in humans and animals; and (2) Risk daily maximum) to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (b) Long -term exposures: Risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long -term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (b) Vegetation damage; and (c) Property damage Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm, 8 -hr avg. 9 ppm, 8 -hr avg. (a) Aggravation of angina pectoris and 20 ppm, 1 -hr avg. 35 ppm, 1 -hr avg. other aspects of coronary heart disease; (b) Decreased exercise tolerance in persons with peripheral vascular disease and lung disease; (c) Impairment of central nervous system functions; and (d) Possible increased risk to fetuses Nitrogen Dioxide 0.030 ppm, annual 0.053 ppm, annual (a) Potential to aggravate chronic respiratory arithmetic mean arithmetic mean disease and respiratory symptoms in 0.18 ppm, 1 -hr avg. sensitive groups; (b) Risk to public health implied by pulmonary and extra - pulmonary biochemical and cellular changes and Fine Particulate 12 pg /m annual 15 pg /m annual pulmonary structural changes; and Matter (PM2.5) arithmetic mean arithmetic mean (c) Contribution to atmospheric discoloration Sulfur Dioxide 0.04 ppm, 24 -hr avg. 0.030 ppm, annual (a) Bronchoconstriction accompanied by 0.25 ppm, 1 -hr avg. arithmetic mean symptoms which may include wheezing, (3 -year average of shortness of breath and chest tightness, 0.14 ppm, 24 -hr avg. Sulfates 25 pg /m 24 -hr avg. None during exercise or physical activity in person with asthma Respirable 20 pg /m annual 150 pg /m 24 -hr avg. (a) Excess deaths from short -term exposures Particulate Matter arithmetic mean and exacerbation of symptoms in sensitive (PMio) 50 pg /m 24 -hr avg. patients with respiratory disease; and (b) Excess seasonal declines in pulmonary function, especially in children Fine Particulate 12 pg /m annual 15 pg /m annual (a) Increased hospital admissions and Matter (PM2.5) arithmetic mean arithmetic mean emergency room visits for heart and lung (3 -year average) disease; (b) Increased respiratory symptoms 35 pg /m 24 -hr avg. and disease; and (c) Decrease lung functions (3 -year average of and premature death 98th percentile) Sulfates 25 pg /m 24 -hr avg. None (a) Decrease in ventilatory function; (b) Aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; (c) Aggravation of cardio - pulmonary disease; (d) Vegetation damage; (e) Degradation of visibility; and (f) Property damage Lead* 1.5 pg /m 30 -day 1.5 pg /m calendar (a) Increased body burden; and avg. quarterly average (b) Impairment of blood formation and nerve conduction Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Visibility- Reducing Particles In sufficient amount to produce extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer due to particles when relative humidity is less than 70 %, 8 -hour average (10 AM -6 PM) None Visibility impairment on days when relative humidity is less than 70 percent Hydrogen Sulfide 0.03 ppm, 1 -hr avg. Vinyl Chloride* 0.01 ppm, 24 -hr avg. None Odor annoyance None Known carcinogen Source: California Air Resources Board. "Ambient Air Quality Standards." [Online] September 8, 20101. http:ll www. arb. ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Final Program Environmental Impact Report to the 2003 Draft AQMP (Diamond Bar, California: South Coast Air Quality Management District, August 2003), Table 3.1 -1, p. 3.1 -2. Notes: pg /m = microgram per cubic meter. ppm = parts per million by volume. * The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as "toxic air contaminants" with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 4.2.3.2 California Air Resources Board The California Air Resources Board (CARB), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal /EPA), oversees air quality planning and control throughout California. It is primarily responsible for ensuring implementation of the 1989 California Clean Air Act (CCAA), for responding to the federal CAA requirements and for regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products within the state. CARB has established emission standards for vehicles sold in California and for various types of equipment available commercially. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. Like the U.S. EPA, CARB has established ambient air quality standards for the state (CAAQS). These standards apply to the same seven criteria pollutants as the federal CAA and also address sulfates (SO4), visibility- reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide (112S) and vinyl chloride (C21130). The CCAA standards are more stringent than the federal standards and, in the case of PMio and S02, far more stringent. The CCAA requires air pollution control districts to achieve the state standards by the earliest practicable date. The California ambient air quality standards and the relevant health effects of the criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2 -2. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Based on monitored pollutant levels, the CCAA divides ozone nonattainment areas into five categories— marginal, moderate, serious, severe, and extreme —to which progressively more stringent planning and emission control requirements apply. The Basin is a nonattainment area for the California 1 -hour and 8 -hour ozone standards. In regard to particulate matter, the Basin is designated as nonattainment for the California 24 -hour and annual PMio standards, as well as the California annual PM2.5 standard (BAAQMD 2011). The Basin is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for all other CAAQS. The ozone precursors, reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx), in addition to PMio, are the pollutants of concern for projects located in the Basin. 4.2.3.3 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Management of air quality in the Air Basin is the responsibility of the BAAQMD. The BAAQMD is responsible for bringing and /or maintaining air quality in the Air Basin within federal and state air quality standards. Specifically, the BAAQMD has responsibility for monitoring ambient air pollutant levels throughout the Air Basin and developing and implementing attainment strategies to ensure that future emissions will be within federal and state standards. The following plans have been developed by the BAAQMD to achieve attainment of the federal and state ozone standards. The Clean Air Plan (CAP) and Ozone Strategy fulfill the planning requirements of the CCAA, while the Ozone Attainment Plan fulfills the federal CAA requirements. Clean Air Plans The CCAA requires air districts within nonattainment areas to prepare a triennial assessments and revisions to their Clean Air Plans (CAPs). The BAAQMD has prepared a series of CAPs, the most recent and rigorous of which was drafted in March 2010 (BAAQMD 2010a). The 2010 CAP continues the air pollution reduction strategy established by the 1991 CAP and represents the fourth triennial update to the 1991 CAP, following previous updates of 1994, 1997, and 2000. The 2010 CAP is designed to address attainment of the state standard for ozone, particulate matter, TACs and greenhouse gases. CAPs are intended to focus on the near -term actions through amendments of existing regulations and enactment of new BAAQMD regulations. The Bay Area 2010 CAP provides a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The 2010 CAP defines a control strategy that the BAAQMD and its partners will implement to: (1) reduce emissions and decrease ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants; (2) safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that poses the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily impacted by air pollution; and (3) reduce greenhouse gas Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality emissions to protect the climate. The 2010 CAP is designed to update the most recent ozone plan, the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy, to comply with state air quality planning requirements as codified in the California Health and Safety Code. State law required the CAP to include all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors and to reduce transport of ozone precursors into neighboring air basins. The Air Basin was recently designated as non - attainment for the national 24 -hour PM2.5 standard, and will be required to prepare a PM2.5 State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to federal air quality guidelines by December 2012. The 2010 CAP is not a SIP document and does not respond to federal requirements for PM2.5 or ozone planning. However, in anticipation of future PM2.5 planning requirements, the CAP control strategy also aims to reduce PM2.5 emissions and concentrations. In addition, U.S. EPA is currently reevaluating national ozone standards, and is likely to tighten those standards in the near future. The 2010 CAP updates the BAAQMD's most recent state ozone plan, the 2005 Ozone Strategy, by addressing new emerging challenges and opportunities. The 2010 CAP control strategy includes revised, updated, and new measures in the three traditional control measure categories: Stationary Source Measures, Mobile Source Measures, and Transportation Control Measures. In addition, the CAP identifies two new categories of control measures: Land Use and Local Impact Measures, and Energy and Climate Measures (BAAQMD 2010a). The control measures in the CAP will also help in the Basins continuing effort to attain national ozone standards. 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan The BAAQMD developed the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan as a guideline to achieve the then federal 1 -hour ozone standard (BAAQMD 2001). The 2001 Attainment Plan was approved by CARB in 2001 and by the U.S. EPA in 2003. In April 2004, the U.S. EPA determined the Air Basin had attained the federal 1 -hour ozone standard. Due to the attainment status of the Air Basin, the 1 -hour ozone requirements set forth in the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan were no longer required. A year later, in 2005, the federal 1 -hour ozone standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA for a new and more health - protective 8 -hour standard. The Air Basin was designated as marginal nonattainment for the federal 8 -hour ozone standard. Although designated as nonattainment, areas designated as marginal nonattainment or less were not required to submit new attainment plans. Nonetheless, the control measures and strategies described in the 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1 -hour standard will also help achieve attainment with the 8 -hour standard. 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy The 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy, adopted in January 2006, is a comprehensive document that describes the Bay Area's strategy for compliance with state one -hour ozone standard planning requirements, and is Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality a significant component of the region's commitment to achieving clean air to protect the public's health and the environment. The Ozone Strategy reviews the region's progress over the years in reducing ozone levels, describes current conditions, and charts a course for future actions to further reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area. The control strategy is a central element of the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The control strategy outlines a set of control measures to further reduce ozone precursor emissions in order to reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area and to reduce transport of pollution to downwind regions. The control strategy includes stationary source measures, mobile source measures and transportation control measures. BAAQMD Rules and Regulations The BAAQMD is responsible for limiting the amount of emissions that can be generated throughout the Basin by stationary sources. Specific rules and regulations have been adopted that limit emissions that can be generated by various uses and /or activities and identify specific pollution reduction measures that must be implemented in association with various uses and activities. These rules regulate not only the emissions of the state and federal criteria pollutants, but also the emissions of toxic and acutely hazardous materials. The rules are also subject to ongoing refinement by the BAAQMD. Emissions sources subject to these rules are regulated through the BAAQMD's permitting process. Through this permitting process, the BAAQMD also monitors the amount of stationary emissions being generated and uses this information in developing the CAP. Stationary emission sources constructed as part of the project may be subject to the BAAQMD rules and regulations. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines In April 1996, the BAAQMD prepared its BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as a guidance document to provide lead government agencies, consultants and project proponents with uniform procedures for assessing air quality impacts and preparing the air quality sections of environmental documents for projects subject to CEQA. In June 2010, the BAAQMD adopted updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, which were further updated in May 2011. The updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend thresholds for 1 The significance thresholds under BAAQMD's 2010 CEQA Guidelines were challenged by the CA Building Industry Association. The Alameda County Superior Court recently ruled that BAAQMD must set aside the approval of the Guidelines and not approve any new Guidelines until the District complies with CEQA. The Court did not rule on or question the adequacy of the evidentiary basis supporting the significance thresholds that are contained in the 2010 CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD- recommended impact assessment methodologies. Therefore, a lead agency has the discretion to use the significance thresholds and methodology for analyzing air quality impacts under CEQA based on the evidence and technical studies supporting the Guidelines. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality use in determining whether projects proposed within the Air Basin would have significant adverse environmental impacts, identify methodologies for predicting project emissions and impacts, and identify measures that can be used to avoid or reduce air quality impacts. This EIR section was prepared following these recommendations. 4.2.3.4 Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a council of governments for the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sonoma, and Solano. ABAG is a regional planning agency and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. ABAG also serves as the regional clearinghouse for projects requiring environmental documentation under federal and state law. In this role, ABAG reviews proposed projects for their impacts on ABAG's regional planning efforts. Although ABAG is not an air quality management agency, it is responsible for several air quality planning issues. Specifically, as the designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the nine counties, it is responsible, pursuant to Section 176(c) of the 1990 Amendments to the federal CAA, for providing current population, employment, travel and congestion projections for regional air quality planning efforts. ABAG is required to quantify and document the demographic and employment factors influencing expected transportation demand, including land -use forecasts. ABAG is also responsible for preparing and approving the portions of the Air Basin's CAP relating to demographic projections and integrated regional land use, housing and employment, as well as transportation programs, measures, and strategies. 4.2.3.5 City of South San Francisco Local governments, such as the City of South San Francisco, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through their police power and land -use decision - making authority. Specifically, local governments are responsible for the mitigation of emissions resulting from land -use decisions and for the implementation of transportation control measures (TCMs) as outlined in the CAP. The CAP assigns local governments certain responsibilities to assist the Basin in meeting air quality goals and policies. Their responsibility is accomplished by identifying air quality goals, policies, and implementation measures in their general plans. Through capital improvement programs, local governments can require infrastructure that contributes to improved air quality, such as ridesharing, park -and -ride, bicycle facilities, and traffic signal and signal timing improvements. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, local governments assess air quality impacts, require mitigation of potential air Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits, and monitor and enforce implementation of such mitigation. City of South San Francisco General Plan The 1999 General Plan includes policies that address how the City will participate in programs to maintain and improve air quality. The following policies may be relevant to the proposed project: Policy 7.3 -G -1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and state ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. Policy 7.3 -G -2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. Policy 7.3 -G -3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. Policy 7.3 -I -1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon monoxide, ozone, and PMio, by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by state and federal statutes. Policy 7.3 -I -2 Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. Policy 7.3 -I -3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Policy 7.3 -I -4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean- burning fireplaces and wood stoves. Policy 7.3 -I -5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -14 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality 4.2.4 CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS As a matter of law, the development envisioned by the project is required to comply with all federal, state, and BAAQMD regulations pertaining to emissions of air pollutants. As described in Subsection 4.2.5, Impacts and Mitigation, the construction activities associated with implementing the project must comply with applicable rules and regulations, including those governing control of fugitive dust, application of asphalt paving materials, and application of architectural coatings. While few of these regulations would apply to operation of the project as most of these regulations apply to stationary sources of air pollutants, the developers and occupants would have to comply with the relevant air quality regulations. In addition, occupants of the project would have to comply with state regulations governing motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (smog check) programs. As appropriate, consistency with the air quality policies contained in the City of South San Francisco's General Plan, as outlined in Subsection 4.2.3.5, City of South San Francisco, must be achieved. Most of these policies apply to goals and actions to be taken by the City on a broader scale than for the project site. Accordingly, they are not directly applicable to the project because of its site - specific focus. Those measures dealing with specific development details that are not a part of the project will be considered by the City during its review of more detailed development plans. 4.2.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.2.5.1 Significance Criteria The Environmental Checklist adopted by the City of South San Francisco lists criteria to be considered when determining whether a project could have significant air quality impacts. In addition, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines contain similar air quality thresholds. The City's thresholds rely on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as well as the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The following discussion identifies the appropriate thresholds from these documents. In general, implementation of the proposed project would have significant air quality impacts if it would: • conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management 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 resulting in emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for Os precursors); • expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -15 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend analytical methodologies and provide evaluation criteria for determining the level of significance for project impacts under the above - listed general criteria. Significance thresholds for air quality impacts from the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines are presented below. Construction Emissions Impacts related to construction emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if the project's construction emissions exceeded the thresholds listed in Table 4.2 -3, BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Construction - related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions, below. Table 4.2 -3 BAAQMD Thresholds of Significance for Construction - related Criteria Pollutant and Precursor Emissions ROG NOx PM10 (Exhaust) PM2.5 (Exhaust) PM10 /PM2.5 Fugitive Dust 54 54 82 54 Best Management Practices Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. Operational Emissions Impacts from direct and /or indirect operational emissions associated with the proposed project would be considered significant if they exceeded the thresholds in Table 4.2 -4, BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2 -4 BAAQMD Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions ROG 54 NOx 54 PM10 82 PM2.5 54 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. Direct emissions are those that are emitted on a site and include stationary sources and on -site mobile equipment, if applicable. Examples of land uses and activities that generate direct emissions are industrial operations and sources subject to an operating permit by the BAAQMD. Indirect emissions come from mobile sources that access the project site, but generally are emitted off site. For many types of land development projects, the principal source of air pollutant emissions is the motor vehicle trips generated by the project. Local CO Concentrations The impact from a project's CO emissions would be considered significant if the emissions will contribute to a violation of the state standards for CO (9.0 ppm averaged over 8 hours and 20 ppm over 1 hour). The BAAQMD recommends CO modeling to determine if the concentrations will exceed the state standards for projects in which: (1) project vehicle emissions of CO would exceed 550 pounds per day; (2) project traffic would affect intersections or roadway segments operating at level of service (LOS) E or F, or would cause a decline to LOS E or F; or (3) project traffic would increase traffic volumes on nearby roadways by 10 percent or more (unless the increase in traffic volume is less than 100 vehicles per hour). Intersections are determined to operate at an LOS between A and F (LOS A being the best and LOS F being the worst) according to congestion or delay time, demand /capacity ratio, and relative flow of traffic at the intersection. Intersections that are determined to operate at LOS F or E have the potential to cause a CO hotspot (i.e., exceedance of the state standard). If necessary, a simplified CO modeling analysis, described in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, may be used to estimate localized CO concentrations. If modeling demonstrates that the source would not cause a violation of the state standard at existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors, the motor vehicle trips generated by the project would not have a significant impact on local air quality. 2 Levels of Service (LOS) range from A (least congested) with a condition of free flow with low volumes and high speeds to F (most congested) with stop and go, low -speed conditions with little or poor maneuverability. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts Project Level Impacts Local community risk and hazard impacts are associated with TACs and PM2.5 because emissions of these pollutants can result in significant health impacts at the local level. The proposed project would result in a significant impact if its emissions of TACs or PM2.5 (both construction and operational) resulted in any of the following: • Non - compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or, • An incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 10 in 1 million, or an increase in non - cancer risk (i.e., chronic or acute) as measured by a hazard index greater than 1.0; or • An incremental increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg /m annual average. Cumulative Impacts A project would have a significant cumulative impact if the aggregate total of TAC or PM2.5 emissions from all past, present, and foreseeable future sources within a 1,000 -foot radius from the fence line of a source, or from the location of a receptor, plus the contribution from the project's construction activities or its operations, resulted in any of the following: • Non - compliance with a qualified risk reduction plan; or, • An incremental increase in cancer risk of more than 100 in 1 million or an increase in chronic non - cancer risk (from all local sources) as measured by a hazard index greater than 10.0; or • An incremental increase in ambient PM2.5 of more than 0.8 pg /m annual average. 4.2.5.2 Project Impacts Impact 4.2 -1: Construction of the proposed project would generate emissions that would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. (Less than Significant) During the construction phase of project site development, criteria pollutant emissions would be generated by on -site stationary sources, heavy -duty construction equipment, construction worker vehicles, and heavy -duty trucks traveling to and from the site. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in 2012. Construction activities would include grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coating. Site - specific or project- specific Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality data was used in the URBEMIS2007 model where available. The construction schedule is staggered, with construction beginning on Building B in 2012 and continuing over 70 weeks, and construction of Building A beginning approximately a year after commencement of construction of Building B and also continuing for 70 weeks. Construction of the parking garage was assumed to take 6 months and occur during the last 6 months of the overall construction schedule. Demolition of existing structures and basic grading was accomplished in 2006, so no demolition was included in these estimates and grading was assumed to be minimal. The default construction equipment and vehicle mixes generated by URBEMIS2007 were assumed for grading and building construction. The number of vendor trips (e.g., transport of building materials) and worker trips were based on default values in the URBEMIS2007 model. For all proposed projects, BAAAQMD recommends the implementation of all Basic Construction Mitigation Measures (BAAQMD 2011), whether or not construction - related emissions exceed the construction thresholds of significance. However, these mitigation measures were not applied to the URBEMIS2007 model calculations in order to provide a conservative estimate. Table 4.2 -5, Estimated Construction Emissions, identifies the maximum daily emissions for each pollutant during each phase of project construction. Construction emissions include all emissions associated with the construction equipment, grading and trenching activities, worker trips, and on -road diesel trucks. Table 4.2 -5 Estimated Construction Emissions 2012 Maximum Daily Emissions 6.14 31.19 31.29 0.01 2.36 2.17 2013 Maximum Daily Emissions 42.16 45.04 52.07 0.03 3.15 2.90 2014 Maximum Daily Emissions 44.43 33.13 50.80 0.04 2.14 1.96 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed URBEMIS2007 emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. As shown in the above table, construction emissions would not exceed any BAAQMD thresholds of significance; therefore, construction of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on air quality. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality The BAAQMD enforces CARB's Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) which regulates emissions from construction and grading at sites that contain ultramafic rock. The proposed project would be required by law to comply with the ATCM should it be confirmed after testing that the site soils contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). If the ATCM applies to the project, the applicant will file the NOA notification form with the BAAQMD, and implement an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan, and air monitoring if determined necessary by the BAAQMD. Dust mitigation measures are also already included under Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1, below. All of these would minimize the generation and transport of dust to adjacent properties. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1: Construction Emissions No mitigation is required for criteria pollutant emissions resulting from construction of the proposed project. However, the BAAQMD does recommend implementing basic mitigation measures for fugitive dust control on all projects. These measures are listed in Table 8 -1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and reproduced below. The construction contractor shall apply these measures, where applicable. BAAQMD Recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times daily. • 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 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. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Impact 4.2 -2: Research and Development uses envisioned by the project would not generate substantial criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles associated with employee trips and area sources (e.g., natural gas combustion) that could violate an air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan. (Less than Significant) The proposed project would develop the site with two new research and development buildings, totaling 326,020 square feet. The project would provide parking for a total of 978 vehicles, including a four -level parking garage (all above ground) and a parking reserve. The garage would provide 848 parking spaces, while surface parking areas would provide parking for an additional 83 vehicles and a 47 -space parking reserve. Major landscape improvements would also be included. It is anticipated that occupancy of the site would occur by 2015. Operational emissions associated with the development and occupancy of the project site would result primarily from vehicular trips to and from the project site. Other sources of emissions associated with the project include space and water heating equipment, landscaping equipment (used in landscape maintenance), consumer products, architectural coatings (used periodically in building maintenance) and emergency generators. Mobile source and area source emissions associated with project operation were calculated using the land use and transportation computer model URBEMIS2007 (Version 9.2.4). URBEMIS2007 is distributed and approved for use by the CARB and recommended for quantification of operational emissions by the BAAQMD. It is anticipated that one or more emergency backup generators would be required for the R &D operations that are anticipated to occupy the proposed buildings. The number, specific size and type of generators that would be installed is not known at this time as it will depend on the specific needs of the tenants that would occupy the buildings. Therefore, emissions from the emergency generators were not estimated. However, emergency generators are required to operate under a permit from the BAAQMD. The standard conditions of this permit contain provisions limiting the total hours of operation allowed per year for testing as well as emissions standards and other restrictions. Non - standard conditions would be more restrictive. Due to these restrictions on operations and emissions, emergency generators are not substantial sources of criteria air pollutants and would not by themselves or combined with the remaining sources of emissions cause the proposed project to exceed significance thresholds. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -21 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Operational emissions that would result directly and indirectly from the proposed project are presented in Table 4.2 -6, 2015 Estimated Operational Emissions. Table 4.2 -6 2015 Estimated Operational Emissions Summertime Emissions' Mobile Sources 11.54 10.76 115.77 0.14 25.52 4.86 Area Sources 2.17 1.99 3.20 0.00 0.01 0.01 Summertime Emission Totals 13.71 12.75 118.97 0.14 25.53 4.87 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO Wintertime Emissionsz Mobile Sources 10.79 15.99 121.60 0.12 25.52 4.86 Area Sources 2.05 1.97 1.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wintertime Emission Totals 12.84 17.96 123.25 0.12 25.52 4.86 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54 Exceeds Threshold? NO NO NO NO Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., (2009). Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2 Totals in the table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations. 1 Summertime Emissions" are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31). 2 Wintertime Emissions" are representative of the conditions that may occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30). As shown in Table 4.2 -6, the project would not generate daily direct and indirect emissions of ROG, NOx or PMio that would exceed BAAQMD- recommended thresholds of significance, and therefore will not cause emissions that could violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan. The operational impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -22 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Impact 4.2 -3: The proposed project would increase carbon monoxide concentrations at busy intersections and along congested roadways in the project vicinity but would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollution concentrations. (Less than Significant) Motor vehicles are the primary source of pollutants in the project vicinity. Traffic - congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed state and /or federal standards are termed CO hotspots. There are no notable stationary sources generating CO emissions in the local area; thus, local area CO emissions would result almost entirely from vehicles traveling along local roadways. Additional analysis of a localized exceedance of state and federal standards of CO is required when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to high CO concentrations. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines define sensitive receptors as those facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, or people with illnesses. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors (BAAQMD 2011). The guidelines also provide screening criteria, which provide a conservative estimate of whether the proposed project would have a significant CO impact. Consequently, a project is presumed to have a less than significant impact if all of the following screening criteria for CO emissions are met: • The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management plan established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. • The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and /or horizontal mixing is limited. As detailed in Section 4.8, Transportation and Circulation, the project would comply with all applicable congestion plans, including the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management. Also as shown in Section 4.8, no intersections affected by the project would have hourly traffic volumes of more than 24,000 vehicles per hour. Therefore, the project meets the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines screening criteria for CO emissions and would therefore have a less than significant CO impact. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -23 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Impact 4.2 -4: The project operations may or may not expose nearby sensitive receptors to concentrations of toxic air contaminants in excess of acceptable levels. (Speculative) According to the BAAQMD methodology, an impact zone defined as 1,000 feet from the fence line of the proposed project should be used for assessing impacts from TACs. The BAAQMD also provides screening tools for assessing impacts from TACs, including a database of stationary sources of TACs and risks associated with major roadways within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD. According to the BAAQMD database for San Mateo County, the stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the proposed project have no health risks or contributions to PM2.5 concentrations. There are also no major roadways (defined as having 10,000 vehicles per day) or freeways within 1,000 feet of the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not expose new receptors on the project site to substantial TAC emissions. The proposed project would not result in more than 10,000 vehicle trips per day and would therefore not expose off -site sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions from project - related mobile sources. However, the proposed project would include emergency generators that would operate on diesel and a mix of uses depending on actual tenants in the building space, some of which may result in the emission of TACs. As described above, the project would include emergency backup generators that would operate on diesel and would therefore be a potential source of TAC emissions. These generators would be required to apply for a permit to operate from the BAAQMD. This application would involve the preparation of a health risk assessment based on the specific engines proposed to be installed at the project site as well as the sensitive receptors in the area, including the nearby childcare center. A permit to operate would not be issued by the BAAQMD if significant health risks are associated with the generators unless the operators of the generators agree to special conditions or abate emissions to the point where the health risk is less than significant. Even if the health risk assessment finds no significant risk, the permit would include standard conditions under which the generators would operate, including a cap on total allowable hours for testing and emissions standards. With respect to TAC emissions from R &D activities that would occupy the two buildings, the exact amount and specific type of TACs that may be emitted is not known as information regarding the future tenants of the buildings is not available at this time. As a result, an accurate and realistic health risk assessment cannot be performed at this time. However, use of TACs by building tenants would be subject to rules and regulations from various agencies, including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal /OSHA), the CA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others. Between them, these agencies limit the exposure of workers to Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -24 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality toxic substances and by extension also limit the exposure of nearby receptors to any TACs in use in the proposed project. Further, health risk assessments conducted for laboratory projects have found that laboratory operations are typically not a substantial source of human health risk. A health risk assessment performed for the UC Davis Sacramento campus found that laboratory operations made only a minor contribution to the total human health risk from the campus, and were not significant on their own. The Sacramento campus project included over 3 million gross square feet of building space, and several large laboratory spaces with functions including medical and biotechnology research. The report provides acute and chronic health risks associated with laboratory operations, all of which are well below BAAQMD significance thresholds for health risk. As the proposed project is expected to involve similar laboratory operations and would be considerably smaller, the human health risk associated with future laboratory operations at the proposed project also is expected to be minimal. However, because the exact impacts of the future R &D activities in the project buildings cannot be estimated, no conclusion as the significance of the impact can be reached. Nonetheless, the following mitigation is proposed to ensure that the risk is evaluated at the appropriate time and design elements are incorporated such that a significant impact is avoided. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -4: The CC &Rs for the proposed development shall include a provision which requires tenants that propose wet laboratories to prepare a human health risk assessment demonstrating that the human health risk from wet lab operations will be less than significant or will be rendered less than significant with appropriate design elements and project refinements, including but not limited to location of fume hoods or other point sources as far away as possible from nearby receptors. The HRA will be submitted to the City by the tenant prior to occupancy. Impact after Mitigation: Not applicable. 3 Golder Associates, Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of the 2010 LRDP Environmental Impact Report (Revised), (2010). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -25 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Impact 4.2 -5: Project construction activities would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to concentrations of toxic air contaminants in excess of acceptable levels. (Less than Significant) The BAAQMD provides screening criteria for health risks due to construction activities. According to these criteria, the proposed project would not be a significant source of health risks to any sensitive receptors that are more than 200 meter (about 600 feet) from the project site. However, there is a large childcare center on the east side of Allerton Avenue, approximately 200 feet from the construction area at its closest point. Consequently a more refined analysis of the potential health risks and ambient PM2.5 contributions from construction of the proposed project was conducted. The incremental increase in cancer risk and health impacts are due to emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from construction equipment and vehicles. Emissions of DPM from project - related construction disperses into the atmosphere and would result in an incremental increase in ambient DPM concentrations above existing levels and would result in a corresponding incremental increase in DPM - related health effects. Therefore, as a first step, unmitigated emissions of DPM from project - related construction were estimated using the URBEMIS2007 land use and development model as discussed above. For the purposes of this analysis, DPM values were assumed to be identical to the exhaust PM2.5 values calculated in URBEMIS for construction. Next, concentrations of DPM were modeled using the BAAQMD- approved air quality dispersion model, ISCST3. ISCST3 can estimate the air quality impacts of single or multiple point, area, or volume sources using historical meteorological conditions. Area sources were used to represent the emissions from trucks and heavy -duty construction equipment per BAAQMD guidance. The meteorological data from the monitoring station located in Mission Bay was used in the analysis. The meteorological data were obtained from the BAAQMD website. Terrain heights were derived from digital terrain elevations developed by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) by using its Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The DEM data provides terrain elevations with 1 -meter vertical resolution and 10 -meter or 30 -meter horizontal resolution based on a Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate system. The UTM coordinates are referenced to an appropriate map projection as needed (e.g., North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27), NAD 83, or World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS 84)). Construction activity could take place at any location on the proposed project site. In order to model the incremental increase in cancer risk to sensitive receptors, the entire construction area was assumed to be a 4 Lakes Environmental, ISC- AERMOD VIEW Software. 5 BAAQMD, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, (2011) 79. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -26 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality single area source for on -site emissions. While construction activities would occur at different locations at different times, this is an appropriate modeling representation of the construction activities because cancer risk is based on long -term exposures. Truck traffic was assumed to travel west along Forbes Boulevard towards the freeway. Area sources were used to represent emissions from construction equipment. Area sources are two - dimensional sources of emissions that can be used to model releases from a variety of sources, including moving diesel trucks and equipment. For modeling the incremental increase in cancer risk from project construction, 11 area sources were placed throughout the project site, and on surrounding roads. One area source represented the on -site emissions sources, and three area sources represented the off -site truck traffic. Emissions from heavy -duty vehicles and construction equipment, modeled as area sources, were given a 10 -foot release height and 5 -foot initial vertical dimension per BAAQMD modeling recommendations. Detailed emission rate calculations for the area sources are presented in Appendix 4.2. Flagpole receptors were placed throughout the childcare center on Allerton Avenue, concentrating on the nearest outdoor play areas but also including locations elsewhere in the facility. A discrete Cartesian receptor grid was also used to determine air quality impacts in the vicinity of the project site. Table 4.2 -7, Estimated Unmitigated Construction DPM Emissions, presents the estimated on -site construction emissions for DPM. For the purposes of modeling cancer risk, the daily emissions of DPM as calculated from the URBEMIS model were summed and averaged over the representative exposure durations for each construction phase to obtain emissions rates in units of grams per second. For the purposes of modeling chronic non - cancer health impacts, the maximum emissions of DPM as calculated from the URBEMIS model were used and averaged over the exposure durations (i.e., 2.5 years) to obtain emissions rates in units of grams per second. Because construction would involve both on- and off -site emissions as well as overlapping construction activities for the three structures, the emissions listed in Table 4.2 -7 were summed over each unique combination of activities and location. 6 BAAQMD, Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, (2011) 79. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -27 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2 -7 Estimated Unmitigated Construction DPM Emissions 2012 Bldg B 1/2 -1/31 On -Site 22 0.99 21.78 2012 Bldg B 2/1 -2/28 On -Site 20 2.09 41.80 2012 Bldg B 2/1 -2/28 Off -Site 20 0.07 1.40 2012 Bldg B 2/29 -12/31 On -Site 219 0.95 208.05 2012 Bldg B 2/29 -12/31 Off -Site 219 0.05 10.95 2013 Bldg B 1/1 -8/1 On -Site 153 0.86 131.58 2013 Bldg B 1/1 -8/1 Off -Site 153 0.05 7.65 2013 Bldg A 1/1 -1/28 On -Site 20 1.91 38.20 2013 Bldg A 1/1 -1/28 Off -Site 20 0.08 1.60 2013 Bldg A 1/29 -12/31 On -Site 241 0.86 207.26 2013 Bldg A 1/29 -12/31 Off -Site 241 0.06 14.46 2014 Bldg A 1/1 -7/2 On -Site 131 0.76 99.56 2014 Bldg A 1/1 -7/2 Off -Site 131 0.05 6.55 2014 Garage 1/1 -6/30 On -Site 129 1.05 135.45 2014 Garage 1/1 -6/30 Off -Site 129 0.09 11.61 Total Emissions (2012 -2014) 937.90 Maximum 1 -Year Emissions (2013) 400.75 The BAAQMD recommends that ISCST3 be run using U.S. EPA regulatory default options, unless non - default options are justified. ISCST3 was run using U.S. EPA regulatory default options. Additional modeling options are listed below: • Urban dispersion; • Averaging period: Annual; • Flagpole receptor height: 0 meter (corresponding to ground -level concentrations); and • No building downwash (no point sources modeled). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -28 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality Impact related to Cancer Risk The health impacts are based on the methodologies described in the CEHHA Guidance.? The following equations are used to calculate the cancer risk due to inhalation using the modeled DPM concentrations:$ Equation 1: Risk = Dose Inhalation x ASF x Inhalation Potency Factor where: ASF = age sensitivity factor (1 for adults, 10 for children) Equation 2: Dose Inhalation = CAiR x DBR x A x EF x ED x 10 -6 / AT where: CAiR = concentration in microgram per cubic meter DBR = breathing rate in liter per kilogram of body weight per day A = inhalation absorption factor (1 for DPM) EF = exposure frequency in days per year ED = exposure duration in years AT = averaging period over which exposure is averaged in days (25,550 days for 70 years) In accordance with CARB policy, a breathing rate equal to the 80 percentile should be used in single - point risk management decisions, such as those subject to a threshold or standard, for which the cancer risk is entirely associated with inhalation and residential cancer risk are being evaluated. These two criteria are met for this assessment. Thus, breathing rates of 302 and 581 liters per kilogram of body weight per day was used for the residential cancer risk calculations to account for both adult and child residents. The risk is calculated by multiplying the dose by age sensitivity factor and cancer potency factor. The Cancer Potency Factor for DPM is 1.1 milligram per kilogram (body weight) per day (mg /kg -day). In order to calculate risk due to inhalation dosage for both adult and child receptors, an age sensitivity factor of 10 was included for children. Table 4.2 -8, Summary of Maximum Modeled DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks, shows the maximum modeled cancer risk for the maximally exposed individuals resulting from the project - related DPM emissions. According to the modeled results, the MEI was located to the east of the project site, at a 7 California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003). 8 California EPA, Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, (2003). 9 California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation -Based Residential Cancer Risk, (2003). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -29 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality flagpole receptor in the childcare facility along the east side of Allerton Avenue. The values shown in Table 4.2 -8 indicate that the cancer risks, as a result of construction of the proposed project, would be less than 10 in one million for adult and child receptors. It should be noted that these results are highly conservative, as they assume that both children and adults are residential receptors, and that the age sensitivity factor of 10 would apply over the entire 75 years of exposure averaging time for the children. This is considered a less than significant impact. Table 4.2 -8 Summary of Maximum Modeled DPM Concentrations and Cancer Risks Residential Child 0.22 9.89 10 in 1 million NO Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2. Impact related to Chronic Health Hazard In addition to the potential cancer risk, DPM has chronic (i.e., long term) non - cancer health impacts. The chronic non - cancer Hazard Indices for the proposed project were calculated by dividing the maximum modeled annual average concentrations of DPM, using the year with the greatest emissions (2013), by the Reference Exposure Level (REL). The DPM concentrations represent the worst -case year; therefore, the chronic non - cancer Hazard Indices for 2013 represents the maximum non - cancer chronic health impacts. Detailed calculations are provided in Appendix 4.2. OEHHA has recommended an ambient concentration of 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg /m as the chronic inhalation REL for DPM exhaust. The REL is the concentration at or below which no adverse health effects are anticipated. The maximum chronic Hazard Index at the MEI are shown in Table 4.2 -9, Summary of Non - Cancer Health Impacts. Therefore, the results are considered to be conservative. As shown, the chronic Hazard Indices at the MEI are less than the BAAQMD's significance threshold of 1 for non - cancer health impacts. This is considered a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -30 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Residential Adult 0.22 2.54 10 in 1 million NO 4.2 Air Quality Table 4.2 -9 Summary of Non - Cancer Health Impacts Source: Impact Sciences, Inc. Detailed calculations are available in Appendix 4.2. Impact related to Increase in Ambient PM2.5 The BAAQMD also considers any increase in ambient concentration of PM2.5 greater than 0.3 pg /m on an annual average at a sensitive receptor location to be a significant health risk. To determine the net increase in PM2.5 concentration attributable to this project, the same model inputs as for the Chronic Hazard Index were used, as they represent the maximum impact over any one year of construction. As shown above in Table 4.2 -9, the nearest receptors would not experience concentrations over 0.3 pg /m on an annual average. The highest concentration at any location is 0.238 pg /m on an annual average. This is considered a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact 4.2 -6: The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant) The proposed project would include R &D uses. These are not typical land uses associated with creating objectionable odors. Facilities such as wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, petroleum refineries, and chemical manufacturing plants are the typical types of land uses that would emit objectionable odors. The offensiveness and degree of odor ultimately depends on the sensitivity of the receptors exposed to the odor. The only potential source of odor associated with the project would be the garbage or waste generated by the occupants. Any garbage or waste generated by the project would be collected and disposed of according to City policies. Proper collection and disposal of generated waste would avoid the creation of objectionable odors affecting occupants of the proposed project or surrounding neighborhoods. Odors could potentially be generated during short -term architectural coating activities. Architectural coatings contain VOCs that may include odiferous compounds. However, any architectural coatings used for the proposed project must comply with the low -VOC requirements of BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -31 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 East 2.38E -01 0.048 1 NO 4.2 Air Quality (Architectural Coatings). This rule limits the quantity of VOCs contained in architectural coatings sold, used, or manufactured within the district. Compliance with Regulation 8, Rule 3, would minimize any odor impacts from architectural coating operations. In addition, any odors associated with architectural coatings would cease following completion of the proposed project, except for minor periodic maintenance painting. Therefore, the project's impact with respect to odors would be considered less than significant. The land uses surrounding the project site include other office and R &D space. These uses are not anticipated to constitute a significant odor source. Therefore, residents of the proposed project would not be exposed to objectionable odors from adjacent land uses and the impact with respect to this criterion would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. 4.2.5.3 Cumulative Impacts Impact 4.2 -7: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. (Less than Significant) According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, any project that would individually have a significant air quality impact would also have a significant cumulative air quality impact. As discussed previously, emissions associated with operation of the proposed project would not exceed the BAAQMD- recommended operational thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project would not individually have a significant air quality impact and would not 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 Os precursors). For a project that does not individually have a significant air quality impact, the BAAQMD requires that a determination of cumulative impacts be based on an evaluation of the consistency of the project with the local general plan and of the general plan with the regional air quality plan. The latest U.S. EPA - approved regional air quality plan for this area is the 2010 CAP. If a project is proposed in a city or county with a general plan that is consistent with the CAP and the project is consistent with that general plan, the project would not have a significant cumulative impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -32 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.2 Air Quality The South San Francisco General Plan does not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 CAP. Therefore, if the proposed project is consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan, it would not conflict or obstruct with implementation of the 2010 CAP. The CAP, discussed previously, was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, meet federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The CAP assumed that future growth in the City of South San Francisco would occur within the zoning restrictions in effect at the time of its adoption. As discussed in Section 4.6, Land Use and Planning of the April 2007 Draft EIR, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing zoning designation of the project site, as well as the projected cumulative future growth in the South San Francisco General Plan. Since the project is consistent with the South San Francisco General Plan, quantitative analysis is not required to determine whether the cumulative impact is significant, and the cumulative impacts associated with implementation of the applicable air quality plan are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 4.2 -8: The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in toxic air contaminants when combined with other construction projects, stationary sources, and mobile sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. (Less than Significant) Operational TAC Impact Cumulative impacts for this project would include the TAC emissions from the proposed project combined with TAC emission or human health risk roadways, stationary sources, and other construction projects within the 1,000 foot area of influence. However, as mentioned, information from the BAAQMD screening tools indicated the only stationary sources within 1,000 feet had no health risks or PM2.5 emissions associated with them. There are also no major roadways within 1,000 feet of the proposed project. Consequently there would be no cumulative impacts for operation. Construction TAC Impact There is only one potential known construction project nearby, which is just over 1,000 feet from the proposed project to the west. It is therefore well over 1,000 feet from the sensitive receptors at the childcare facility to the east of the proposed project and about 600 feet from the preschool on Allerton Avenue, and cumulative contributions from this potential project would be negligible. As mentioned for cumulative operational impacts, there are also no existing substantial operational sources of TACs within 1,000 feet of the project site. Therefore there would be no cumulative impacts for the construction phase. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.2 -33 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D 2 ,1 Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 4.4.1 INTRODUCTION This section addresses potential public health and safety issues associated with the project site, including exposure of people, animals, and structures to hazards and hazardous substances, including pesticides, fire hazards, and septic tanks. This section also identifies feasible mitigation measures to reduce any identified significant impacts to a less than significant level. A number of properties may cause a substance to be considered hazardous, including toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. According to the State of California, a hazardous material is defined as a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either (1) cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating irreversible illness; or (2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or environment when improperly treated, stored, transported or disposed of or otherwise managed. This section is based in part on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the project site by ACC Environmental Consultants, Inc., (ACC) in December 2002, prior to demolition of on -site structures, an Environmental Investigation Activities Report prepared by Geomatrix in September 2004, and a Summary of Environmental Issues prepared by Geomatrix in June 2006. All of these reports are included in Appendix 4.4. 4.4.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.4.2.1 Agency Database Research Available federal, state, and local agency databases were reviewed to identify the presence of any government - regulated properties, either on site or adjacent to the project site that could potentially result in hazardous on -site conditions. Complete copies of the database review report are provided as an appendix to the Phase I ESA report found in Appendix 4.4 of this 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR. Environmental assessment documents prepared for the site conform to American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) requirements, as described in ASTM Bulletin E 1527 97, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Federal and state records searches includes a summary and description of the specific agency database reviewed, the Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ASTM- specified search radius distances (up to 1 mile), and figures showing all identified documented sites having hazardous materials storage, generation, disposal or contamination. Searches of federal and state databases, including the National Priority List, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information (RCRAInfo), the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Database, and the State Contamination List, determined that hazardous sites were recorded in the vicinity of the project site. This database search identified two Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action sites; 12 State EnviroStor sites; 44 LUST sites; two California Solid Waste Landfills, Incinerators, or Transfer Station database sites; five RCRA Large Quantity Generators; and 11 RCRA Small Quantity Generator sites in the vicinity of the project site. Several sites with documented releases of hazardous substances and /or petroleum products are within lmile of the project site, but, due to their locations, only one has the potential to affect the environmental conditions of the project site. The Phase I ESA concluded that, with the exception of the property located at 485 -489 Cabot Road, there was no documented evidence of constituent plumes originating from any of the identified hazardous sites migrating to the project site. To evaluate the presence of groundwater impacted by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from the nearby 485 -489 Cabot Road property, Geomatrix conducted environmental due diligence activities in April and May 2006. Results indicated that VOCs in groundwater would not limit the continual use of the property for commercial or industrial purposes. Geomatrix also conducted a soil vapor survey to evaluate potential intrusion of VOCs into the on -site warehouse structure at the 494 Forbes Boulevard project site before it was demolished. Results indicated that soil vapors beneath the warehouse did not contain VOCs that would limit the use of the property for R &D, office, residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. This report was submitted to the San Mateo County Health Services Agency (SMCHSA) (now the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division) and no additional environmental work was requested. 4.4.2.2 Site History The Phase I ESA included a review of City of South San Francisco Building and Planning Department records for the project site. The Phase I ESA also included historical information from the Haines City Directories and aerial photographs available at Pacific Aerial Surveys that were analyzed to determine previous uses of the project site and adjacent properties. This information could provide potential clues to previous hazardous materials use or storage. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The project site has been occupied by numerous users since approximately 1938. From 1967 through 2006, the project site was occupied by various clothing businesses within a two - story, 161,845- square -foot concrete warehouse and office building. The property also included a parking lot and two loading docks. The concrete building was demolished in May of 2006 and no structures are currently located on the site. The project site is approximately 7.48 acres in size and at the time of ACC's site reconnaissance, consisted of a two - story, 161,845- square -foot concrete block warehouse and office building with a parking lot and two loading docks During the Phase I ESA, ACC observed four 5- gallon buckets of floor finish, two 5- gallon buckets of wax stripper, and various other 1- gallon containers of cleaners. There was no leaking or staining in the vicinity of these materials. The amounts of materials stored on site were below the State of California Health and Safety Code 25506(b) threshold levels for reporting. The Phase I ESA concluded that the presence of these materials posed a low potential to impact the environment. These materials have already been removed from the site. Prior to demolition, two rectangular subsurface structures with tracks running through them and around the floor were observed in the warehouse area. A cement pad with several cut off pipes was observed in the rear of the building in the landscaping. The use of these structures was undetermined. The Phase I ESA determined that the structures should be further investigated to determine if some type of machinery existed within them and that the cut off pipes should be capped. These structures, along with the cement pad, have since been demolished. No machinery was identified during slab demolition activities (see Appendix 4.4). The Phase I ESA identified staining in the parking lot and loading dock resulting from leaking fluids from vehicles and trucks. Staining in the air - handling room was also identified to be the result of leaking oil from the machines. The Phase I ESA recognized the presence of the staining inside the structure as having a low potential to impact the environment. As previously mentioned, the structures have been demolished since the Phase I ESA was conducted. The Phase I ESA determined that there was no staining in the vicinity of several storm drains located throughout the property. The Phase I ESA determined that the presence of these drains posed a low potential to impact the environment. The Phase I ESA also identified building materials suspected to contain asbestos at the property. During the site reconnaissance, chipped and /or peeling paint was not observed. A structure on the project site, which was constructed prior to 1978, had painted surfaces that may have contained lead -based paint. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Since the structures have been demolished and disposed of, lead paint and asbestos hazards are no longer a potential environmental issue The Phase I ESA did not recommend a Phase II investigation. Geomatrix was retained by the property owner to evaluate the project site's soil, soil vapor, and groundwater conditions. The results of that evaluation are contained in the 2004 Environmental Investigation Activities Report, which concluded that (1) soil vapors beneath the former warehouse structure did not contain VOCs that would limit the use of the property for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes; (2) VOCs are not present in the sampled groundwater from the project site at concentrations that would limit the use of the property for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes; and (3) there are no chemicals of concern in soil samples from the project site that would limit the use of the property for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes. As noted above, the results of the Geomatrix investigation were reported to the SMCHSA, which did not require any follow -up investigation or remediation. 4.4.2.3 Present Conditions According to subsurface investigations performed in the vicinity of the project site, the area is underlain by a thin layer of soil over resistant bedrock that appears to be the buried surface of a former topographic high (ACC 2002). Unconfined groundwater occurs at approximately 14 feet below ground surface (bgs). A second water - bearing zone occurs from 30 to 41 feet bgs and is separated from the overlying zone by a 10- foot -thick clayey silt deposit. Groundwater flow direction has been determined to flow toward the south - southwest. As previously mentioned, there are several sites within 1 mile of the project site with documented releases of hazardous substances and petroleum products. Because the regional groundwater flow direction is south - southeast in the vicinity of the project site, constituents originating from sites located to the north - northwest would be more likely to migrate to the project site than would constituents originating at sites in other locations. There is no documented evidence that constituent plumes originating from any sites have migrated to the project site, except for the property at 485 -489 Cabot Road (ACC 2002). Two groundwater monitoring wells were located on site. One of these was sampled in 2005 and found to contain low concentrations of VOCs; based on these results, it was decommissioned according to SMCHSA requirements (see Appendix 4.4). The other well is monitored semiannually to determine concentrations of the VOCs associated with 485 -489 Cabot Road property by TEC Accutite, per the requirements of SMCHSA. Since monitoring began in 2003, samples collected from this well have contained low concentrations of VOCs that are below regulatory thresholds (see Appendix 4.4). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials As mentioned above, sampling of soil, soil vapors, and groundwater on the project site conducted by Geomatrix in 2004 detected low concentrations of VOCs that did not exceed regulatory screening criteria. 4.4.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 4.4.3.1 National Hazardous Materials Regulatory Framework The U.S. EPA is the main federal agency responsible for enforcing regulations relating to hazardous materials and wastes, including evaluation and remediation of contamination and hazardous wastes. The U.S. EPA works collaboratively with other agencies to enforce materials handling and storage regulations and site cleanup requirements. OSHA and the Department of Transportation (DOT) are authorized to regulate safe transport of hazardous materials. Primary federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials and wastes include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and the Comprehensive Environmental Responsibility, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 ( CERCLA). RCRA includes procedures and requirements for reporting releases of hazardous materials, and for cleanup of such releases. RCRA also includes procedures and requirements for handling hazardous wastes or soil or groundwater contaminated with hazardous wastes. CERCLA delineates the liability for contamination between current property owners and others. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act is administered by the DOT via its issuance of inspections, training and transportation requirements, and information; the federal government delegates enforcement authority to the states. 4.4.3.2 California Hazardous Materials Regulatory Framework State agencies that regulate hazardous materials and contamination include the Department of Health Services (DHS), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB). The DTSC administers U.S. EPA's standards regarding public health effects of soil contamination, while the RWQCB administers state water quality standards for surface and groundwater. Transport of hazardous materials is administered by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and enforced by the California Highway Patrol. State regulations applicable to hazardous materials are contained in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and include the State Water Code, Underground Storage Tank Code, Cortese Act (listing of hazardous waste and substances sites), and Proposition 65 (safe drinking water and toxics enforcement). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.4.3.3 California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics The California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics fosters and promotes the development of a safe, efficient, dependable, and environmentally compatible air transportation system. The State Aeronautics Act, Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21001 et seq., is the foundation for the Department's aviation policies. The Division issues permits for and annually inspects hospital heliports and public -use airports, makes recommendations regarding proposed school sites within 2 miles of an airport runway, and authorizes helicopter - landing sites at or near schools. Aviation system planning provides for the integration of aviation into transportation system planning on a regional, statewide, and national basis. 4.4.3.4 San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Regulation of toxic and hazardous substances is locally administered through the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department. The department administers several programs to regulate and monitor the use of hazardous materials, including the hazardous materials business plan program, hazardous waste generator program, California accidental release program, underground storage tank program, groundwater protection program, and the stormwater pollution prevention program. These programs, which are mandated by state and federal laws, are aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California DTSC authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate non - permitted hazardous waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. 4.4.4 CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The project would be consistent with all local, state, and federal regulations controlling the management of hazardous materials and contaminated soils. The project would also be consistent with requirements set forth by the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and the Federal Aviation Administration. Therefore, the project would be in compliance with all applicable regulations regarding the management and cleanup of hazardous materials. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.4.5 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.4.5.1 Significance Criteria In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and City of South San Francisco environmental guidelines, implementing the project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would: • create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, handling or disposal of hazardous materials; • create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • emit hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school; • be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, creates a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • be located within an airport land use plan, within 2 miles of a public airport, or located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildland is adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildland. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Issues Not Discussed Further The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (EDR 2012). Therefore, no additional discussion related to this issue is required. Review of area maps shows that the project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, implementing the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area as it relates to aviation issues. No further discussion related to this issue is necessary. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The project includes development on a site that was already developed with commercial uses; access to the site would be adequate. Traffic impacts due to implementing the project would be mitigated as necessary as described in Section 4.8 of this document. Therefore, no additional discussion related to this issue is needed. Implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildland is adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildland. The project site is located in a developed urban area with office, research park, and commercial uses. No further discussion of the issue is needed. 4.4.5.2 Project Impacts Impact 4.4 -1: Contaminated soil and groundwater could be exposed during excavation and grading activities, exposing construction workers to hazardous materials. (Less than Significant) As previously discussed, there is a potential for the contaminated groundwater plume from the 485 -489 Cabot Road property to affect the project site. The 2004 and 2006 Geomatrix studies concluded that groundwater and soil vapors beneath the warehouse (which has been demolished) did not contain VOCs that would limit the use of the property for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes. Sampling and testing of soil and groundwater at the project site by Geomatrix also revealed that soil and groundwater samples contained chemicals of concern (i.e., petroleum hydrocarbons, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [PAHs], pesticides, or polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs]) and inorganic constituents (i.e., metals and nitrogen - related compounds) at concentrations below their respective regulatory screening criteria. The investigation concluded that there are no chemicals of concern in soil in the areas sampled that would limit the use of the property for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes (See Appendix 4.4). Therefore, there is a low potential for project site grading and excavation activities to expose on -site construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to a substantial risk from contaminated soil and groundwater. Furthermore, exposure of off -site sensitive receptors to dust or particulate matter disturbed during construction would be controlled by airborne toxic control measures (ATCM) and Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1, as discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality. Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1 is nonetheless proposed to ensure that if contaminated materials are encountered, they are properly remediated and handled to avoid any inadvertent impacts to on -site construction workers as well as off -site receptors. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure 4.4 -1: While not expected to occur on site, if contaminated soil and /or groundwater is encountered during excavation and /or grading activities, the construction contractor(s) shall stop work and immediately inform the appropriate applicant representative. An on -site assessment shall be conducted to determine if the discovered materials pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers. For evaluation purposes, the Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) established by the RWQCB for residential uses shall be used to assess the need for additional site investigation, remedial action, or a more detailed risk assessment. If the materials are determined to pose a risk, a remediation plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Division to comply with applicable legal requirements to assure the proper handling and management of contaminated soil and /or debris, and the protection of human health and the environment for the new building. Soil remediation methods shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, excavation and on -site treatment, excavation and off -site treatment or disposal, and /or treatment without excavation. Remediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, on -site treatment, extraction and off -site treatment, and /or disposal. In the event that soil contamination concentrations exceed the DTSC remediation standards for residential uses, the developer shall work with the DTSC to prepare a risk assessment and implement any DTSC- required remedial actions, continuing until the DTSC verifies that concentrations meet the remediation standard established for the site and a No Further Action letter (or equivalent approval) is issued by the DTSC. If determined to be necessary by the County Environmental Health Division, air monitoring would be conducted at the construction site when remediation work is underway. The construction schedule shall be modified or delayed to ensure that construction will not inhibit remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to significant risks associated with hazardous conditions. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.4 -2: Accident conditions during the transportation or use of hazardous substances during project operation could create a spill of hazardous materials which could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) The precise increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported to or from the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D site as a result of implementation of the project cannot be definitively predicted due to varying research needs over time, and changes in the classification of hazardous materials. As future tenants of the buildings are not known at this time, the types of hazardous materials that would be used during operation and exact locations of where they would be stored are not known. There are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used on site that would eventually require disposal. This could include both biohazards as well as chemical hazards. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site, probably traveling along U.S. 101 and East Grand Avenue. Transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. As a result, the proposed project would create a risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of hazardous and potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2a: All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site shall be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation regulations, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 31303 of the California Code of Regulations, hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the California Highway Patrol pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and all other state and local laws, ordinances and procedures including the posting of placards, signs and other identifying information. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2b: Tenants occupying the project shall complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan shall include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they might be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. The Business Plan shall take into consideration the proximity of the nearby childcare facility in determining the location of hazardous materials storage areas (including gaseous substances such as ammonia) as well as Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials contingency plans that specifically address emergencies that could be of significance to the nearby childcare facility. Impact After Mitigation: Less than significant. Impact 4.4 -3: The project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport and could conflict with the Plan's policies. (Less than Significant) The project site is located within 2 miles of the San Francisco International Airport. The Genentech R &D Overlay District areas are within the San Francisco International Airport Flight Zone and are subject to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Height Limits established in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. In addition to FAA standards, the 2006 Genentech Facilities Master Plan Update keeps a maximum building height limitation of 150 feet above ground level on buildings within the project site, which is in compliance with the FAA standards. As a result, the proposed project would comply with the Airport Land Use Plan and the impact related to safety from proximity to an airport would be less than significant. This impact would be further reduced by the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -3: To ensure compliance with the requirements of Public Utilities Code, Section 21659, "Hazards Near Airports Prohibited," which prohibits structural hazards near airports, the applicant shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1) to the Federal Aviation Administration. An FAA permit for construction would not be required if the Federal Aviation Administration determines that the construction, alteration, or growth does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation. Impact 4.4 -4: Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from contaminated groundwater may pose a risk to site users through inhalation of vapors released from the subsurface into indoor air. (Less than Significant) As discussed previously under subsection 4.4.2.3, a water - monitoring well was installed on the project site in January 2003 to monitor the presence of VOCs associated with groundwater contamination at the nearby 487 Cabot Road property. Currently, the well is monitored semiannually by TEC Accutite per requirements of the SMCHSA. Samples collected from this monitoring well since 2003 have contained low concentrations of VOCs (e.g., below regulatory thresholds). Additionally, as determined in the 2004 Geomatrix study of the site, VOCs were present in soil at low concentrations (below regulatory Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials thresholds) that would not limit the use of the property for R &D purposes. Therefore, the risk to site users from VOCs would be minimal and the impact would be less than significant. To further minimize this effect, the following mitigation measure will be implemented. Mitigation Measure 4.4 -4: The applicant shall continue to provide TEC Accutite access to the project site in order to monitor groundwater at monitoring well MW -12, as required by the SMCHSA. Access to the monitoring well shall be provided until the SMCHSA has determined that the monitoring well is no longer required. All monitoring shall be conducted according to SMCHSA guidelines. Impact 4.4 -5 Upon occupancy, the proposed project could emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant) Although there are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25 mile of the project site, a childcare facility is located across the street from the project site on the Genentech campus and, due to the presence of children, is considered equivalent to a school for the purposes of this analysis. The Genentech childcare facility is located approximately 300 feet east of the proposed project site. The proposed R &D facilities would therefore handle hazardous materials and wastes within 0.25 mile of an existing school. As discussed above, future tenants of the buildings are not known at this time; therefore, the types of hazardous materials that would be used during operation and exact locations of where they would be stored are not known. However, project operations would be required to comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to the transport, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials, as stated under Mitigation Measure 4.4 -2a. Adherence to these regulations, which require proper handling techniques, disposal practices, and /or clean -up procedures, would minimize both emissions and the potential for accidental releases. In addition, the project will implement Mitigation Measure 4.2 -4, which will require tenants that propose wet laboratories to prepare a human health risk assessment (HRA) demonstrating that the human health risk from wet lab operations will be less than significant or will be rendered less than significant with appropriate design elements and project refinements, including but not limited to location of fume hoods or other point sources as far away as possible from nearby receptors. The HRA will be submitted to the City by the tenant prior to occupancy. Therefore, the project would not pose a significant human health risk to the childcare facility related to emissions of hazardous substances or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes, and the impact would be less than significant. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.4 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The proposed project is one of numerous sites that are anticipated to undergo development /redevelopment in the vicinity. The proposed project would contribute to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, and would result in a cumulative increase in transportation, use, disposal, and potential for exposure to and /or accidental release of hazardous materials during both construction and operations. While implementation of the proposed project would incrementally increase the use and transport of hazardous materials as well as the potential for accidental release, implementation of the identified project- specific Mitigation Measures 4.4 -2a and 4.4 -2b would reduce the cumulative impact to a less than significant level with no additional mitigation required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.4 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 NOISE 4.7.1 INTRODUCTION This section describes the existing noise conditions at the project site and its vicinity and potential noise impacts from construction, occupancy, and use of the project. Regulations and policies affecting the noise environment are also described. This section incorporates information from the 1999 City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, noise measurements taken by Impact Sciences, and the traffic analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group. Noise measurement data sheets are provided in Appendix 4.7 of this 2nd Recirculated Draft EIR. 4.7.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF NOISE Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. It is an undesirable byproduct of human society's normal day -to -day activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect on people and their environment. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). The human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies, being less sensitive to very low and high frequencies than to medium frequencies that correspond with human speech. The A- weighted noise level (or scale), which better corresponds to the human ear's subjective perception of sound levels, has been developed. This A- weighted sound level is called the "noise level" and is measured in units of dB(A). Because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dB(A) increase in noise levels. Changes in noise levels of less than 3 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear (U.S. Department of Transportation 1980). Changes in noise levels from 3 to 5 dB(A) may be noticed by individuals extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dB(A) increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound. Noise sources are classified into two types: (1) point sources, such as pieces of stationary equipment; and (2) line sources, such as roadways with large numbers of point sources (motor vehicles). Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6.0 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at an acoustically "hard" site and 7.5 dB(A) at an acoustically "soft" site (U.S. Department of Transportation 1980). For example, a 60 dB(A) noise level measured at 50 feet from a point source at an acoustically hard site would be 54 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source and 48 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source. Sound generated by a line source typically attenuates at a rate of 3.0 dB(A) and 4.5 dB(A) per doubling of distance from the source to the receptor for a hard and soft site, respectively Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise (U.S. Department of Transportation 1980). Sound levels can also be attenuated by man -made or natural barriers. Solid walls, berms, or elevation differences typically reduce noise levels by 5 to 10 dB(A) (U.S. Department of Transportation 1980). The noise attenuation provided by typical structures in California is provided in Table 4.7 -1, Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation, below. Table 4.7 -1 Outside to Inside Noise Attenuation Residences 12 25 Schools 12 25 Churches 20 30 Hospitals /Convalescent Homes 17 25 Offices 17 25 Theaters 20 30 Hotels /Motels 17 25 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation 1980 When assessing community reaction to noise, there is an obvious need for a scale that averages varying noise exposures over time and quantifies the results in terms of a single number descriptor. Several scales have been developed that address community noise levels. Those that are applicable to this analysis are the Equivalent Noise Level (Le and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). Le is the average A- weighted sound level measured over a given time interval. Le can be measured over any period, but is typically measured for 1- minute, 15- minute, 1 -hour, or 24 -hour periods. CNEL is another average A- weighted sound level measured over a 24 -hour period and is adjusted to account for increased sensitivity of people to noise levels during the evening and nighttime hours. A CNEL noise measurement is obtained by adding 5 dB(A) to sound levels occurring during the evening from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM, and 10 dB(A) to sound levels occurring during the nighttime from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. The 5 and 10 dB "penalties" are applied to account for peoples' increased sensitivity during the evening and nighttime hours. The logarithmic effect of these additions is that, for example, a 60 dB(A) 24- hour Le would result in a measurement of 66.7 dB(A) CNEL. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise 4.7.2.1 Characteristics of Vibration Vibration is minute variation in pressure through structures and the earth, whereas noise is minute variation in pressure through air. Thus, vibration is felt rather than heard. Some vibration effects can be caused by noise; e.g., the rattling of windows from truck pass -bys. This phenomenon is related to the coupling of the acoustic energy at frequencies that are close to the resonant frequency of the material being vibrated. Groundborne vibration attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration can be measured as particle velocity in inches per second and referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel - wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is barely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is typical background vibration velocity, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Figure 4.7 -1, Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration, identifies the typical groundborne vibration levels in VdB and human response to different levels of vibration. 4.7.2.2 Traffic Noise The level of traffic noise depends on three primary factors: (1) the volume of the traffic; (2) the speed of the traffic; and (3) the number of trucks in the flow of traffic. Generally, the loudness of traffic noise is increased by heavier traffic volumes, higher speeds, and a greater number of trucks. Vehicle noise is a combination of the noise produced by the engine, exhaust, and tires. 4.7.2.3 Train Noise Train noise is a combination of different noise sources such as propulsion mechanisms, machinery and auxiliary equipment, wheel -rail interaction, and vehicle -body vibrations. Train noise is a unique noise source that results in a single pass -by noise event per train. 4.7.2.4 Aircraft Noise Aircraft noise is produced by an aircraft or its components during various phases of a flight, including while on the ground and parked with auxiliary power units, while taxiing, during propeller and jet Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise exhaust checks prior to takeoff, during takeoff, or during landing. Sensitive receptors of aircraft noise are generally located underneath or lateral to departure and arrival paths. 4.7.3 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located in an industrial and commercial environment, east of U.S. 101, a major freeway corridor, between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. Background noise from vehicles on the freeway and on surrounding roadways contributes to the existing noise levels at the project site. In addition, Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) operates a major line with two railroad tracks that run parallel to U.S. 101 on the eastern side. This line is approximately 0.5 mile from the project site. Caltrain operates approximately 86 commuter trains each week day through South San Francisco and SPRR freight trains also use the line. The nearest airport to the project site is the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), located approximately 2 miles south of the project site. SFO averages nearly 400,000 operations per year (SFO 2011). Air traffic is composed primarily of private air carriers that range from small private jets to large, four - engine international commercial jets. The project site is under one of the planned departure routes, the Shoreline Departure Route for aircraft operating on Runway 28. This route frequently takes aircraft over or near the project site, under full takeoff power. This area is exposed to a higher volume of single - event noise levels than other areas of the City. According to the San Francisco Airport Aircraft Noise Abatement Office, the project site is not within the 65 db CNEL noise contour for the airport. 4.7.3.1 Sensitive Receptors Whether a sound is considered unpleasant depends on the individual who hears the sound and the setting and circumstances under which the sound is heard. While performing certain tasks, people expect and accept certain sounds that are considered unpleasant under other circumstances. For example, if a person works in an office, sounds from printers, copiers, telephones, and keyboards are generally acceptable and not considered unduly unpleasant or unwanted. By comparison, when resting or relaxing, these same sounds may be less tolerable. Because individuals' tolerance for noise varies by setting, some land uses are more sensitive to changes in the noise environment. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, parks, and outdoor recreation areas are generally more sensitive to noise than are commercial, general office, and industrial land uses. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive receptors include several hotels approximately 0.5 mile to 1 mile from the project site on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue, the Genentech childcare facility that is located across the street from the project site on Allerton Avenue, and a preschool located on Allerton Avenue south of Cabot Road. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 PPV AMPLITUDE VELOCITY RMS VELOCITY HUMAN /STRUCTURAL IN INCHES LEVEL IN AMPLITUDE IN 2 TYPICAL SOURCES RESPONSE PER SECOND VdB INCHES /SECOND 50 FEET FROM SOURCE THRESHOLD, MINOR COSMETIC DAMAGE TO FRAGILE BUILDINGS DIFFICULTY WITH TASKS SUCH AS READING A VDT SCREEN RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, INFREQUENT EVENTS (E.G., COMMUTER RAIL) RESIDENTIAL ANNOYANCE, FREQUENT EVENTS (E.G., RAPID TRANSIT) LIMIT FOR VIBRATION - SENSITIVE EQUIPMENT APPROXIMATE THRESHOLD FOR HUMAN PERCEPTION OF VIBRATION AVERAGE RESIDENCE WITHOUT STEREO PLAYING AVERAGE WHISPER 1 PPV is typically a factor 1.7 to 6 times greater than RMS vibration velocity. A factor of 4 was used to calculate noise levels. 2 Vibration levels in terms of velocity levels are defined as: V =20 x log (a /r) V= velocity levels in decibels 10 a =RMS velocity amplitude r= reference amplitude (accepted reference quantities for vibration velocity are 1 x 10 -6 inches /second in the United States) FIGURE 4. / — 1 I il Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration 0868 - 001.01/12 4.7 Noise 4.7.3.2 Existing On -Site and Off -Site Noise Levels Noise measurements were taken at two locations on the project site in 2007. These noise level measurements were used to assess the existing noise environment and to calibrate the noise prediction models that were used to help identify any potential noise impacts. New noise measurements were not considered necessary because traffic volumes on the study area streets have either remained the same as before or have declined due to the economic downturn. Noise Measurement Locations and Results One long -term measurement and one short -term measurement were taken on the project site to determine the existing ambient background noise levels. These locations are shown on Figure 4.7 -2, Noise Monitoring Locations. These noise level measurements were used to assess the existing noise environment and to calibrate noise prediction models that were used to help identify any potential noise impacts to sensitive receptors. Short -Term Noise Measurement Table 4.7 -2, Existing Short -Term Noise Data Summary, identifies the location and results of the short - term measurement. This measurement was taken for 15 minutes during the PM peak hour. This noise measurement was located along Allerton Avenue, in a portion of the project site where the project would add three driveways. These driveways would represent the main access points to the project site and the proposed parking structure. It is assumed that most of the vehicle traffic using these driveways would originate from Forbes Boulevard, with the remaining traffic originating from East Grand Avenue. Based on the results, the existing ambient Le noise levels for the project site was 61.0 dB(A) Le Table 4.7 -2 Existing Short -Term Noise Data Summary Site # Noise Measurement Location Primary Noise Source dB(A),'Le 2 Located on the southeast portion of the site 40 feet Traffic noise along Allerton 61.0 from the centerline of Allerton Ave. Avenue. Source: Impact Sciences 2007 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise Long Term Noise Measurement Location and Results Noise levels at the second location were recorded for a period of 24 hours to obtain long -term noise data. The location and measurements are summarized below in Table 4.7 -3, Existing Long -Term Noise Data Summary. This long -term noise measurement location was approximately 70 feet from the centerline of Forbes Boulevard and measured 68 dB(A) CNEL. Table 4.7 -3 Existing Long -Term Noise Data Summary Source: Impact Sciences 2007 Off -Site Noise Levels Using data on existing (2011) traffic volumes, vehicle mix, and roadway measurements, the existing CNEL values were calculated for areas with sensitive receptors around the project site. This analysis estimated ambient noise levels only along those roadway segments that contained the childcare facilities and hotels. For roadway segments with hotels, the modeled sound level is at the face of the building closest the roadway; sound levels at frequent use areas that do not face onto the roadway (e.g., swimming pools, lounge areas, playgrounds, etc.) would be lower. All other uses in the project vicinity are not considered sensitive receptors. Table 4.7 -4, Existing Off -Site Noise Levels, summarizes the CNEL values for the roadway segments that contain sensitive receptors. Off -site values for Allerton Avenue and Forbes Boulevard are lower than the CNEL estimated for the project site based on the noise measurements taken on the project site in 2007, confirming that the traffic and traffic - related noise levels have declined in the project vicinity due to the economic downturn. Table 4.7 -4 Existing Off -Site Noise Levels Allerton Avenue (Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave.) 59.5 Gateway Blvd. (Oyster Point Blvd and East Grand Ave.) 64.2 Oyster Point Blvd. (Gateway Blvd. and Eccles Ave.) 65.6 Airport Blvd. (Sister Cities Blvd. and Miller Ave.) 60.9 East Grand Ave. (101 Off -ramp and Grand Overcross) 63.9 Forbes Blvd. (Eccles Ave. and Allerton Ave.) 63.1 Source: Impact Sciences 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Located on the northeast corner of the site approximately 1 55.2 65.8 70 feet from the centerline of Forbes Blvd. a� p � ^� Forbes Dvc O B d: �- w . 1 0 an MA LEGEND: 19 1 = Noise Monitoring Locations 4 Ll NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Impact Sciences, Inc. – February 2007 FIGURE 4. / — 2 I Noise Monitoring Locatic 868 - 01.11/09 4.7 Noise 4.7.3.3 Noise Standards The City of South San Francisco utilizes the CNEL scale as the criterion for assessing the effects of transportation - related noise sources on industrial and commercial land uses. The City has set an interior noise standard of 45 dB(A) CNEL and an exterior noise standard of 70 dB(A) CNEL for commercial uses, 75 dB(A) CNEL for industrial land uses, and 65 dB(A) CNEL for schools (e.g., daycare) and hotels. The City of South San Francisco General Plan noise standards are derived from standards contained in the General Plan Guidelines, a publication of the California Office of Planning and Research. These standards are used by many California cities and counties. The Noise Element includes standards for land use compatibility for community noise exposure. Table 4.7 -5, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment, shows the exterior noise exposure levels for the various land use categories in the City of South San Francisco. Construction Noise Construction noise represents a temporary, short -term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators can reach high levels. Grading activities typically represent one of the highest - potential sources for noise impacts. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is by limiting the hours of construction to normal weekday working hours and restricting hours of weekend activities. The City restricts construction to the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM during the week, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. Vibration Standards The City of South San Francisco does not address vibration in either the City Noise Ordinance or in the General Plan Noise Element. In the absence of significance thresholds for vibration from construction, the FTA identifies a maximum acceptable level threshold of 65 VdB for buildings where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (such as hospitals and recording studios), 72 VdB for residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 75 VdB for institutional land uses with primary daytime use (such as churches and schools) for frequent events, and additional thresholds for occasional and infrequent vibration - producing events (see Table 4.7 -6, Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria, below). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise Table 4.7 -5 Source: Urban Crossroads 2006a Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Table 4.7 -6 Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria Category I - High Sensitivity 65 VdB 65 VdB 65 VdB Category 2 - Residential 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB Category 3 - Institutional 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Traffic Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May. 1 "Frequent Events" is defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 2 "Occasional Events" is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 "Infrequent Events" is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment 4.7 Noise 4.7.4 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Plans and policies that pertain to the noise conditions affecting and affected by the project include: (1) the City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance (Sections 8.32.020, 8.32.030, and 8.32.040 of the Municipal Code); (2) the City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element; (3) the East of 101 Area Plan; (4) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, Significant Effects; and (5) the State of California, Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division Guidelines for Noise and Land Use Compatibility. 4.7.4.1 City of South San Francisco Noise Ordinance The City has established noise standards by adopting amendments to its Municipal Code. Chapter 8 regarding Health and Welfare addresses noise regulations. Section 8.32.020 defines sound level and noise level, giving specific information on how noise monitoring is to be conducted. Section 8.32.030 defines the maximum permissible sound levels for various land use categories. The information contained in this section is summarized below in Table 4.7 -7, City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standards. Table 4.7 -7 City of South San Francisco Noise Level Standards R -E, R -1, and R -2 zones or any single - family or duplex residential in a specific plan district R -3 and D -C zones or any multiple - family residential or mixed residential /commercial in any specific plan district C -1, P -C, Gateway, and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district M -1, P -1 Source: Urban Crossroads 2006a 10:00 PM -7:00 AM 50 7:00 AM -10:00 PM 60 10:00 PM -7:00 AM 55 7:00 AM -10:00 PM 60 60 10:00 PM -7:00 AM 65 7:00 AM -10:00 PM Anytime 70 4.7.4.2 City of South San Francisco General Plan The City of South San Francisco General Plan's primary objective related to noise is to protect public health and welfare and to work to adopt mitigation and to lower average noise standards. The General Plan provides goals, policies, and programs to help meet these objectives. A list of project - related policies is provided below: Policy 9 -G -1 Protect public health and welfare by eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing noise problems, and by preventing increased noise levels in the future. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise Policy 9 -I -1 Work to adopt a pass -by (single- event) noise standard to supplement the current 65 dB(A) CNEL average noise level standard as the basis for aircraft noise abatement programs. Policy 9 -I -2 Work to adopt a lower average noise standard for aircraft -based mitigation and land use controls. Policy 9 -I -4 Ensure that new noise - sensitive land uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB(A) CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB(A) CNEL. Policy 9 -I -7 Require the control of noise at source through site design, building design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be noise generators. 4.7.4.3 East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan Noise Element establishes policies to provide acceptable noise levels for anticipated land uses. Similar to the General Plan, according to the Area Plan, the acceptable interior noise levels for the plan area should not exceed 45 dB(A). Additionally, this plan serves to encourage commercial, office, and research and development uses in the plan area. This would lead to a decrease in noise due to reduced volumes of medium and heavy trucks and increased passenger vehicle traffic. 4.7.4.4 California Department of Health Services The State of California, Department of Health Services, Environmental Health Division has published recommended guidelines for mobile source noise and land use compatibility. Each jurisdiction is required to consider these guidelines when developing its General Plan Noise Element and determining the acceptable noise levels within its community. The City considered these guidelines when it prepared the Noise Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan. 4.7.5 CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS The proposed project would be consistent with all local regulations regarding noise levels and mitigation measures. The proposed project would be constructed to ensure that the interior noise standard would be met in both buildings on the project site. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise 4.7.6 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.7.6.1 Significance Criteria In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) and the City of South San Francisco environmental guidelines, implementation of the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in: • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local General Plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies; • A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels; • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels if the project is located within an area covered by an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport; or • Exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels if the project is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Of these thresholds, the last one does not apply as there is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the project site. To assess whether the proposed project would expose persons to or generate noise levels that are in excess of standards (the first threshold listed above), the EIR evaluates the absolute change in noise levels due to the project and the relationship between the resultant noise levels and the noise /land use compatibility guidelines listed in the Noise Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan (Table 4.7 -5 above). For office buildings and commercial uses, satisfactory noise levels are those below 70 dB(A) Ldn. Land uses immediately surrounding the project site include office and commercial -type uses and therefore would be subject to the 70 dB(A) Ldn noise standard. For the nearby hotels, the Genentech childcare center, and the preschool on Allerton Avenue, satisfactory noise levels are those below 65 dB(A) Ldn. The State CEQA Guidelines do not define the specific level at which a permanent increase in ambient noise is considered "substantial." As discussed previously in this section, a noise level increase of 3 dB(A) is Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, and an increase of 10 dB(A) would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. For the purposes of this EIR, noise impacts from project - related long -term or permanent increases would be considered significant if the project resulted in a 3 dB(A) Ldn increase in noise above existing conditions or above future no project conditions. Long -term or permanent increases are associated with project operations and project - related traffic. Construction noise would result in a significant impact if it would violate SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d) which limits the hours of construction to 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. For groundborne vibration, this analysis uses the FTA impact criteria (Table 4.7 -6) to determine if the proposed project would result in a significant vibration impact. 4.7.6.2 Project Impacts Impact 4.7 -1: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or Noise Ordinance. (Less than Significant) Future users of the site would be exposed to a number of different noise sources. The main noise source would be traffic on Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue that are immediately adjacent to the project site and other nearby roadways. Additionally, the San Francisco International Airport is located south of the project site. However, the project site is located outside of the airport's 65 dB(A) CNEL noise contour (SFO 2011a). Although the project is close to the San Francisco International Airport, due to the nature of the proposed land use, exterior noise exposure would not be considered a significant impact to future users on the site. Interior noise levels are regulated by the City of South San Francisco. As described previously, there is a 45 dB(A) CNEL interior noise standard for the proposed use, which would be met through the use of standard construction materials for the proposed buildings and compliance with noise requirements described in the East of 101 Area Plan. Although there would be a slight increase in exterior noise from the proposed project, approximately 0.2 dB(A) CNEL, this would not prevent the interior noise level standard from being met. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -14 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise Impact 4.7 -2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project nor would it expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or Noise Ordinance. (Less than Significant) Industrial uses are the predominant uses surrounding the project site. While there are no residential uses in the surrounding area, a childcare facility was constructed on the Genentech campus adjacent to the project site along Allerton Avenue in 2008 and is operational now. Another preschool is located about 550 feet south of the project site on Allerton Avenue. There are also several hotels on Gateway Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard, Airport Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue near U.S. 101. The childcare facility, preschool, and hotels are considered sensitive receptors to unwanted noise. Therefore, the discussion below focuses on potential noise impacts to these off -site receptors. The major sources of mechanical equipment noise at the project site would be the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment on the roof of each building. The project site is in an area currently developed with light industrial and office /R &D buildings that are equipped with HVAC systems. Operation of the proposed project would result in similar ambient noise levels compared to those currently experienced by the nearest off -site sensitive receptors at the Genentech childcare facility on Allerton Avenue approximately 300 feet away. In addition to the distance between the stationary sources and the sensitive receptors, noise levels would be attenuated by the raised parapet and mechanical penthouse that would screen rooftop equipment. Another source of project noise would be project - related traffic traveling on roadways adjacent to these receptors. Table 4.7 -8, Project Off -Site Noise Contributions in MA), shows a comparison of the noise conditions in 2015 under both the proposed project and no project conditions. These noise estimates were developed using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model with traffic volumes that were obtained from the traffic analysis (see Section 4.8, Transportation and Circulation). As shown in Table 4.7 -8, all roadway segments that contain sensitive receptors, including the childcare facility and the preschool, would experience small increases in noise levels ranging from 0.0 dB(A) CNEL to 0.4 dB(A) CNEL. As discussed in Subsection 4.7.2, the City of South San Francisco uses an increase in ambient noise level of 3 dB(A) or more as a significant noise increase. Because the project - related noise increases would be substantially less than 3 decibels, the impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, the increased noise levels that would result with the addition of the proposed project's traffic would not exceed the City's noise standards for the sensitive land uses that are located along the travel routes. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on off -site sensitive receptors. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -15 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise Mitigation Measure: None required. Table 4.7 -8 Project Off -Site Noise Contributions in dB(A) Allerton Avenue 59.5 59.9 0.4 NO (Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave.) Gateway Blvd. 64.2 64.2 0.0 NO (Oyster Point Blvd and East Grand Ave.) Oyster Point Blvd. 65.6 65.6 0.0 NO (Gateway Blvd. and Eccles Ave.) Airport Blvd. 60.9 60.9 0.0 NO (Sister Cities Blvd. and Miller Ave.) East Grand Ave. 63.9 64.0 0.1 NO (101 Off -ramp and Grand Overcross) Forbes Blvd. 63.1 63.4 0.3 NO (Eccles Ave. and Allerton Ave.) Source: Impact Sciences 2011 Impact 4.7 -3: The proposed project would result in temporary or periodic noise increases associated with construction activities. (Less than Significant) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has compiled data regarding the noise - generating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. These are shown in Table 4.7 -9, Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment. As shown, noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dB(A) to noise levels in excess of 100 dB(A) when measured at 50 feet. Field measurements show that construction noise levels generated by commonly used grading equipment (i.e., loaders, graders, and trucks) typically do not exceed the levels shown in Table 4.7 -9. Furthermore, these noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the construction site at a rate of approximately 6 dB(A) per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 68 dB(A) measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would be reduced to 62 dB(A) at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and would be further reduced to 56 dB(A) at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise Table 4.7 -9 Noise Levels of Typical Construction Equipment Air Compressor 81 71 Backhoe 85 80 Concrete Pump 82 80 Concrete Vibrator 76 70 Truck Crane 88 80 Dozer 87 83 Generator 78 71 Loader 84 80 Paver 88 80 Pneumatic Tools 85 75 Pile Driver 100 NA Water Pump 76 71 Power Hand Saw 78 70 Shovel 82 80 Trucks 88 83 ' Quieted equipment can be designed with enclosures, mufflers, or other noise - reducing features. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "Noise from Construction Equipment and operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances." 1971. Development of the project site would occur in two staggered phases, beginning with the construction of Building B. Construction of Building A would begin approximately one year later, with each construction phase taking approximately 70 weeks to complete. Construction of the parking structure would coincide with the completion of Building B. The existing childcare facility on Allerton Avenue near the project site could experience periodic noise increases due to project construction, depending on construction timing for the two buildings and parking structure. All other sensitive receptors would not experience any increase in exterior noise due to project construction given their distance from the site. Currently, under Section 8.32.050(d) of the City's Municipal Code, construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM on weekdays, 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. Construction noise would be of short -term duration and would not present any long -term impacts on the project site or the surrounding area but could temporarily elevate noise levels in the project vicinity. However, the proposed project would comply with SSFMC Section 8.32.050(d) and therefore, the impact from construction noise would be less than significant. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise To further reduce this impact and ensure that receptors, including the childcare facility, do not experience significant noise impacts, Mitigation Measures 4.7 -3a through 4.7 -3d have been included in both construction phases. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3a: The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far as possible from the childcare center on Allerton Avenue. If stationary sources must be located on the portion of the project site near Allerton Avenue, they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3b: The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise controls shall include improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds. Noise controls can reduce noise levels at 50 feet by 1 dB(A) to 16 dB(A), depending on the type of equipment. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3c: Equipment used for construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g., jackhammers) whenever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of a pneumatically powered tool is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. (A muffler could lower noise levels from exhaust by up to 10 dB(A)). External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used when feasible, resulting in a reduction of up to 5 dB(A). Alternately, work involving pneumatically powered tools shall be conducted on weekends to avoid affecting the nearby childcare facility. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -3d: The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures such as shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent businesses in advance of construction work. The City shall also require that prior to demolition and grading activities, signs must be posted with a phone number for information and noise complaints. Impact 4.7 -4: Project construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration levels. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) Certain construction activities, such as pile driving, generate groundborne vibration, which has the potential to affect sensitive receptors by interfering with sleep or affecting interior operations such as equipment use in hospitals and research facilities. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise As shown below in Table 4.7 -10, Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment, vibratory pile driving results in the highest levels of vibration. Typical pile driving techniques, which would be employed for the construction of the proposed project, generate vibration velocity levels of 81 VdB at 100 feet from the source. Table 4.7 -10 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Pile Driver (vibratory) 93 87 83 81 Large Bulldozer 87 81 77 75 Loaded trucks 86 80 76 74 Jackhammer 79 73 69 67 Small Bulldozer 58 52 48 46 Source: Federal Railroad Administration, 2005 Groundborne vibration levels attenuate with distance. At a distance of 500 feet from the source, groundborne vibration levels normally fall below ambient levels resulting from local sources such as traffic. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the Genentech childcare facility on Allerton Avenue. At its nearest point, the proposed Building B footprint would be approximately 300 feet from the exterior of the childcare center building. Therefore, pile driving would occur more than 300 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. At a distance of 300 feet, the project pile driving activity would result in groundborne vibration levels of 71.8 VdB which is less than the groundborne vibration impact criterion of 72 VdB or more for Category 2 land uses (i.e., places where people normally sleep). Therefore, the impact on the childcare center would be less than significant. Buildings on the Genentech campus could potentially house research equipment that is sensitive to vibration. Although it is not known whether vibration - sensitive equipment is used in the Genentech building near the project site, for purposes of analysis in this EIR, it is assumed that such equipment is used in the nearest building on the Genentech campus which is approximately 200 feet from Building B on the project site. At this distance, groundborne vibration levels generated by project construction would be about 75 VdB and would exceed the Category 1 (high sensitivity) land use impact threshold of 65 VdB. Therefore, the potential impact from groundborne vibration resulting from project construction activities would be significant. Mitigation Measure 4.7 -4: The applicant shall notify all neighboring property owners within 300 feet of construction site of the planned schedule of vibration causing activities so that the Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise occupants and /or researchers can take necessary precautionary measures to avoid negative effects to their activities and /or research. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the noticing described above in Mitigation Measure 4.7 -4 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 4.7.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact 4.7 -5: Construction of the proposed project, when combined with other construction projects in the vicinity, would not result in a cumulative impact associated with a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. (Less than Significant) There is only one known project nearby that could potentially be under construction at the same time as the proposed project. The 259 East Grand Avenue project would be located approximately 1,000 feet to the west of the proposed project. This project would be approximately 600 feet west of the preschool on Allerton Avenue and 1,200 feet west of the Genentech childcare facility. At these distances, the noise generated by standard construction activities would diminish substantially and would also be attenuated by intervening buildings. Therefore, there would not be a significant cumulative impact from the concurrent construction of both projects. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact 4.7 -6: The operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with the operation of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a cumulative impact associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. (Less than Significant) Cumulative development in South San Francisco would increase traffic volumes but the transition from industrial land uses to lighter office and research /development land uses, as contemplated in the general plan, would decrease the amount of heavy and medium trucks in the vehicle mix. This would increase noise levels in some areas of the City and decrease noise levels in others given the change in future land uses. Table 4.7 -11, Cumulative Off -Site Noise Contributions in dB(A), shows the existing and projected cumulative (2035) roadway noise levels in the project area. Noise levels along all roadway segments would increase by less than 2 decibels and the resultant CNEL would remain below 70 dB(A) CNEL, which is considered acceptable for business and commercial uses such as offices. Along Allerton Avenue where the daycare facility and the preschool are located, noise levels would remain below 65 db(A) CNEL, which is considered acceptable for that use. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.7 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.7 Noise The project's contribution on all roadway segments studied under cumulative conditions would not exceed 0.2 dB(A), which would be inaudible. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would not be considerable, and the project's cumulative impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Allerton Avenue (Forbes Blvd. and East Grand Ave.) Gateway Blvd. (Oyster Point Blvd and East Grand Ave.) Oyster Point Blvd. (Gateway Blvd. and Eccles Ave.) Airport Blvd. (Sister Cities Blvd. and Miller Ave.) East Grand Ave. (101 Off -ramp and Grand Overcross) Forbes Blvd. (Eccles Ave. and Allerton Ave.) Source: Impact Sciences 2011 59.5 61.1 61.3 1.6[0.2] NO 64.2 64.4 64.4 0.2[0.0] NO 65.6 67.1 67.1 1.5[0.0] NO 60.9 61.6 61.6 0.7[0.0] NO 63.9 64.5 64.6 0.6[0.1] NO 63.1 64.8 65.0 1.7[0.2] NO Impact Sciences, Inc. 0868.001 4.7 -21 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR April 2012 Table 4.7 -11 Cumulative (2035) Off -Site Noise Contributions in dB(A) 4.8 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 4.8.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents the traffic and circulation impacts resulting from development of the 326,020- square -foot research and development project at 494 Forbes Boulevard in the City of South San Francisco. Existing (2011), year 2015, and year 2035 conditions were evaluated by Crane Transportation Group at 24 nearby intersections and at the nearby U.S. 101 interchanges, serving the project that would be most affected by project traffic. Traffic operations along the U.S. 101 freeway were also evaluated. Project impacts to intersection level of service, signalization needs, and vehicle queuing as well as impacts to U.S. 101 freeway mainline operation were estimated and evaluated, as were impacts due to project access, internal vehicular circulation, and pedestrian circulation. Where appropriate, excerpts and findings from the following EIRs or traffic studies have been included in this section: Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR (Lamphier- Gregory and Crane Transportation Group 2011) and the Revised Draft Report of the Traffic Study for the East of 101 Area (TJKM Transportation Consultants 2011). This analysis evaluated traffic operations at 24 intersections during weekday AM and PM peak hours. Locations of these intersections are shown in Figure 4.8 -1, Study Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. Of the 24 study intersections, 23 are currently in operation, while one intersection, the Terrabay office access along Airport Boulevard, would be active after completion and full occupancy of the proposed project. All 24 intersections are listed below. 1. Airport Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Hook Ramps (Signal) 2. Airport Boulevard / Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) — Future conditions only 3. Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard (Signal) 4. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp (Signal) 5. Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp and Southbound On -Ramp (Signal) 6. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp Flyover (Signal) 7. Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue (Signal) 8. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gull Road (Signal) 9. Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue /U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Signal) 10. Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue (Signal) 11. Grand Avenue Overcrossing /Dubuque Avenue (Signal) Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation 12. U.S. 101 Northbound Off - Ramp /East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive (Off -Ramp not Signal or Stop Sign Controlled) 13. East Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal) 14. East Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard (Signal) 15. East Grand Avenue /Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way (Signal) 16. East Grand Avenue /Littlefield Avenue (Signal) 17. East Grand Avenue /Allerton Avenue (Allerton Stop Sign Controlled— Right turn only from Allerton to East Grand) 18. Forbes Boulevard /Eccles Avenue (Signal) 19. Forbes Boulevard /Allerton Avenue (All Way Stop) 20. Forbes Boulevard /Gull Road (Signal) 21. Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue (Signal) 22. Gateway Boulevard /South Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue (Signal) 23. South Airport Boulevard /U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps/Wondercolor Lane (Signal) 24. South Airport Boulevard /Utah Avenue (Signal) In addition to the study intersections, this analysis evaluated traffic operations along four segments of U.S. 101, six U.S. 101 off - ramps, and five U.S. 101 on- ramps. U.S. 101 segments included in the analysis were: 1. North of Oyster Point Boulevard, northbound direction 2. North of Oyster Point Boulevard, southbound direction 3. North of I -380, northbound direction 4. North of I -380, southbound direction U.S. 101 off -ramps analyzed in the analysis were: 1. Southbound off -ramp to Airport Boulevard 2. Southbound off -ramp flyover to Oyster Point /Gateway 3. Southbound off -ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue 4. Northbound off -ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 S B On /of Ramps $ t D an Mateo S Airpor a �T TFf Q n r - Terraba i 3 t � o Cities �� Point = Signal = All Way Stop Terrabay = Side Street Controlled Stop Sign on U � E Grand x E 0 Not To Scale /� NORTH - -) t D 0 J O T E Grand B 101 D o 0 S ister OVStE Not To Scale /� NORTH - -) t D 0 J O T E Grand B 101 nra nn L s m aj p Oyster olnt m n n ID m v O ster , Point �� c� c L► F low Forbes 2 o ID E Grand s M n n rD <� Forbes SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 1 Study Intersection Lane Geometrics and Contro 0868 - 001.11/11 4.8 Transportation and Circulation 5. Northbound off ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive 6. Northbound off -ramp to Dubuque Avenue U.S. 101 on -ramps analyzed in the analysis include: 1. Southbound on -ramp from Dubuque Avenue 2. Southbound on -ramp from Produce Avenue 3. Northbound on -ramp from South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane 4. Northbound on -ramp from Grand Avenue 5. Northbound on -ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue This evaluation analyzed six scenarios of operating conditions at the above - mentioned intersections, U.S. 101 segments, and U.S. 101 off - ramps: • Existing Conditions • Existing with Project Conditions • 2015 Future Without Project Conditions • 2015 Future With Project Conditions • 2035 Future Without Project Conditions • 2035 Future With Project Conditions The Existing Conditions scenario was used to describe the current operating conditions in the project area. As the project is not anticipated to be completely constructed until 2014 and fully occupied until 2015, traffic impacts from the project were evaluated by comparing 2015 Base Case (Without Project) Conditions with 2015 Base Case Plus Project Conditions. In addition, to evaluate the project's cumulative impacts, traffic conditions in 2035 with and without the proposed project were also analyzed. Also, in order to satisfy CEQA requirements, an Existing with Project scenario is presented and compared to existing conditions. 4.8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.8.2.1 Roadway System The project site is located in the City of South San Francisco, which is located along major transportation routes including U.S. 101, Interstate 380, Interstate 280, and Caltrain. San Francisco International Airport Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation is approximately 2 miles south of the project site and U.S. 101 is approximately 1 mile east of the site (Figure 4.8 -2, Roadway System Map). The project site is served directly by Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue, while regional access is provided by U.S. 101 (Figure 4.8 -2). Three new driveway connections are proposed to Allerton Avenue and a single driveway connection is proposed to Forbes Boulevard. Access to U.S. 101 is provided by a variety of major streets with several route options available to the four driveway connections that would be used by project traffic. Each of these roadways is briefly described below, while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and controls are presented in Figure 4.8 -1. Major Regional Roadways U.S. 101 U.S. 101 is an eight -lane freeway that provides access to the project area. It extends from downtown San Francisco and Northern California to Los Angeles and Southern California. Within the study area, U.S. 101 has northbound on -ramps at Grand Avenue, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Oyster Point Boulevard (Figure 4.8 -2). Northbound off -ramps are provided at East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive, South Airport Boulevard (between Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue), and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard). Southbound on -ramps are provided from Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue. Southbound off -ramps are provided at Produce Avenue, Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue, Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard, and at Airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard). There are auxiliary lanes on northbound U.S. 101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S. 101 south of Oyster Point Boulevard. In 2009, U.S. 101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 204,000 vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 196,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard, and 195,000 vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 ,a m` �e r 101 Sister Citi C'S e /Va O ster Point Blvd G> z �e Q Q � � a rya • � � GG�es m G Grandgve �� or¢ Project Dr E Grand ast Site ¢t dJ�e �e G�aa �a = Mitchell Ave a Q) Q � ) J Q N � o_ 101 �P v. o� L 0' 380 Ll NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2009 FIGURE 4.° - 2 I i Roadway System Map 868 - 001.11/09 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Local Streets Allerton Avenue Allerton Avenue is a two -lane local street extending northeasterly from East Grand Avenue to Forbes Boulevard. It has a gradual south -to -north uphill grade and a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour. On- street parking is prohibited along both sides of the street and its curb -to -curb width is 40 feet. Allerton Avenue is stop sign controlled on its approaches to East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard (an all -way stop). Only right turns are allowed on the Allerton Avenue approach to East Grand Avenue. Sidewalks and Class II striped and signed bike lanes are provided along both sides of the street in the project area. Forbes Boulevard Forbes Boulevard is a four -lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with East Grand Avenue. Within the project area, this roadway is 60 feet wide curb to curb, with an intermittent raised median that is 12 feet wide. On- street parking is prohibited and the posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. A sidewalk is provided along the north side of the street, but not along the south (project frontage) side of the street. East Grand Avenue East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial /office areas east of the U.S. 101 freeway. This roadway has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour. The roadway traverses a sharp horizontal curve just east of the Allerton Avenue intersection. Oyster Point Boulevard Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the East of 101 area in South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S. 101 freeway, four lanes east of Veterans Boulevard, and two lanes near Gull Road. Bicycle lanes are provided in both directions along the entire length of the roadway. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Harbor Way Harbor Way is a two -lane street serving existing and planned industrial /office uses south of East Grand Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S. 101 freeway ramps via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue. Airport Boulevard Airport Boulevard is a four- to six -lane, north -south arterial street that runs parallel to and west of U.S. 101. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard changes names to Produce Avenue. Gateway Boulevard Gateway Boulevard is a four -lane major arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue with South Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. Littlefield Avenue Littlefield Avenue is a 40- foot -wide, two -lane north -south street connecting East Grand Avenue with Utah Avenue. Utah Avenue Utah Avenue is a four -lane east -west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport Boulevard. South Airport Boulevard South Airport Boulevard is a four -lane divided roadway extending southerly from the Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue intersection to the San Bruno Avenue East /North McDonnell Road intersection at the San Francisco International Airport. Most of South Airport Boulevard runs parallel to and east of U.S. 101. Dubuque Avenue Dubuque Avenue is a two- to seven -lane roadway running parallel to and east of U.S. 101 in a north -south direction. This roadway extends from East Grand Avenue Overcrossing to Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has two lanes south of the Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 ramps and up to Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation seven lanes between the ramp intersection and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue is classified as a collector roadway. Mitchell Avenue Mitchell Avenue is a two -lane street running in an east -west direction. Mitchell Avenue connects South Airport Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard with Harbor Way. Gull Road Gull Road is a two -lane local roadway running in a north -south direction. This roadway connects Oyster Point Boulevard with Forbes Boulevard. The General Plan classifies Gull Road as a local street. 4.8.2.2 Public Transportation Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service, and regional rail service. Figure 4.8 -3, Public Transportation Routes, and Table 4.8 -1, Public Transportation Service, show the type and frequency of transit service east of the U.S. 101 freeway in the project vicinity, while Table 4.8 -2, Caltrain /BART Shuttle Service, lists the shuttle services available in the project vicinity. Table 4.8 -1 Public Transportation Service Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Airport/Linden -Daly City and Colma BART 20/20 30 Airport Blvd. /Linden Ave Stations (130) South SF BART Station (132) 30/30 50 Airport Blvd. /Linden Ave Airport/Linden- Serramonte (133) 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave Sam Trans Palo Alto -Daly City (390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3 Redwood City - Colma BART Station (391) 15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real /South SF BART Station San Mateo -SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave. Caltrain Gilroy -SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station Pittsburg -Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Fremont -Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station BART Richmond -Daly City 15/15 — Daly City BART Station Dublin - Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station Caltrain Gateway Area 15/15 — 1000 Gateway, Genentech Bldgs Shuttle to B9, B5 SSF Station Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull /Oyster Point and 384 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Sierra Point Area Utah Grand Area 30/30(a) 30/30(a) Oyster Point — 5000 Shoreline Court — Cabot /Allerton Sierra Point Area 35/35 5000 Shoreline Court BART Genentech 15/15 — Genentech Bldgs B5, B54 Shuttle to Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull /Oyster Point and 384 SSF Station Oyster Point Utah -Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot /Allerton Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511.org), Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (commute.org), Caltrain 2009. Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes. SF = San Francisco (a) = average frequency period. Bus Service The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco. However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of U.S. 101. Bus routes running just west of the U.S. 101 are described below. Bus Route 34 Tanforan Shopping Center — Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates during midday only on weekdays with headways of about 2 hours. Bus Route 130 Daly City / Colma BART —South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and Daly City. This route operates with 20- minute peak period headways and 30- to 60- minute non -peak headways on weekdays, 30- minute headways on Saturdays and 60- minute headways on Sundays. Bus Route 132 Airport /Linden- Arroyo /El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30- minute peak period headways and 60- minute non -peak headways on weekdays and 60- minute headways on Saturdays. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 SOURCE: EIP Associates -2006 FIGURE 4.° - 3 T Routes 868 - 001.11/09 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Bus Route 292 San Francisco —SF Airport — Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It operates with 20- to 30- minute peak headways and 25- to 60- minute non -peak headways on weekdays and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose, and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Caltrain /BART Shuttles The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides van shuttle service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S. 101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles also provide service to and from the Colma BART station. As shown in Table 4.8 -1 and Figure 4.8 -3, a shuttle stop is located in the project vicinity. All shuttle service is fixed - route, fixed - schedule, and provided at no cost on weekdays during the commute periods. Seventy -five percent of operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Table 4.8 -2 Caltrain /BART Shuttle Service Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served' BART eight AM & nine PM trips Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Dr., Eccles Ave., Forbes Oyster Point Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Blvd., Veterans Blvd. BART nine AM & nine PM trips E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave., Harbor Way, Utah -Grand Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips Littlefield Ave. Millbrae BART ten AM & twelve PM trips Gateway Blvd., BART Gateway Caltrain six AM & five PM trips Gateway Blvd., Genentech Office BART four AM & four PM trips Sierra Point Sierra Point, Shoreline Caltrain four AM & four PM trips Source: Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Commute.org), Caltrain 2009. Both shuttles alternate between 15- and 30- minute headways during both peak hours. Caltrain Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose, and San Francisco. There is a station located on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday. Caltrain /BART Shuttles The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance provides van shuttle service between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers east of U.S. 101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles also provide service to and from the Colma BART station. As shown in Table 4.8 -1 and Figure 4.8 -3, a shuttle stop is located in the project vicinity. All shuttle service is fixed - route, fixed - schedule, and provided at no cost on weekdays during the commute periods. Seventy -five percent of operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB), Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City /County Association of Governments. Twenty -five percent of operating costs are borne by area employers. 4.8.2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Sidewalks are in place along the north side of Forbes Boulevard and along both sides of Allerton Avenue in the project vicinity. There are no sidewalks along the project's Forbes Boulevard frontage. In addition, Class II bicycle lanes are striped along Allerton Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. Proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element. Numerous bicycle facilities are available in the study area. Bike lanes are available along Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Drive, and Gateway Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are available along Executive Drive and Shoreline Court. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Boulevard, East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard. Future bike paths are planned along the Caltrain right -of -way. 4.8.2.4 Volumes Existing traffic counts were obtained from the City Public Works Department for all but three analysis locations. Counts were conducted in March 2008 or June 2009. Counts at the Forbes Boulevard /Allerton Avenue, East Grand Avenue /Allerton Avenue and U.S. 101 Northbound Off - Ramp /East Grand Avenue - Executive Drive intersections were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in June 2009. Figures 4.8 -4 and 4.8 -5 present existing weekday AM and PM peak hour volumes. 4.8.2.5 Intersection Methodology Level of Service Signalized Intersections Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of Service (LOS) which ranges from LOS A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers, to LOS F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches. The LOS scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (TRB 2000) at each intersection. The control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project. Greater detail regarding the LOS /control delay relationship is provided in Table 4.8 -3, Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 638 204 433 S B On /ofi �' B 594 Ramps 0 0 0 1 �► `204 0.-177 t O yS�P j rpt �— 302 228 14 657 a 177 50 II 142 0 -4--212 r 58 i 4 r 263 Poin296 J S Air ort ysterPt 50 r 498 1 (' 172 — ► 80 334 242 997 —► 106 42 74 413 129 v 7 27 134 6 -0--95 38 355 1 4 ` 24 ' Forbes 45J Mitchell 374 78� 1 � 214 i `15 180 —► 423 332 _� f �► 1080 —► 390 2 339 74 3 t 11 1 04 35 (D x— 171 Forbes Aj 1 L► ` 18 553 US 101 Wonder - 0 NB Ramps „ Color 803 a 26 —► 0154 15 366 Z 2 249 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 638 204 a 42 �' B z 4 210 0 0 0 0 176 258 0.-177 .— 107 O yS�P j rpt �— 302 Ter S ister 162 Oster Ost r 137 743 ti r 58 D t Cities Point Poin296 J 1289 —► ysterPt 101 ' ' 498 1 (' 4 � C) 1 242 997 —► 27 9 281 626 74 413 F ��o� e �894 X152 27 412 38 355 0 104 9 6 NoW LF 8 5 < L 7 4 v x-147 es 121 • 26 439 —► F63 10 83 72 o 482 64 3 3 �' B .— 1 4 -0 1 J 12 0 51 N Offra mp or �— 242 25 O ster AML olnt 1289 —► � 53 17 198 1 1 0 0 0 4 � � r 134 O ster . ,` 11 Point 548 118 3 18 651 165 497 94 4 � 145 ' Forbes 45J 374 95 45 22 0 12 � 214 i `15 E Grand 515J _� f �► 1080 —► 0 59 94 Z 74 49 1 38 m 26 4 (D x— 171 Forbes � 4 F orbes 102 J 1 553 0 1 0 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 4 Existing Intersection AM Peak Hour Volume Project ast :nd Site W Ave 0868 - 001.11/11 497 S B On/o 620 Ramps 1 �► r414 1 0 230 13 1004 a '- 389 76 I 152 $ 178 + 4 ` 632 An MAtpn S Air ort 121 165 — ►(=D 3 r 1002 134 —► a 78 191 200 29 rD Cities v 3 j �► 355 7 F 350 �► 49 —' 45 I f 103 76 L2 200 Mitchell 118 34 , 1 r 24 a 101 —►� 494 61 342 2 124 476 L 12 153 86 j 4 US 101 Wonder - NB Ramps „ Color 358 a 13 —► 13 0 315 15 188 289 518 t 222 144 2 1 r 917 Driveway Utah 20 --+ 1 —► 32 69 13 ° 388 42 278 D x-288 1 ,` 244 ►1L NOT TO SCALE r 911 Terra ba D 1 0 243 0 337 Urnmp 108 -- o L 906 1 $ �— 720 112 222 625 186 = ` 229 165 — ►(=D 3 r 1002 S ister 4 1�60 574 r Cities Point j �► 61 1 �► 49 —' 45 I 110 76 333 ►1L NOT TO SCALE r 911 Terra ba D 1 0 243 0 337 a 64 J o L 906 416 158 $ �— 720 `77 625 .J j 4 = ` 229 165 — ►(=D 3 r 1002 S ister Oster O ster Point r Cities Point j �► 61 .� 1 �► 178--+-- 302 41 127 40 12 388 118 8 00 129 / o 67 12 s 40 4 �— 1359 Grand 29 Overcross 290 —► -0— 1109 Grand f- 3ercross 231 —► 4) �► 71 w 2 290 222 0 0 00 LO yS�Prp� •— 1582 223�y 48 46 ysterPt 04 951 5 FAl e�127 F 0 27 L6 'N J X +p(D D 335 SBOn `77 34 J � �— 467 r 165 — ►(=D 0 P oin t B 1 340 r 21 '22 1214 j �► 13 93 286 v 66 54 ►23 24 / o 67 12 s 40 4 �— 1359 Grand 29 Overcross 290 —► -0— 1109 Grand f- 3ercross 231 —► 4) �► 71 w 2 290 222 0 0 00 LO yS�Prp� •— 1582 223�y 48 46 ysterPt 04 951 5 FAl e�127 F 0 27 I Project S ite 251—► ^' � 39 282 10 2 0 1 �1 473 16 O ster Poin 112 630 0 19 151 20175 L6 'N J X +p(D D 335 SBOn `77 34 J � �— 467 r 165 — ►(=D 0 P oin t B 1 340 r 7 93 1214 j �► 13 I Project S ite 251—► ^' � 39 282 10 2 0 1 �1 473 16 O ster Poin 112 630 0 19 151 20175 L6 'N J 1 4 D 335 Forbes `77 34 J � �— 467 1 165 — ►(=D 100 47 340 111 7 93 1070 j �► 159 G ra nd 93 286 v 66 54 45 D 26 2 0 0 > .— 833 160 � t ,J j �► o t 401 -1020 E Grand E Grand 1 �'1 1 (' 62 , 179--o. -b 54 136 143--1- 49 7 Q 0 , 82 85 489 .— 289 ' Forbes 160 J 138 —' 342 131 4 o — 19 1 .— 819 E Grand '` 95 178 s =•� 1 r ► 197 —► s179 28 63 2 36 0 "' 64 75 15 1 4 � �— 467 Forbes � f Forbes 53 211 —► 4 Z 0 0 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 5 Existing Intersection PM Peak Hour Volume! 0868 - 001.11/11 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -3 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria Level of Average Control Delay Service Description (Seconds Per Vehicle)' A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and /or <_ 10.0 short cycle lengths. B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and /or short 10.1 to 20.0 cycle lengths. C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and /or longer 20.1 to 35.0 cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 55.0 progression, long cycle lengths, and /or high volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle 55.1 to 80.0 lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to > 80.0 oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). Unsignalized Intersections Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the LOS A through F scale. LOS ratings for all -way stop intersections are determined using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all -way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection. Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign controlled (two -way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike signalized or all -way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Table 4.8 -4, Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria, provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -4 Unsignalized Intersection Level of Service Criteria A Little or no delays <_ 10.0 B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for an all -way F stop), or with approach/tum movement capacity exceeded (for a side street > 50.0 stop controlled intersection) Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board). All operating conditions were evaluated using the SYNCHRO software program. Signalization Requirements Traffic signals are used to provide an orderly flow of traffic through an intersection. Many times, they are needed to offer side street traffic an opportunity to access a major road where high volumes and /or high vehicle speeds block crossing or turn movements. They do not, however, increase the capacity of an intersection (i.e., increase the overall intersection's ability to accommodate additional vehicles) and, in fact, often slightly reduce the number of total vehicles that can pass through an intersection in a given period. Signals can also cause an increase in traffic accidents if installed at inappropriate locations. There are nine possible tests for determining whether a traffic signal should be considered for installation. These tests, called "warrants," consider criteria such as actual traffic volume, pedestrian volume, presence of schoolchildren, and accident history. The intersection volume data together with the available collision histories were compared to warrants contained in the 2009 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) (FHWA 2009), and the 2003 Manual on Unified Traffic Control Devices California Supplement (FHWA 2003), which has been adopted by the State of California as a replacement for the Caltrans Traffic Manual. Section 4C of the MUTCD provides guidelines, or warrants, which may indicate need for a traffic signal at an unsignalized intersection. As indicated in the MUTCD, satisfaction of one or more warrants does not necessarily require immediate installation of a traffic signal. It is merely an indication that the local jurisdiction should begin monitoring conditions at that location and that a signal may ultimately be required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Warrant 3, the peak hour volume warrant, is often used as an initial check of signalization needs since peak hour volume data is typically available and this warrant is usually the first one to be met. To meet this warrant, a minimum of 100 vehicles per hour must approach the intersection on one of the side streets. It should also be noted that Warrant 3 has a second set of criteria based upon a combination of vehicle delay and volumes. This is typically referred to as the peak hour delay warrant. Vehicle Queuing Analysis Methodology The Synchro software program has been used to determine vehicle queues at the following five signalized freeway off -ramp intersections and at the adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off -ramp intersections: • U.S. 101 Southbound Off - Ramp /Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue intersection and the adjacent Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection • U.S. 101 Northbound Off - Ramp /South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane intersection • U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off - Ramp /Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection • U.S. 101 Northbound Off - Ramp /Dubuque Avenue intersection and the adjacent Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp intersection • U.S. 101 Southbound Off - Ramp /Airport Boulevard intersection In addition, off -ramp queuing was also evaluated on the U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp connection to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive. While this off -ramp is not controlled on its approach to this first intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major intersection to the east (at Grand Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any queuing extended back to the off -ramp. Projections are provided for each off -ramp as well as for turn lanes and other surface street approaches. Queuing Standards The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off -ramp and on the approaches to intersections adjacent to off -ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off -ramp traffic. In addition, no off -ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend beyond this length 5 percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in this study for Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Existing, year 2015, and year 2035 without and with Project conditions. Off -ramp queuing was evaluated using both the Synchro software output, which details queuing for one of the signal cycles during the peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program, which evaluates off -ramp operation and backups during the entire peak traffic hour. 4.8.2.6 Existing Intersection Traffic Operations Levels of Service As shown in Table 4.8 -5, Existing Intersection Levels of Service, all analyzed intersections currently operate at good to acceptable (LOS D or better) levels of service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours. Table 4.8 -5 Existing Intersection Levels of Service Airport Blvd. /U.S. 101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) C- 25.5( C -25.5 C -27.0 C -27.0 Airport Blvd. /Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) NAG) NA NA NA Airport Blvd. /Sister Cities Blvd. /Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal) C- 25.7( C -25.7 C -24.1 C -24.1 Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB On -Ramp (Signal) C- 21.4( C -21.5 C -22.1 C -22.2 Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB Off -Ramp & SB On -Ramp (Signal) B- 13.0( B -13.1 D -46.1 D -46.1 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gateway/U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp Flyover (Signal) C- 27.9( C -27.9 C -22.6 C -22.6 Oyster Point Blvd. /Eccles Ave. (Signal) B- 11.1( B -12.4 B -19.8 C -21.0 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gull Rd. (Signal) C- 26.4( C -28.5 C -30.9 C -32.0 Airport Blvd. /Miller/U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp (Signal) C- 28.5( C -28.5 B -17.5 B -17.6 Airport Blvd. /Grand Ave. (Signal) D- 40.2( D -40.8 C -31.7 C -31.8 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A- 6.40) A -6.5 A -3.4 A -3.4 E. Grand Ave. /E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) B- 18.5( B -19.3 B -13.5 B -13.5 E. Grand Ave. /Gateway Blvd. (Signal) C- 24.9( C -24.9 C -22.4 C -22.3 E. Grand Ave. /Forbes Blvd. /Harbor Way. (Signal) B- 18.2( B -18.7 C -33.9 D -36.5 E. Grand Ave. /Littlefield Ave. (Signal) B- 13.8( B -14.9 B -11.9 B -11.9 E. Grand Ave. /Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control) A- 9.1( A -9.1 C -17.5 C -19.7 Forbes Blvd. /Eccles Ave. (Signal) B- 13.4( B -14.5 B -16.5 B -16.5 Forbes Blvd. /Allerton Ave. (All Way Stop Control) B -11.3 ( B -11.5 B -10.5 B -10.7 Forbes Blvd. /Gull Rd. (Signal) B- 17.0( B -17.0 B -16.0 B -17.2 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave. /Produce Ave. (Signal) D- 36.80) D -36.8 C -33.8 C -33.8 Gateway Blvd. /S. Airport Blvd. /Mitchell Ave. (Signal) C- 34.30) C -34.3 D -44.8 D -46.1 S. Airport Blvd. /U.S. 101 NB Hook Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) C- 31.20) C -31.5 C -27.1 C -27.2 S. Airport Blvd. /Utah Ave. (Signal) C- 28.00) C -28.1 C -30.7 C -30.9 (1) Signalized level of service — vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service — vehicle control delay in seconds /Allerton Ave. southbound stop sign controlled approach right turn to E. Grand Ave. (3) All way stop level of service — vehicle control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Signalization As shown in Table 4.8 -6, Intersection Signalization Requirements, under existing conditions the East Grand Avenue /Allerton Avenue and Allerton Avenue /Forbes Boulevard intersections do not have AM or PM peak hour volumes meeting peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. Table 4.8 -6 Intersection Signalization Requirements Existing 2015 Future 2035 Future Location W/o + Project W/o + Project W/o +'Project' Project Project Project' AM Peak Hour E. Grand Ave./ No No No No NA* NA* Allerton Ave. Forbes Blvd./ No No No No Border Border Allerton Ave. PM Peak Hour E. Grand Ave./ No No Yes Yes NA* NA* Allerton Ave. Forbes Blvd./ No No No No Yes Yes Allerton Ave. * Intersection signalized. Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -20 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Vehicle Queuing As shown in Table 4.8 -7, 95 Percentile Vehicle Queue, only one intersection currently has 95th percentile queues exceeding available storage: • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue: AM peak hour queues in the left turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach exceed available storage. Table 4.8 -7 95 Percentile Vehicle Queues Airport Blvd. /Grand Avenue SB Left Turn 300 332 351 160 163 SB Through 300 219 228 154 154 SB Right Turn 300 31 31 59 59 Oyster Point Blvd. /Dubuque Avenue EB Through 250 131 133 66 67 WB Through 840 27 29 168 172 WB Left 840 58 59 373 374 WB Right 550 39 43 443 470 NB Left Turn 175 112 112 111 111 NB Left /Through 270 112 112 113 113 NB Right Turn 240 97 98 0 0 Dubuque Ave. /U.S.101 SB On /NB Off -Ramps Off - Ramp /Left /Through 975 136 136 209 209 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gateway Blvd. /U.S.101 SB Off - Ramp /Commercial Access SB Off -Ramp Through 3350 307 321 72 72 SB Off -Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 293 293 46 46 EB Through 900 271 278 70 75 Airport Blvd. /SB 101 On -Off Ramp* SB Off -Ramp Left Turn 950 112 112 206 206 Airport Blvd. /Terrabay Entrance SB Through 450 NA NA NA NA SB Right Turn 300 NA NA NA NA Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -21 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 441 590 52 53 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 115 117 243 243 Airport Blvd. /Sister Cities Blvd. /Oyster Point Blvd. WB Left Turn 140 76 76 121 123 WB Through 250 90 91 221 222 WB Right Turn 250 NA NA NA NA S. Airport Blvd. /U.S.101 NB On and Off /Wondercolor Lane NB Off Left /Through /Right 825 315 320 164 164 Airport Blvd. /Miller Ave. /U.S.101 SB Off SB Off Left /Through 750 206 214 215 217 Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95 percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. * Storage and queues measured in feet per lane. Synchro software used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 4.8.2.7 U.S. 101 Ramp Methodology Capacity (Vehicles per Hour) Off -Ramps Caltrans uses a volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can be accommodated by a single lane off -ramp at its divergence from the freeway. This threshold was used in this EIR. On -Ramps On -ramp operation has been evaluated using planning -level methodology contained in HCM 2000. Capacity is dependent upon the free -flow speed of on -ramp traffic. For single- and double -lane diamond on -ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200 and 3,300 vehicles per hour, respectively. For single -lane button hook or curving on- ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000 vehicles per hour. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -22 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 E. Grand Ave. /Grand Ave. Overcrossing 4.8 Transportation and Circulation 4.8.2.8 Existing U.S. 101 Ramp Operations Off -Ramps Table 4.8 -8, Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway off -ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off -ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with 1,618 vehicles per hour). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -23 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Table 4.8 -8 Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes AM Peak Hour SB Off -Ramp to Airport 1500 207 207 318 318 431 431 Blvd. SB Off -Ramp Flyover to 1500 1249 1281 1718 1750 2426 2456 Oyster Point /Gateway SB Off -Ramp to Airport 1500 531 551 760 780 991 1009 Blvd. /Miller Ave. NB Off -Ramp to S. Airport 1500 ** 1195 1219 1743 1767 2128 2150 Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane NB Off -Ramp to E. Grand 1500 ** 1618 1654 1719 1755 2140 2173 Ave. /Executive Drive NB Off -Ramp to Dubuque 1500 716 716 1536 1536 1962 1962 Ave. PM Peak Hour SB Off -Ramp to Airport 1500 419 419 512 512 755 755 Blvd. SB Off -Ramp Flyover to 1500 154 160 342 348 440 445 Oyster Point /Gateway SB Off -Ramp to Airport 1500 532 533 636 637 744 745 Blvd. /Miller Ave. NB Off -Ramp to S. Airport 1500 ** 559 560 768 769 801 802 Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane NB Off -Ramp to E. Grand 1500 ** 536 545 528 537 654 662 Ave. /Executive Drive NB Off -Ramp to Dubuque 1500 494 494 655 655 808 808 Ave. * Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off -ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline. ** Programmed provision of second off -ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline will increase capacity to 2,300 vehicles per hour. Bolded results = significant project impacts Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -23 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Table 4.8 -8 Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes 4.8 Transportation and Circulation On -Ramps Table 4.8 -9, On -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, shows that currently all U.S. 101 freeway on -ramps serving South San Francisco and the East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and PM peak hours. Table 4.8 -9 On -Ramp Capacity and Volumes Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -24 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour SB On -Ramp from 2000 1263 1263 SB On -Ramp from 2000 495 495 622 622 1207 1207 Dubuque Ave. SB On -Ramp from 3300 ** 1836 1888 2152 2204 3055 3102 SB On -Ramp from 3300 ** 1022 1035 1088 1101 1281 1293 Produce Ave. 608 897 897 Airport Blvd./ NB On -Ramp from S. 2000 269 269 334 334 388 388 Airport Blvd./ 853 1272 1283 1203 1213 Grand Ave. Wondercolor Lane NB On -Ramp from 2200 1184 1218 1965 1999 NB On -Ramp from 2000 650 651 751 752 843 844 Grand Ave. * Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209. NB On -Ramp from 2200 737 748 916 927 1244 1254 Oyster Point auxiliary lane to the I -380 off -ramp. Bolded results = significant project impacts. Blvd./Dubuque Ave. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -24 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 PM Peak Hour SB On -Ramp from 2000 1263 1263 1677 1677 2125 2125 Dubuque Ave. SB On -Ramp from 3300 ** 1836 1888 2152 2204 3055 3102 Produce Ave. NB On -Ramp from S. 2000 476 476 608 608 897 897 Airport Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane NB On -Ramp from 2000 842 853 1272 1283 1203 1213 Grand Ave. NB On -Ramp from 2200 1184 1218 1965 1999 2532 2563 Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave. * Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209. ** Produce Avenue on -ramp has two travel lanes. One on -ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline, while the other on -ramp continues as an auxiliary lane to the I -380 off -ramp. Bolded results = significant project impacts. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -24 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Freeway Mainline Operations Analysis Methodology U.S. 101 freeway segments were evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). U.S. 101 existing traffic conditions were evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from year 2009 U.S. 101 mainline counts from Caltrans as provided by TJKM Associates as part of their work for the updating of the City's East of 101 Traffic Modeling. Freeway mainline analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for freeway mainlines. Existing Freeway Operation Existing LOS on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based on analysis of year 2009 volumes. Table 4.8 -10 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation and Table 4.8 -11 shows details of the existing freeway LOS results. Currently, all U.S. 101 freeway segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Conditions are generally poorer along U.S. 101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, in both the northbound and the southbound directions during the AM peak hour, and in the northbound direction during the PM peak hour. Table 4.8 -10 Summary of Existing U.S. 101 Freeway Operation Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off -ramps LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on -ramp (just north of I -380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off -ramp (just north of I -380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off -ramp to Bayshore Blvd. Southbound LOS C North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off -ramps LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on -ramp (just north of I -380) Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off -ramp (just north of I -380) LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off -ramp to Bayshore Blvd. LOS = Level of Service Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -25 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -11 Existing Freeway Mainline Levels of Service AM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7452 D 30.1 7462 D 30.1 Southbound 6774 D 26.3 6826 D 26.6 North of I -380 Northbound 9713 C 24.9 9773 C 25.1 Southbound 6421 B 16.1 6434 B 16.2 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 7530 D 30.5 7572 D 30.8 Southbound 6314 C 24.1 6321 C 24.2 North of I -380 Northbound 7605 C 19.1 7615 C 19.2 Southbound 8377 C 21.1 8429 C 21.2 LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 4.8.3 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS Plans and policies that pertain to the traffic conditions affecting and affected by the project include: (1) the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP) Standards; and (2) the City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program. 4.8.3.1 San Mateo County CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets The 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 line, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS was or will 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. If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a CMP- designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect by using LOS F in the 1991 CMP Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -26 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on the CMP- designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial, environmental, or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions. A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside the County were excluded from the determination of conformance. 4.8.3.2 City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management Program The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management). 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 minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. • Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this section. • Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates, while an intensive TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by 20 to 25 percent. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial /residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -27 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation 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. 4.8.4 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4.8.4.1 Significance Criteria In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist Form) and the City of South San Francisco and C /CAG guidelines, implementation of the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment if it would result in any of the following conditions: • The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system (C /CAG criteria only). • Signalized intersection operation and all- way -stop intersection operation would change from Level of Service (LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. • Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign controlled intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side street criteria are applicable only for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour. • The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent or more with signalized or all -way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach). • Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian /school crossing signal warrant criteria levels. • The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels. • Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on a freeway off - ramp and /or also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off -ramp intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software program), or if Base Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off -ramps or on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off -ramp intersections is already projected at unacceptable lengths, the project would increase queuing volumes by one percent or more. • Project traffic results in queues exceeding off -ramp storage capacity based upon SIM traffic software evaluation. If base case traffic already exceeds the storage capacity of the off -ramp, then a one - percent addition in traffic due to the project is considered a significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -28 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation. • If on -site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through various parts of the project site. • Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle service. • If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant traffic, pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened. 4.8.4.2 Impact Analysis Methodology Although the project is not anticipated to be constructed and occupied until 2015, existing traffic conditions with the addition of project traffic are presented in this section. By 2015, other projects and regional population and employment growth would cause the traffic on study area facilities to increase compared to current conditions. Therefore, the project's traffic impacts have also been evaluated by comparing 2015 Future Without Project Conditions to 2015 Future With Project Conditions. Finally cumulative traffic impacts were evaluated by comparing 2035 Future Without Project Conditions to 2035 Future With Project Conditions. Some of the traffic impacts are cumulative in nature and therefore, where noted, the cost of the appropriate mitigation would be shared. This subsection details the process used to determine 2015 and 2035 Future Without Project Conditions. Year 2015 Future Without Project Operating Conditions Year 2015 Future Without Project conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved, and proposed development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. Projects and their associated trip generation are provided in Table 4.8 -12, 2015 Future Without Project Trip Generation, and have been utilized by TJKM Associates to develop local area intersection and freeway volumes for use in the City's updated East of 101 Transportation Capital Improvement Program study. Year 2015 Future Without Project peak hour conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed developments in the greater East of 101 Area to the existing traffic network. Year 2015 projections include traffic from several recently approved background projects such as Gateway Business Park, Oyster Point Redevelopment Phase 1, 213 East Grand, 328 Roebling Road, Lowe's, Home Depot, Terrabay, the ferry terminal that is currently under construction, and the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Year 2015 Future Without Project AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures 4.8 -6 and 4.8 -7. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -29 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 607 S B On /off 804 286 a 4— 184 ft343 Ohs �4 54 11 619 amps 118 176 387 0 �— 217 235 �Prpt 20 r 473 1 �► r315 Teba� �► 193 266 `81 Sister �. O ster Oster 7 1223 a 31 a t Cities Point y ysterPt Point 537/ �� f 295 31 45 0 217 102 , ' 523 , �► 295 1043 —► —►0Je 1288 238 150 45 481 883 143 49 226 505 430'1 40 666 a 177 r 101 t 3 74 142 0 208 607 3 + 4 `311 Terra bay 1 101 S Air ort 'Sister B 1 rann r 0 119 7 -4 ) 1 cities lvq 1457 o 187 —0 0 205 361 p —► s 111 50 ,� -14 0 79 {� Stec P oirit i N B 101 m 92 ■n A Offramr) �— 347 32 OvsterAe; Grand 285 390 60 4 75 � Forbes 125 ,' 357 1791 —► r 52 31 168 D 7 3 0 ° 4 0 4 205 43 O ster Point 28 C t 1032 —► — 141 3 41 629 0 41 -*--355 26152 56 9314 183 ° 86 96 85 s i 540 ` 15 1 2 �► ~ 141 1 4 270 �► Grand Grand vercross Grand E Grand ` 17 72 , Overcross 943 231 , �► 575 J _� 1 �► 883 —► 25 226 910 1526 —► 47 636 1607 —► s 131 98 w 95 v 427 235 0 117 D 16 2 27 7 9194 13 �9 4 �— 243 r 42 g �— 204 �E Grand E Grand Forbes Forbes 95 f 1 1206 78 1 406 196 , 671 0 1� 123 Z Q 36 1423 —► 3 0 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 6 2015 Future Without Project Intersection AM Peak Hour Volume Project S ite 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 6 — S 734 Ramps 1 4 12 500 t 453 13 918 a L 382 80 I 168 0 224 i �► ` 1020 S Air ort 167 1 149 —► Q142 248 214 (D 191 m 1205 20 Te r ba 1 109 , D 151 ° 38 357 M 490 a 204 140 � CO t 1650 422 444 0 �— 724 31 Pt 163 *-)r �-*-- 742 1 ` 286 FM 3 ,` 1308 S ister Oster O ster Point (D 1 Cities Point �— 1660 63 , 1 �► 202 , s 1 (� 312 —► 74 I 263 330 472 223 23 128 487 ° 113 u /O 262 55 t 18 140 � 6 F 1790 �► 31 Pt 163 *-)r o ,4e 97 FM Project S ite 122 100 498 4 � 333 ' Forbes 167 131 JOO D t 210 1 4 0 x-431 Grand `685 173 } �► 112 —► 45 I 138 76 522 ►1L NOT TO SCALE s L 108 300 34 140 � � 2 F 1790 �► nra nn Grand 99 0vercross 328 —► 48 U Q L9 x E Grand 68 460 �— 1599 Grand vercross 317 —� �► 45 w y 300 323 4 9 2 467 j�1011 1 o ` 390 E Grand 211 130 35 93 Z 25 653 99 156 93 1 �► 529 Grand 169 - 103 177 75 166 149 L 2 140 � � 2 B 101 `0 nra nn 607 o 1 0 s 35 0 48 � • NB 101 (D 1 Offra mp �— 1660 49 Oyster olnt 011 388 1, M 252 19 81 + fD 38 4 2 0 �1 I ': 895 42 O ster A . P Dint c 1 213 —► — 616 2 47 176 �" 187 399 113 ° 182 —1337 E Grand `88 194 , _� �► 346 —► s 299 30 98 ° 164 L 25 138 F 1272 E Grand 57 196 —► 2 47 284 19 �— 374 r 1 Forbes � • 175 230 —► 4 1 2 0 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 � FIGURE 4.° - / J 2015 Future Without Project Intersection PM Peak Hour Volume! 0868 - 001.11/11 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -12 2015 Future Without Project Trip Generation Genentech(') 1,988 318 2,306 271 1,613 1,884 (20% TDM Reduction) Hotel 350 rooms 8.17 2,860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206 Genentech R &D ( 372,000 sf 0.51 83:17 158 32 190 0.39 16:84 23 122 145 Triangle( Office( 248,000 sf 0.82 87:13 178 26 204 0.63 17:83 26 129 155 Oyster Point R &D/ 369* 48* 417* 55* 343* 398* Redevelopment Office Phase 1 Oyster Point Non- R &D( 680,499 sf 3.62 2,464 0.57 83:17 322 66 388 0.47 15:85 48 272 320 Redevelopment Area Ferry 1 berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155 Terminal( (010) Marina (420) 716 berths 2.96 2,119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136 Commercial( (820) 364,502 sf 43:19 15,741 0.91 61:39 202 129 331 4.15 49:51 741 772 1,513 Home Center( (862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6,774 1.26 57.43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689 Hotel (310) 3,385 8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1,156 739 1,895 0.59 53:47 1,058 939 1,997 rooms R &D( (760) 7,562,114 3.62 27,376 0.57 83:17 3,578 733 4,311 0.47 15:85 533 3,021 3,554 sf Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -32 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Office( ( 710) 360,000 sf 7.10 2,554 1.05 88:12 333 45 378 1.00 17:83 61 300 361 (20% TDM Reduction) Manufacturing (140) 7,955,717 3.25 25,856 0.62 78:22 3,848 1,085 4,933 0.62 36:64 1,776 3,157 4,933 (15% TDM Reduction) sf Total Trips 12,618 3,519 16,137 5,168 11,278 16,446 * Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR C1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 25% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the DraftEIR). (Z) The "Genentech Triangle" is a parcel on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard bordered by Caltrain on the west and Veterans Boulevard on the east and north. It is owned by Genentech, but separated from the rest of their campus and its trip generation/distribution has always been calculated separately from the rest of the campus. Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 25% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR). 4J Rates developed from ITE equations Trips based on SFBayArea Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast. Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (TIE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Compiled by: TJKMAssociates Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -33 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015 The City's East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection improvements in the City's East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted impact fees. In accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development projects in the East of 101 area, held in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting the area and the projects from which the fees were collected. Like other projects in the East of 101 area, the proposed project would pay a proportionate share towards these improvements. The City is in the process of updating its capital improvement program list for the East of 101 area; a new list is tentatively scheduled to be available in mid -2012. Based on currently available funding, projected growth rates, and the pending update, the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department expects that the following intersection improvements will be funded and constructed by 2015. Accordingly, the improvements have been factored into the year 2015 Base Case traffic modeling conducted by TJKM Associates for the 2011 Updated East of 101 Capital Improvement Program. • South Airport Boulevard /U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps /Wondercolor Lane — Add a second northbound off -ramp right turn lane. • Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound Off - Ramp- Southbound On -Ramp — Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach. — Restripe the Northbound Off -Ramp approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes and a combined through /right turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Veterans Boulevard — Add a second lane to the northbound (private driveway) approach. Stripe as one left turn lane and a combined through /right turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Airport Boulevard — Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and restripe the existing combined through /right turn lane as an exclusive through lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp — Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second exclusive right turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway Boulevard). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -34 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • East Grand Avenue /Grand Avenue Overcrossing — Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound East Grand Avenue approach. • East Grand Avenue /U.S. 101 — Widen existing northbound off ramp to add an additional lane. Figure 4.8 -8, Year 2015 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approach lanes and control. Year 2015 Future Without Project Intersection Level of Service All intersections with year 2015 Future Without Project volumes would operate at acceptable Levels of Service with the following exceptions (see Table 4.8 -13, Year 2015 Intersection Levels of Service). AM Peak Hour • Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off -Ramp (Signal) — LOS F • East Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard (Signal) — LOS E • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue (Signal) — LOS E PM Peak Hour • Gateway Boulevard /South Airport Boulevard /Mitchell Avenue (Signal) — LOS E • East Grand Avenue /Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way (Signal) — LOS E • Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off -Ramp (Signal) — LOS E Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -35 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 S B On /of k D San Mateo S Airport T a Q Mitchell tt- SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 Q FIGURE 4.° Q — 0 Year 2015 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Contrc 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -13 Year 2015 Intersection Levels of Service Airport Blvd. /U.S. 101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) B -15.6 (1) B -15.6 C -35.4 D -35.5 Airport Blvd. /Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) B -14.9 ( B -15.0 B -11.9 B -11.9 Airport Blvd. /Sister Cities Blvd. /Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal) C -31.9 ( C -32.0 D -41.8 D -41.8 Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB On -Ramp (Signal) C -22.4 ( C -22.6 C -25.5 C -25.5 Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB Off -Ramp & SB On -Ramp (Signal) C -21.9 ( C -21.9 C -25.1 C -25.1 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gateway/U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp Flyover (Signal) F -125.5 ( F -130.1 E -57.1 E -59.2 Oyster Point Blvd. /Eccles Ave. (Signal) C -24.5 (1) C -31.2 B -16.8 B -18.7 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gull Rd. (Signal) B -10.9 ( B -10.9 C -32.7 C -33.5 Airport Blvd. /Miller/U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp (Signal) C -27.8 ( C -27.8 B -19.1 B -19.3 Airport Blvd. /Grand Ave. (Signal) E -58.1 ( E -59.9 D -44.1 D -44.3 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A -8.7 ( A -8.7 B -10.8 B -10.9 E. Grand Ave. /E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) B -19.9 ( B -20.0 B -14.0 B -14.0 E. Grand Ave. /Gateway Blvd. (Signal) E -59.9 ( E -63.1 D -38.8 D -38.8 E. Grand Ave. /Forbes Blvd. /Harbor Way. (Signal) C -31.8 ( D -35.5 E -58.7 E -64.5 E. Grand Ave. /Littlefield Ave. (Signal) B -17.7 ( B -19.4 B -19.8 B -19.8 E. Grand Ave. /Allerton Ave. (Allerton Stop Sign Control) A -9.2 ( A -9.2 C -19.0 C -21.6 Forbes Blvd. /Eccles Ave. (Signal) A -7.6 ( A -7.9 B -11.0 B -11.2 Forbes Blvd. /Allerton Ave. (All Way Stop Control) B -10.8 ( B -11.0 B -10.3 B -10.5 Forbes Blvd. /Gull Rd. (Signal) B -10.9 ( B -10.9 A -5.3 A -5.4 Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave. /Produce Ave. (Signal) C -30.6 ( C -30.7 D -43.6 D -43.6 Gateway Blvd. /S. Airport Blvd. /Mitchell Ave. (Signal) C -29.8 ( C -30.2 E -62.6 E -68.5 S. Airport Blvd. /U.S. 101 NB Hook Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) D -35.1 ( D -35.2 C -34.5 C -34.5 S. Airport Blvd. /Utah Ave. (Signal) C -27.6 ( C -27.6 C -30.6 C -30.9 Bold results = significant project impacts. Base Case Plus project LOS E or F results that are not bolded represent less than significant impacts because project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2% or more. (1) Signalized level of service - vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service - vehicle control delay in seconds /Allerton Ave. southbound stop sign controlled approach right turn to E. Grand Ave. (3) All way stop level of service - vehicle control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Year 2015 Future Without Project Intersection Signalization Needs No unsignalized intersections evaluated in this study would have year 2015 Future Without Project volumes that meet or exceed peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels (see Table 4.8 -6). Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -37 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Year 2015 Future Without Project Vehicle Queuing The following off -ramps and /or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year 2015 Future Without Project queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software program (see Table 4.8 -13). AM Peak Hour • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn and through movements would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp The flyover off -ramp approach right turn movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage. PM Peak Hour • Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard The through and through /right turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage. The following off -ramps would have year 2015 Future Without Project queuing extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software program (unless noted). • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to Dubuque Avenue AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -38 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Year 2015 Future Without Project Off -Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline The following off -ramps would have year 2015 Future Without Project volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour on a one -lane off -ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 4.8 -8 above). • U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection AM Peak Hour: 1,718 vehicles per hour using off -ramp. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to Dubuque Avenue AM Peak Hour: 1,536 vehicles per hour using off -ramp. Year 2015 Future Without Project On -Ramp Operation No on -ramps would have year 2015 Future Without Project volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see Table 4.8 -9 above). Year 2015 Future Without Project U.S. 101 Freeway Mainline No mainline freeway segments with year 2015 Future Without Project volumes would be operating at unacceptable LOS (see Table 4.8 -13 above). Year 2035 Future Without Project Operating Conditions The year 2035 Future Without Project conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the 2015 analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan, the last part of the Oyster Point Redevelopment area, the remaining half of the Gateway Master Plan as well as other increases in manufacturing, commercial, office, and R &D uses. The daily and peak hour trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 area by 2035 is presented in Table 4.8 -14, 2035 Future Without Project Trip Generation. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to /from Brisbane to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the west of the U.S. 101 freeway were projected to grow from 2016 to 2035 at rates projected in the C /CAG regional model (after allowance for traffic to /from new development east of the 101 freeway). Year 2035 intersection AM and PM peak hour as well as U.S. 101 freeway segment traffic volumes were developed by TJKM Associates for the City's Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements Program. Year 2035 Future Without Project AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are presented in Figures 4.8 -9 and 4.8 -10. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -39 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -14 2035 Future Without Project Trip Generation Genentech(') 1,613 1,884 109 97 206 21 1,988 318 2,306 121 145 (20% TDM Reduction) 1,195' 1,621' 48 272 320 54 101 155 82 54 136 1,130 Hotel 350 rooms 8.17 2,860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 Genentech Triangle( R &D ( 372,000 sf 0.48 83:17 148 30 178 0.37 16:84 Office( 248,000 sf 0.77 87:13 167 24 191 0.58 17:83 Oyster Point R &D /Office/ Redevelopment Retail 1,158' 244' 1,402' R &D( 680,499 sf 3.28 2,464 0.52 83:17 232 66 388 0.42 15:85 Ferry Oyster Point Non- s Terminal( 1 berth 814 138 26 164 Redevelopment Area (010) Marina (420) 716 berths 2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 Commercial( (820) 693,302 sf 34:14 23,671 0.69 61:39 291 186 477 3.33 49:51 Home Center( (862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6,774 1.26 57.43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 Hotel (310) 3,385 rooms 8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1,156 739 1,895 0.59 53:47 R &D( (760) 8,376,942sf 3.28 27,476 0.52 83:17 3616 740 4,356 0.42 15:85 (25% TDM Reduction) Office( (710) 1,230,570 sf 4.94 6,079 0.76 88:12 825 112 937 0.87 17:83 (25% TDM Reduction) Manufacturing (140) 11,227,507 sf 3.25 36,490 0.62 78:22 5,430 1,531 6,961 0.62 36:64 (15% TDM Reduction) Total Trips 16,615 4,397 21,012 271 1,613 1,884 109 97 206 21 115 136 24 121 145 426' 1,195' 1,621' 48 272 320 54 101 155 82 54 136 1,130 1,176 2,306 331 358 689 1,058 939 1,997 528 2,991 3,519 181 886 1,067 2,506 4,455 6,961 6,951 15,273 22,224 ' Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase 1 Project Draft EIR. «� Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 25% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the Genentech EIR). (2) The "Genentech Triangle" is a parcel on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard bordered by Caltrain on the west and Veterans Boulevard on the east and north. It is owned by Genentech, but separated from the rest of their campus and its trip generation /distribution has always been calculated separately from the rest of the campus. (3) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 25% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the Genentech EIR). ( Rates developed from ITE equations. (5) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast. Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition) Compiled by: TJKM Associates Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -40 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 �86 1; S B 0 — /off 61 Ramps 1 428 2 24 723 D 182 74 I 163 $ F 219 i �► ` 429 an Mateo S Air of 135, t ( 218 —► a213 51 129 � 160 J61F-D6 ) t 7 285 97 ` 24 r 1286 128 Terraba 31 JD '1 I 47 0 189 365 323 D 188 25 0 5 05 177 833 228 1588 y� 0 �— 237 1 4 ` 211 �\�o4e� 1804 r 308 Sister Oster Oster Cities Point Point 104 1 �► 629 1077 —► 60 685 950 —►� 390 1475 54 262 1016 Z ° 110 rO 74 54 yS�Prpt ' - 12 25 —700 109 1588 y� yster Pt 571 "') 1 �\�o4e� 1804 27 6 199 40 622 1 - 1 1J L 3 112 �-1 a,0,`0 Dnram 1 1 14 0 NB 1 102 �— 583 54 OvsterApik 123 , 1 (� Point 246 —► -' 448 776 ® Q �� • 2610 —T 525 ° 939 Forbes Btvd 1 77 52 ID z C> ' 309 544 Miiier Av t 28 0 104 I 94 .-65 o� Project 7 3 0 z t0 i �► ` 19 CrandAv 1 C ast �i l 4 * � 383 US 1 Wonder- a r S It ` 71 MV NB Ramps „ Color E ' O stet Ak 1607 a (� ¢ Grand Ave Point 27 87 —► 0 219 15 �1 1 434 278 x 1612 —► - 212 216 � Mitchell Av 851 3 428 497 150 7 5 Forbes 281 527 ►1L NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 (� FIGURE 4.° Q — 7 2035 Future Without Project Intersection AM Peak Hour Volume 0868 - 001.11/11 (887 S B On /off 820 Ramps l 4 143 612 t 655 13 1185 a '- 396 95 189 $ F 269 1625 an Mateo S Air ort 179 61 r- 181 —► 8,185 364 245 206 433 v 3 1074 7 �— 714 1 140 ` 103 �► Mitchell 92 103 486 384 101 502 134 541 ° 275 45 F 105 ` 76 Wonder - H L Color 468 15 327 r 732 a 395 231 148 435 607 $ �— 752 539 225 -**� �-► 1 1 61 r- 3 r 1658 r 1179 Drivewa Utah Point 64 , 140 t �► 23 — ► 32 103 486 384 A71 r 4559 20 Te rrrra b 109 158 594 a 395 co t 2180 435 607 $ �— 752 539 225 -**� �-► ��— 1105 1 ` 444 r- 3 r 1658 S ister Oster Oster Point Cities Point 64 , 1 �► 224 , s 1 (� 332 —► 91 1 328 455 —►� 486 384 26 142 588 ° 128 46 3 D 2 12 ID i F 1331 213 25 29 585 E; 1718 E Grand 4 E Grand 392 X166 I 55 77 108 Z ID 27 382 —► or 262 62 yS PrAF J 16 t 24 �— 2963 75 r 477 539 225 -**� �-► yster 1 Pt -1 1 r- 01 367 FN 1718 158 53 73 4L3 - Zti n __ 1 4 (D � 737 Forbes � f Forbes 285 479 —► 5 0 1 2 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 10 2035 Future Without Project Intersection PM Peak Hour Volume. 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 4.8 Transportation and Circulation All roadway improvements currently listed in the City's July 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area were assumed to be built and in operation for year 2035 Future Without Project and Future Plus Project evaluation. Figure 4.8 -11, Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control, provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and control. Year 2035 Future Without Project Intersection Level of Service All intersections with year 2035 Future Without Project volumes would be operating at acceptable levels of service with the following exceptions (see Table 4.8 -15, 2035 Future Intersection Levels of Services). • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp (Signal) PM Peak Hour: LOS E • Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off -Ramp (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS F PM Peak Hour: LOS F • Oyster Point Boulevard /Eccles Avenue (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS F • Airport Avenue /Grand Avenue (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS F PM Peak Hour: LOS E • East Grand Avenue /Gateway Boulevard (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS F • East Grand Avenue /Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS F PM Peak Hour: LOS F • Airport Boulevard /San Mateo Avenue /Produce Avenue (Signal) PM Peak Hour: LOS E Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -43 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • S. Airport Boulevard /U.S. 101 Northbound Hook Ramps /Wondercolor Lane (Signal) AM Peak Hour: LOS E Table 4.8 -15 2035 Future Intersection Levels of Service Airport Blvd. /U.S. 101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) C -26.5 ( C -26.5 D -47.5 D-47.6 Airport Blvd. /Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) B -15.6 (1) B -15.6 B -19.0 B -19.0 Airport Blvd. /Sister Cities Blvd. /Oyster Point Blvd. (Signal) D -46.5 ( D -47.0 D -49.1 D -49.1 Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB On -Ramp (Signal) D- 43.1( D -44.1 E -64.7 E -67.1 Dubuque Ave./U.S. 101 NB Off -Ramp & SB On -Ramp (Signal) C -22.8 ( C -22.8 D -41.6 D-41.6 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gateway/U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp Flyover (Signal) F -227 ( F -231 F -183 F -187 Oyster Point Blvd. /Eccles Ave. (Signal) F -173 ( F -181 C -20.0 C -21.1 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gull Rd. (Signal) B -14.9 ( B -15.1 D -38.1 D -38.5 Airport Blvd. /Miller/U.S. 101 SB Off -Ramp (Signal) C -27.1 ( C -27.1 C -21.1 C -21.1 Airport Blvd. /Grand Ave. (Signal) F -82.6 ( F -84.3 E -62.9 E -63.4 E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A -8.3 ( A -8.3 B -11.1 B -11.1 E. Grand Ave. /E. Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) C -20.7 ( C -20.8 B -15.3 B -15.3 E. Grand Ave. /Gateway Blvd. (Signal) F -134 ( F -137 D -51.1 D -51.6 E. Grand Ave. /Forbes Blvd. /Harbor Way. (Signal) F -142.1 ( F -146.3 F -90.5 F -94.7 E. Grand Ave. /Littlefield Ave. (Signal) C -21.0 ( C -21.8 B -18.9 B -18.9 E. Grand Ave. /Allerton Ave. (Signal) B -10.9 ( B -11.5 B -16.4 B -19.0 Forbes Blvd. /Eccles Ave. (Signal) A -8.5 ( A -9.0 B -14.5 B -15.1 Forbes Blvd. /Allerton Ave. (All Way Stop Control) C -17.4 ( C -17.8 D -30.6 D -31.5 Forbes Blvd. /Gull Rd. (Signal) B- 14.7( B -14.8 B -10.9 B -11.5 Airport Blvd. /San Mateo Ave. /Produce Ave. (Signal) C -33.3 ( C -33.5 E -61.2 E -64.3 Gateway Blvd. /S. Airport Blvd. /Mitchell Ave. (Signal) B -19.5 ( B -19.6 C -34.8 D -35.0 S. Airport Blvd. /U.S. 101 NB Hook Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) E -61.9 ( E -62.2 D -48.8 D -48.9 S. Airport Blvd. /Utah Ave. (Signal) C -30.9 ( C -30.9 D -41.3 D-41.8 Bold results = significant project impacts. Base Case Plus project LOS E or F results that are not bolded represent less than significant impacts because project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 2% or more. (1) Signalized level of service - vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) All way stop level of service - vehicle control delay in seconds. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -44 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 S B On/of IL Ramps o ttt f (D 0 an Mateo S Airport - )11 � '`Mitchell � T D � SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 11 Year 2035 Intersection Lane Geometrics and Contrc 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Year 2035 Future Without Project Intersection Signalization Needs Table 4.8 -6 above shows that the following unsignalized intersection would have 2035 Future Without Project PM peak hour volumes exceeding peak hour signal warrant #3 volume criteria levels. • Forbes Boulevard /Allerton Avenue (All Way Stop) Year 2035 Future Without Project Vehicle Queuing Table 4.8 -16, Year 2035 95 Percentile Vehicle Queues, shows that the following off -ramps and /or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year 2035 Future Without Project queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the SYNCHRO software program. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard /U.S. 101 Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp The flyover off - ramp right turn lane and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through lanes would have 95 percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the AM peak hour. • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn movement would have a 95 percentile queue demand greater than available storage during the AM peak hour. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach right turn movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the AM peak hour. The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn movement and the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the PM peak hour. • Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Oyster Point Boulevard: The left turn lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage during the AM peak hour. The left turn lane and the through lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage during the PM peak hour. • Airport Boulevard /Terrabay Entrance: The through lanes on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage during the PM peak hour. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -46 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -16 Year 2035 95 Percentile Vehicle Queues Airport Blvd. /Grand Avenue SB Left Turn 300 386 396 156 158 SB Through or SB Through /Right 300 246 246 194 194 Oyster Point Blvd. /Dubuque Ave. EB Through 250 630 637 374 376 WB Through 840 106 106 141 141 WB Left 840 197 197 486 486 WB Right 550 44 44 309 311 NB Left Turn 270 89 89 339 339 NB Left /Through 270 90 90 190 190 NB Right Turn 240 350 351 59 59 Dubuque Ave.l U.S. 101 SB On/ NB Off -Ramps Off - Ramp /Left /Through 975 784 784 642 642 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gateway Blvd.1U.S.101 SB Off -Ramp/ Commercial Access SB Off -Ramp Through 3,350 1,307 1,337 233 236 SB Off -Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 980 980 120 120 EB Through 900 1,198 1,208 411 413 Airport Blvd.lSB 101 On -Off Ramp* SB Off -Ramp Left Turn 950 196 196 393 393 Airport Blvd.lTerrabay Entrance SB Through 450 414 415 510 510 SB Right Turn 300 44 44 9 9 E. Grand Ave.lGrand Ave. Overerossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 334 356 43 43 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 156 156 303 303 Airport Blvd.lSister Cities Blvd.lOyster Point Blvd. WB Left Turn 140 272 273 542 542 WB Through 250 89 90 444 447 WB Right Turn 250 82 83 90 90 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -47 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation EB Left Turn 825 804 812 318 319 Airport Blvd. /Miller Ave. 1U.S.101 SB Off SB Left Turn /Through 750 264 272 295 295 Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95 percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. * Storage and queues —in feet per lane. Synchro software used for all analysis unless noted. Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 The following off -ramps would have year 2035 Future Without Project queuing extending back to the U.S. 101 mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software program. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane (AM peak hour) • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to Dubuque Avenue (AM and PM peak hours) • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive (AM peak hour) • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard (AM peak hour) • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Airport Boulevard (AM peak hour) • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue (AM peak hour) Year 2035 Future Without Project Off -Ramp Operation As shown in Table 4.8 -8 above, the following off -ramps would have year 2035 Future Without Project volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a one -lane off -ramp connection or 2,200 vehicles per hour on a two -lane off -ramp connection to the freeway mainline in the AM peak hour. • U.S. 101 Southbound (Flyover) Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to Dubuque Avenue Year 2035 Future Without Project On -Ramp Operation As shown in Table 4.8 -9, the following on -ramps would have year 2035 Future Without Project volumes exceeding ramp capacities during the PM peak hour. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -48 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off /Wondercolor Lane 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • U.S. 101 Southbound On -Ramp from Dubuque Avenue • U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard at Dubuque Avenue Year 2035 Future Without Project Freeway Operations As shown in Table 4.8 -17, 2035 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service, the following mainline freeway segments with year 2035 Future Without Project volumes would be operating at unacceptable levels of service. • U.S. 101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point Interchange — AM peak hour) • U.S. 101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point Interchange — AM peak hour) Although these freeway segments would be operating at unacceptable levels of service, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to freeway segments experiencing LOS F operation as project volume increases would be less than 1 percent. Table 4.8 -17 2035 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service Year 2035 Future W/O Project Year 2035 Future + Project Segment Volume LOS Density Volume LOS Density AM Peak Hour Northbound 9,438 F* NA 9,448 F* NA Southbound 9,998 F* NA 10,046 F* NA North of I -380 Northbound 13,553 E 40.9 13,608 E 41.3 Southbound 8,610 C 21.0 8 C 21.1 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8,874 E 39.2 8,912 E 39.6 Southbound 7,921 D 31.5 7 D 31.6 North of I -380 Northbound 8,758 C 21.4 8,767 C 21.4 Southbound 11,858 D 31.4 11,905 D 31.7 * unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -49 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Project Trip Generation Table 4.8 -18, Project Trip Generation, shows that in 2015 a total of 326,070 square feet of research and development space would be likely to generate 153 inbound and 33 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 23 inbound and 131 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. This assumes a 20.0 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a City - mandated TDM program. By 2035 and a City TDM program mandated 25 percent reduction in peak hour trips, the project would be expected to generate 140 inbound and 30 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 20 inbound and 118 outbound trips during the PM peak hour. Trip generation projections for the proposed project have been developed using Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation — 8th Edition. Table 4.8 -18 Project Trip Generation (1) ITE peak hour fitted curve equation trip rate reduced by 20%, reflecting City- mandated TDM program requirements in 2015 to reduce project trip generation. (2) ITE peak hour fitted curve equation trip rate reduced by 25%, reflecting City- mandated TDM program requirements in 2035 to reduce project trip generation. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2008. Fitted curve equations applied to total RFD development in East of 101 area. Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group Project Trip Distribution Project traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based on East of 101 development traffic patterns contained in the 2001 EIR for the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance, the 2008 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR, and recent traffic modeling for the East of 101 Traffic Modeling update traffic study (see Table 4.8 -19, Project Trip Distribution). It is likely that drivers associated with the proposed project destined to /from the U.S. 101 freeway either north or south would choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. Existing and Year 2015 AM and PM peak hour project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 4.8 -12 and 4.8 -13, with Figures 4.8 -14 and 4.8 -15 presenting resultant year 2015 AM Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -50 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Year 2011 and 2015 R &D 326,070 0.47( 153 0.10 33 0.07( 23 0.40 131 Year 2035 R &D 326,070 0.43( 140 0.09( 30 0.06( 20 0.36( 118 4.8 Transportation and Circulation and PM peak hour with project volumes at major intersections. Year 2035 AM and PM peak hour project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Figures 4.8 -16 and 4.8 -17, with Figures 4.8 -18 and 4.8 -19 presenting resultant year 2035 AM and PM peak hour with project volumes at major intersections. Table 4.8 -19 Project Trip Distribution U.S. 101 North /San Francisco/Brisbane 37 35 343 32 U.S. 101 South ( 48 48 48 48 South San Francisco (central area) 6 6 6 6 Daly City /Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 6 6 6 6 Local East of U.S. 101 3 5 6 8 TOTAL 100 100 1 /1 100 1 /1 100 1 /1 (1) Also includes use of S. Airport Blvd. to /from I -380 interchange. Source: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001 and Genentech Central Campus Master Plan EIR 4.8.4.3 Impact Analysis Impact 4.8 -1: Trips generated by the proposed project would exceed 100 net new trips during AM and PM peak hours. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As shown in Table 4.8 -18, Project Trip Generation, under existing and 2015 conditions, the project would result in 186 new trips during the AM peak hour and 154 trips during the PM peak hour, which is greater than 100 net new trips. In 2035, the project would result in 170 new trips during the AM peak hour and 138 trips during the PM peak hour, which is also greater than 100 net new trips. C /CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (C /CAG Guidelines) specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and /or tenants would mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. Since the project exceeds this threshold, the applicant would be responsible for creating and implementing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program as described in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -51 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 S B On /off 5 Ramps 1 D 0 5 1 Terraba D 0 Grand �— 2 Grand vercross 27 — o. �! c: 6 . � 2F Qfframp �— 2 Oyster olnt 18 m 30 11 ID rD Oyster J. • P oint 18 2 18 l Forbes —L 2 2 6 io �— 3 r 5 E Grand 50 15 —► 10 5 L Gl 3 v I n fD 8 Forbes 60 —► . Forbe! Mitchell � 1 —► D 1� 0 2 US 101 Wonder - NB Ramps „ Color 12 12 �, ° 2 12 4 ` 3 Driveway � Utah t 0 2 12• 1 D 0 Miller S B 101 O ramp 1 � Grand �— 2 Grand vercross 27 — o. �! c: 6 . � 2F Qfframp �— 2 Oyster olnt 18 m 30 11 ID rD Oyster J. • P oint 18 2 18 l Forbes —L 2 2 6 io �— 3 r 5 E Grand 50 15 —► 10 5 L 30 11 n fD 8 Forbes 60 —► . Forbe! ►1L NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 Q FIGURE 4.5 - 12 Existing and Year 2015 AM Peak Hour Project Trip Distributic O s� A� + IFD6 15 Pt et 3 Project S ite Grand Ave 0868 - 001.11/11 *Ramp S B On /off 1 Terraba 4 0 1 Not To Scale NORTH - � — 4444 yl0 — St er Pt \ Ultra mp �— 14 Oyster Point 2 — ► m 6 30 ID � J (D O ster T Point 2 + 14 2 ' Forbes 14 1 —► �— 18 vercross 3—►� io 20 24 11 17 E Grand 9 3 1 "' 6 30 „ �► ID �— 44 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 Q FIGURE 4.5 - 13 Existing and Year 2015 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distributic O s� r F 2 y 6 1 Project r S ite Grand Ave 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 612 S B On /off ` Ramps 619 1 �► r315 1 295 31 809 118 Terraba 31 , D 45 0 217 295 286 a 184 CO 354 0 74 54 11 176 392 0 �— 219 0 _ 237 �Prpt � � 20 F 486 1 4 ` 193 3 r 207 266 r 81 S' Oster Oster 1238 y yster Pt Cities Point Point 537 �► 102 } �► 523 o- 1 f 1052 —► 45 I 482 898 --S 359 1143 49 226 505 --+' 50 �— 349 A—.& 32 ter i 303 390 60 4 r 76 ' Forbes 127 357 F 238 150 1320 40 430'N 6 +101(D s � r 0 N 1809 —► r 63 31 198 / o 7 3 0 ;Z' t0 1 ':D 205 '< ` 43 O ster Point • 28 C 1 1032 —► — 143 3 41 647 1J 56 153 s L 41 -*--357 26 �— 299 95 183 2 86 96 85 - � 542 ` 15 144 1 4 273 �► Grand Overcross Grand E Grand `22 72 J Overcross 970 4) r► 23 625 _� 1 �► 910 —► 25 226 946 15847 638 1622 —► s 131 103 w 9 427 235 2 127 27 3 9 D 14 129 1 42 t 27 2 7 202 54 I —2 51 rD X 14 1 �► o ` 47 �— 204 Forbes • N ` 1 E Grand E Grand E Grand • 95 1199 1226 E Pt 556 78 36429 1423 —► 7313 0 0 1 123 Z 1 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 14 2015 Future With Project AM Peak Hour Volume Project S ite 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 726 S B On /off 734 Ramps 1 4 12 500 I t 454 13 1206 20 Terra ba 1 109 , D 151 2 38 358 Not To Scale /� NORTH Grand 490 a 205 o i 1684 422 445 $ �— 732 ' �— 752 j 1, 287 3 308 S istr Oster Oster Cities 63 Point 1 �► Point 202 J 1 (� 313 —0 74 263 332 —►� 472 223 23 128 487 ° 113 Terrabay out 'n 1 4 : 35 2 140 F 2 ;e 101 `0 )nrann r 0 48 NB 101 m 199 �— 1674 49 Oyster P oint 390 T- 282 19 87 124 100 498 4 333 � Forbes 181 ,' 132 s i 108 300 34 284 r vercross Grand F 1808 320 —► �► 45 y 175 Grand 99 0vercross 331 —► 2 �9 2 46�: 1039 402 E Grand 215 F130 36 93 a 25 3 8 4 2 J i 1 895 42 O ster 71 • 1 r• c� c —► — 630 2 47 653 H 2II o 182 156 9 � 9 i1 s 1 fD 1348 E Grand 105 169 203 , _� 380 — 349 —► v 299 31 103 98 2 164 i D L 26 178 � 1272 E Grand 62 196 —► 2 t 18 �— 1617 284 r vercross Grand 317 y 320 —► r ► 45 y 175 w 300 332 �9 2 46�: 1039 402 E Grand 215 F130 36 93 a 25 3 8 4 2 J i 1 895 42 O ster 71 • 1 r• c� c —► — 630 2 47 653 H 2II o 182 156 9 � 9 i1 s 1 fD 1348 E Grand 105 169 203 , _� 380 — 349 —► v 299 31 103 98 2 164 i D L 26 178 � 1272 E Grand 62 196 —► 2 t 18 77 284 25 390 317 y 4 (D x— 418 Forbes . f Forbes 1 • 175 1162 97 50 73 IV 239 —► 4 1 2 0 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q — 15 2015 Future With Project PM Peak Hour Volume. /O 262 55 yS�PrAF 10 t 18 �— 2320 75 390 317 y yster 1 163 �1 1 (� 0 275 v 1162 97 50 73 IV 1 Project S ite 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE r S B On /off 5 Ramps 1 D 0 5 1 Te rra ba D � o 5 D 2 st-r A O ste hies Point 8 —► 1(* UMGMEMENF x E Grand E 33 �— 2 Grand vercross 25—►� �— 2 )yster 'olnt 28 � 10 � o - O ster T Point 16 2 e c� 16 � Forbes 2 �-2 1 � S --3 ID 3 1 r 4 Grand E Grand 46 x 1 58 —► 2 14 —► 0 9 4 D 28 L 10 11 0 1 �► F 7 E Grand Forbes iN Forbe! 39 J 55 —► i{ Grand ro � 0 a. ro d � w FIGURE 4.5 - 16 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 i Year 2035 AM Peak Hour Project Trip Distributi O S � P rA 12 Y, 14 y yster Pt Gl FAl 04 30 v d I N Project S ite ra no Ave 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 1 S B On /off Ramps Terraba D ? D 0 1 0 1 S Not To Scale • /� NORTH Mil Grant ro d � w ro � a x E Grand E 8 �— 16 vercross 2 —1. -- 13 Oyster P oint 2 — ► m 5 - 27 O ster J(D T oint 2 13 2 ' Forbes 13 " 62 1 �► � �— 40 E Grand Forbes i N Forbe 4 8 ---1- SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.5 - 1 / i Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distributi O S � P rA �— 40 2 � - ► yster Pt Gl F�� 5 Ti I N Project S ite rand Ave 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE �— 16 18 22 0 10 12 15 E Grand E Grand v 8 _ (� 10 —► 2 0 1 D 5 � 27 " 62 1 �► � �— 40 E Grand Forbes i N Forbe 4 8 ---1- SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.5 - 1 / i Year 2035 PM Peak Hour Project Trip Distributi O S � P rA �— 40 2 � - ► yster Pt Gl F�� 5 Ti I N Project S ite rand Ave 0868 - 001.11/11 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 991 S Ramps 619 247 -►� 1 �► 428 941 J 1 L 28 372 24 723 a 182 74 163 o F 219 i �► ` 441 an Mateo S Air of 135 J 1 219 -► a213 51 129 � 160 t 7 288 6 ' F 106 1 ` 24 123 , a 1 247 -►� 448 787 `25 + ° 941 J 544 L 28 104 94 ` 211 1 �► ` 69 US 101 Wonder - JB Ramps „ Color 1618 aA-I t f 87 -► 13 2219 15 445 280 629 , s 1 oo- 501 L 99 65 479 390 1475 1 F 10 1016 + ° r 234 )riveway Utah 43 J D I 1 r 26 -► 24 781 ` 18 372 J 5� D 65 8 �- o 166 D 778 Miller A • S B 101 t 17 O ramp 125 66 16 35 136 527 a L 73 129 776 ,j 4 $ �- 156 Grand ` 240 f �► 249 421 -► 35 I 215 86 453 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 1291 128 1 Te rra ba 31 D I 47 0 189 365 SjSLe C 323 a X188 �PrAF 74 1 25 COi515 177 838 - B �- 230 1602 y 0 239 1 ` 211 1 3 308 S ister Oster Oster 30 Cities N Point V Point rand 104 , 1 �► 629 , s 1 1085 -► 60 686 964 -►� 390 1475 54 262 1016 + ° 110 WHIZEWI M q Grand u ast EQD 1 0 G ' a Sys 74 54 12 �PrAF 74 1 25 �- 712 266 109 1602 y yster Pt 571 1 �\�014 1834 9276 199 40 622 "N Project S ite o 7 3 0 �. L 0 F 383 4 ` 71 O ster Point 27 �1 1 1612 -► - 214 867 13 " 13 HOI(D 3 1 ;,` 0 ) 14 0 N 102 �- 585 54 Ovster w Ill 2626 n 87 5 337 D 11 26 <' oondercolor 1 v 164 1Lr Forbes • `178 22 , D� 1 �► 694 -► r 6 6 1 145 95 0 9 0 L 43 s 48 105 98 603 ~ 245 1 4 Grand Overcross 85 f_G 1327 U X i 23 E Grand E 1 856 1317 �- 425 27 Grand E Grand Overcross 1384 Y (� 41 w 226 1011 28 3 t 13 2 12 F 330 62 • E Grand 3 , r �► 2088 187 669 156 Z 1 37 198 24 L 43 175 110 137 204 2 1 ~ 245 1 4 368 f_G 30 4926 rand E Grand 228 , (� 890J ?079 -► 79 2125 s 121 517 88 145 247 D 149 1 33 t 17 52 66 16 o �- 339 �J 1 4 ID f 321 ` 1 4 Forbes E Grand 341 2428 J -► 179 J 854 -► 0 1 3 0 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° Q -1 Q 2035 Future With Project AM Peak Hour Volume 0868 - 001.11/11 /888 S B On /off 820 Ramps 1 4 143 612 -o 1 � 656 13 1185 D 396 95 189 0 -*--270 i �► 1672 an Mateo S Air ort 179 �� 1 76 181 —► a185 364 245 206 507 D 433 3 1086 JI;D �— 750 732 165 148 1 ` 103 92 , (� D 101 —►�' I 502 135 541 2 275 722 45 324 117 F 105 -qd 1 4 76 US 101 A h Wonder - VB Ramps „ Color 507 D 70 —► 0 468 15 225 + 327 732 165 148 231 1 61 128 r 1189 Driveway Utah 140 Y D -4) 1 r- 1 23 —► �' 32 104 13 ° 473 / 407 D 108 61 1 -o —387 ° ` 250 Miller A • S B 101 O ramp 93 112 316 361 D i 233 146 243 1 4 $ — - 570 ` 826 Grand 1 192 , 153 45 170 76 527 ►1L NOT TO SCALE 1480 20 Te r ba 1 109 J D 158 �. ° 42 560 iD di 594 D 396 CO L 2211 435 608 0 759 541 y 225 �— 1114 �► 445 118 � 3 r 1658 S ister Oster O ster Point 224 Cities 64 Point ! �► 333 —► 91 1 328 457 —►E 486 384 26 142 588 � ° 128 � L 24 o s i 155 333 55 ` 477 541 y 225 F 1984 �► ID Grand 118 � O vercross 444 73 �— 1839 48 Grand E Grand )vercross 454 —► N (� 45 w ` 300 487 X15 2 46 411, �— 1356 1 596 E Grand 395 166 56 108 27 /O 262 62 yS�PrAF L 24 3003 75 ` 477 541 y 225 yster Pt '*) v 1 (► 014e' 372 F\ � 1718 158 53 73 2088153 5 L 2 �— 2 - o, 4- 0 nra m • 759 o 1 0 s 35 0 49 237 NB 101 m ffra mp �— 2381 85 Oyster P oint 752 —► M 365 58 107 D 0 36 4 2 z �1 I 4 ID �— 1418 354 O ster A Ilk Point J • 518 —► X 815 2 122 275 Project S ite 2 � 4I � 1525 , 1 713 194, v' 1 589 —► 159 117 158 216 D L 249 27 g � 81 382 —► � c� 583 150 608 4 383 .41 ' Forbes 181 167 610 0 321 527 175 1 4 1538 E Grand ` 254 282,' _� 1 (� 403 s 270 52 117 � ° 240 423 2 33 m L 92 1 4 � �— 777 Forbes . Forbes • 285 487 —► 5 0 1 2 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 (� FIGURE 4.° Q — 17 2035 Future With Project PM Peak Hour Volume 0868 - 001.11/11 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1: The applicant shall implement a TDM program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management (or its successor), and acceptable to C /CAG. This program, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C /CAG Guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. The project's TDM program shall include an adequate number and range of TDM measures to qualify for enough project trip reduction credits such that project trip generation is reduced by 20 percent for 2015 conditions, and by 25 percent for 2035 conditions. Impact after Mitigation: The TDM program described under Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 would reduce average project peak hour trip rates by 20 percent for existing and 2015 conditions, and by 25 percent for 2035 conditions. Implementation of the TDM program, as required by C /CAG Guidelines, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level Existing with Project Impacts Impact 4.8 -2: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any intersection level of service significant impacts under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) As shown in Table 4.8 -5, Existing Intersection Levels of Service, the addition of project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study intersections under Existing with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 4.8 -3: Implementation of the proposed project would not increase existing traffic at any unsignalized intersection such that it meets peak hour signal warrant criteria under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) As shown in Table 4.8 -6, Intersection Signalization Requirements, the addition of project traffic would not result in an unsignalized intersection meeting a signal warrant under Existing with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 4.8 -4: Implementation of the proposed project would increase existing peak hour traffic volumes resulting in a 95 percentile vehicle queuing impact at one Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -60 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation intersection under Existing with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As shown in Table 4.8 -7, 95 Percentile Vehicle Queues, the Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection would be significantly affected by the addition of project traffic to existing volumes. Project - related traffic would increase AM peak hour volumes under existing conditions by 6.6 percent in the southbound Airport Boulevard left turn lanes, where existing 95th percentile queuing already exceeds available storage. The left turn queue would extend from 332 feet under Existing without Project conditions up to 351 feet under Existing with Project conditions at a location with only 300 feet of storage per lane. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to adjust signal timing at the Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection, as shown in Figure 4.8 -20. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvement described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -4 is feasible and would restore intersection operation to an acceptable level. Therefore, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4.8 -5: Implementation of the proposed project would increase existing AM peak hour volumes resulting in volumes that exceed acceptable capacity at one off - ramp under Existing with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As shown in Table 4.8 -8, Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, the U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive off -ramp would be significantly affected by the addition of project traffic to existing volumes. Project - related traffic would increase AM peak hour volumes by 2.2 percent under existing conditions on the off -ramp where current volumes already exceed the capacity limits. The off -ramp volume of 1,618 vehicles under Existing without Project conditions would be increased to 1,654 vehicles under Existing with Project conditions at a location with an off -ramp diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour. This is a potentially significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -61 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.8 - 20 I i Existing Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control 0868 - 001.11/11 O v * = Mitigation 0 = r = Existing Lanes n 1 �t t( Mitigated Lanes F S = Fair S ha re Contribution (D = AdjustsignaItiming to accomodate specific queueing issues as Terra bay 101 opposed to optimizing intersection level of service Siste Citi s gird = Existing S igna I Oyster Point e P o ,a 2t a �a Forbes Blvd Miller q \ Grand qv 1 a East ,�' Project °�° S i to E0 3: 6 > G rand Ave Mitchell Av 0 J �� Northbound Offramp to a Wondercolor Ln Industrial Way /East Grand Ave - 0 V0 0 r P� vca * Provide a second offramp lane V) o a FS 101 ►1L NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.8 - 20 I i Existing Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control 0868 - 001.11/11 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive, as shown in Figure 4.8 -20, Existing Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvement described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -5 is feasible and would restore off -ramp diverge operation to an acceptable level, and therefore the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4.8 -6: Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the peak hour volumes at any study on -ramp above acceptable capacity limits under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) As shown in Table 4.8 -9, On -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, the addition of project traffic would not result in increased peak hour volumes above acceptable capacity limits at any of the study on -ramps under Existing with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 4.8 -7: Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the level of service of any U.S. 101 freeway mainline segments under Existing with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) As shown in Table 4.8 -11, Existing Freeway Mainline Levels of Service, the addition of project traffic would not result in an unacceptable level of service at any of the study freeway mainline segments under Existing with Project conditions. This impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None required. Year 2015 with Project Impacts Impact 4.8 -8: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes above acceptable capacity limits at one study intersection under 2015 with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) Peak hour intersection volumes with addition of project traffic are depicted in Figure 4.8 -14, 2015 Future With Project AM Peak Hour Volumes, and Figure 4.8 -15, 2015 Future With Project PM Peak Hour Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -63 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Volumes. As shown in Table 4.8 -13, Year 2015 Intersection Levels of Service, at the East Grand Avenue /Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection, project - related traffic would increase volumes by 2.5 percent at a location with an unacceptable 2015 Future Without Project LOS E signalized operation during the PM peak hour. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -8: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair -share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for widening the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach from one left, one combined through /right, and one right turn lane to provide one left, one through, one through /right and one exclusive right turn lane at the East Grand Avenue /Forbes Boulevard /Harbor Way intersection. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Intersection improvements are shown in Figure 4.8 -21, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. Levels of service resulting from intersection improvements are shown in Table 4.8 -20, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvement described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -8 is feasible and, as shown in Table 4.8 -20, would restore intersection operation to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct this improvement. With the payment of the project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -64 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 N 10 ,,.m MW * L Add ufourth Eas — d eparture lane ~�~ ji D d epartu re lane � m -- E FS W. L NOT TO SCALE ect Eta SOURCE: Crane Transportation o"p - Ja"uar Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Contro ~Mitigation -.4 Mitigated Lanes Gran d � �� l| | r 10- ---- ~Fair Share CoN�ibution ~Adjust signal timing touccomodutespecific queueing issues us Terrabay opposed to optimizing 101 intersection level of service ~Existing Lanes oys ter point Existing Side Street Stop Sign r �� ~�~ Existing Signal Fero Blvd Mitigated Signal W. L NOT TO SCALE ect Eta SOURCE: Crane Transportation o"p - Ja"uar Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Contro 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Table 4.8 -20 Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service 1 E. Grand Ave./Forbes C 31.8(1) D 35.5(1) C 34.8(1) E 58.7(1) E 64.5(1) D 44.9(1) Blvd./Harbor Way (Signal) 5 E. Grand Ave. /Allerton A 9.2(2) A 9.2(2) A 6.6(1) C 19.0(2) C 21.6(2) A 9.9(1) Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Note: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology. (1) Signalized level of service— vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) Unsignalized level of service — vehicle control delay in seconds. Allerton stop sign controlled approach. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -66 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2' Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Impact 4.8 -9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes, which would cause a signal warrant to be met at one intersection under 2015 with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As shown in Table 4.8 -6, Intersection Signalization Requirements, the unsignalized intersection of East Grand Avenue and Allerton Avenue would experience a significant signal warrant impact due to the addition of project traffic to year 2015 Future Without Project volumes. Volumes would be increased by 2.8 percent at a location where 2015 Without Project PM peak hour traffic would already meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -9: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair -share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards signalizing the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Allerton Avenue. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Intersection improvements are depicted in Figure 4.8 -21. Levels of service resulting from intersection mitigation are shown in Table 4.8 -20, Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvement described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -9 is feasible and as shown in Table 4.8 -20 would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct this improvement. With the payment of the project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4.8 -10: Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle queuing at three intersections above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As shown in Table 4.8 -21, 2015 95th Percentile Vehicle Queue Analysis, the following off -ramps and approaches to the adjacent intersections leading away from off -ramps would experience a significant queuing impact due to the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -67 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 4.8 percent in the left turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2015 Future Without Project 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue would increase from 376 up to 397 feet in a location with only 300 feet of storage in the existing left turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Airport Boulevard During the PM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 1.1 percent in the through /right turn lanes on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard at a location with unacceptable 2015 Future Without Project 95th percentile queuing. The westbound through /right turn queue would remain 286 feet at a location with only 250 feet of storage in the through /right turn lanes. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 1.7 percent in the through lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2015 Future Without Project queuing. The eastbound through movement queue would increase from 322 up to 327 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage. Table 4.8 -21 2015 95 Percentile Vehicle Queue Analysis Airport Blvd. /Grand Avenue SB Left Turn 300 376 397 226 230 SB Through 300 325 335 206 206 SB Right Turn 300 31 32 52 52 Oyster Point Blvd. /Dubuque Ave. EB Through 250 322 327 160 164 WB Through 840 104 105 135 135 WB Left 840 114 114 648 648 WB Right 550 38 38 244 244 NB Left Turn 175 88 88 73 73 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -68 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation NB Through 270 25 25 176 176 NB Right Turn 240 117 117 2 2 Dubuque Ave.l U.S. 101 SB On/NB Off -Ramps Off - Ramp /Left /Through 975 513 513 310 310 Oyster Point Blvd. /Gateway Blvd.1U.S.101 SB Off -Ramp /Commercial Access SB Off -Ramp Through 3,350 781 808 149 152 SB Off -Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 573 573 104 104 EB Through 900 828 836 241 242 Airport Blvd.lSB 101 On -Off Ramp* SB Off -Ramp Left Turn 950 98 98 310 310 Airport Blvd.lTerrabay Entrance SB Through 450 214 214 121 121 SB Right Turn 300 17 17 1 1 E. Grand Ave.lGrand Ave. Overerossing NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 258 272 36 37 NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 151 151 301 301 Airport B1vd.lSister Cities Blvd.lOyster Point Blvd. WB Left Turn 140 113 114 181 182 WB Through /Right 250 103 103 286 286 S. Airport B1vd.1U.S.101 NB On and OfflWondercolorLane NB Off Left /Through/Right 825 445 451 220 220 Airport B1vd.lMiller Ave.l U.S.101 SB Off SB Off Left /Through 750 301 309 227 227 Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing unacceptable Base Case 95 percentile queuing as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total. * Storage and queues —in feet per lane. Synehro software used for all analysis. Source: Crane Transportation Group Mitigation Measure 4.8 -10: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair -share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements as shown in Figure 4.8- 21, Year 2015 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometries and Control. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -69 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue — Restripe the Southbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one exclusive through lane and one shared through /right turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue — Provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards adjusting signal timing. • Oyster Point Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard /Airport Boulevard — Provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards adjusting signal timing. Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvements described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -10 are feasible and would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct these improvements. Other mitigations, not currently on the City's East of 101 improvement list, will require a fair share contribution from the applicant. With the payment of the project's fair share of the cost of these improvements, the project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact 4.8 -11: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes which would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline at one off -ramp and result in operational impacts to one U.S. 101 flyover off -ramp under 2015 with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Significant and Unavoidable) The following off -ramp would experience a significant impact from backups extending to the freeway mainline due to the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes at this off -ramp by 1.8 percent compared to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. This would result in traffic continuing to occasionally back up to the freeway mainline. As shown in Table 4.8 -8, Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, the following off -ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would experience a significant impact due to the addition of project traffic to 2015 Future Without Project volumes. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -70 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation During the AM peak hour at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection, the project would increase off -ramp volumes by 1.8 percent (from 1,718 up to 1,750 vehicles) with 2015 Future Without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11a: U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair -share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements, which are described below and shown in Figure 4.8 -21. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. All of the following improvements (other than measures to the Southbound Flyover Off - Ramp, eastbound departure and southbound approach) are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and will be funded via the proposed project's traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The proposed project shall also provide a fair -share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the TIP. • Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach (extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp intersection. • Adjust signal timing. • Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, two through lanes and a combined through /right turn lane to a left, two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. • Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off -Ramp approach from two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined through /right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP). • Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property driveway approach (not part of TIP). Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11b: U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection. City Public Works staff has determined that providing a second off -ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would not be feasible due to the limited distance between the flyover off -ramp diverge and the southbound off -ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -71 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Impact after Mitigation: The mitigation measures described under Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11a are feasible and would reduce the project's impacts to the southbound off -ramp at the Oyster Point Boulevard intersection to a less than significant level, but due to technical and financial considerations, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11b which applies to the U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp diverge to the Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection, cannot be completed. Therefore, this impact, while reduced, would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.8 -12: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes on the U.S. 101 freeway, but would not result in unacceptable operation on any study freeway segment under 2015 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) As shown below in Table 4.8 -22, 2015 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on freeway operations. All freeway segments would remain with LOS E or better operation with the addition of project traffic. Therefore, the impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -72 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Table 4.8 -22 2015 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service AM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8105 D 34.0 8115 D 34.1 Southbound 7324 D 28.9 7376 D 29.2 North of 1 -380 Northbound 11319 D 30.2 11379 D 30.4 Southbound 6703 B 16.7 6716 B 16.7 PM Peak Hour North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound 8163 D 34.5 8205 D 34.8 Southbound 6798 D 26.1 6805 D 26.1 North of 1 -380 Northbound 8352 C 20.8 8362 C 20.8 Southbound 9612 C 24.3 9664 C 24.4 LOS = Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -72 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Table 4.8 -22 2015 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Year 2035 with Project Impacts Impact 4.8 -13: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes but would not result in significant level of service operational impacts at study intersections under 2035 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) Peak hour intersection volumes with addition of project traffic are depicted in Figure 4.8 -18, 2035 Future With Project AM Peak Hour Volumes, and Figure 4.8 -19, 2035 Future With Project PM Peak Hour Volumes. As shown above in Table 4.8 -15, 2035 Future Intersection Levels of Service, no intersection would be significantly affected by the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. No intersection with acceptable operation without the project would be degraded to unacceptable operation with the addition of project traffic. In addition, no intersection with unacceptable operation without the project would have volumes increased by 2 percent or more due to the addition of project traffic. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure: None required. Impact 4.8 -14: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes at an unsignalized intersection that would exceed signal warrant criteria levels under 2035 without Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) As shown above in Table 4.8 -6, Intersection Signalization Requirements, the Forbes Boulevard /Allerton Avenue intersection would have 2035 Without Project traffic increased by 1 percent due to the addition of project traffic during the PM peak traffic hour when volumes without the project would already meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. In addition, the project would increase AM peak hour volumes to just meet peak hour signal warrant criteria levels. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -14: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair -share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards improving the Forbes Boulevard /Allerton Avenue intersection. The fair share contribution will be used to signalize the intersection when warranted and provide exclusive left turn lanes on the Forbes Boulevard intersection approaches. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. Intersection improvements are depicted in Figure 4.8 -22, 2035 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. Levels of service resulting from intersection improvements are shown in Table 4.8 -23, 2035 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -73 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 -4 lLo-to. Grand * FS G ra ►1L NOT TO SCALE D . t— o� * = Mitigation ( ED = Mitigated Lanes F S = Fair S hare Contribution SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - October 2011 FIGURE 4.° - 22 I i 2035 Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control 0868 - 001.11/11 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Impact after Mitigation: The City has determined that the intersection improvement described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -14 is feasible and as shown in Table 4.8 -23 would restore intersection operations to an acceptable level. The City has a traffic impact fee program pursuant to which the City will collect funds from all future development in the East of 101 area to construct this improvement. With the payment of the project's fair share of the cost of this improvement, the project's impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Table 4.8 -23 2035 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service Source: Crane Transportation Group, October 2011 Note: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology (1) Signalized level of service — vehicle control delay in seconds. (2) All -way stop level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds. Impact 4.8 -15: Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle queuing at two intersections under 2035 with Project conditions above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans. (Potentially Significant; Significant and Unavoidable) As shown in Table 4.8 -16, Year 2035 95 1 h Percentile Vehicle Queues, the following off -ramps and approaches to the adjacent intersections leading away from off -ramps would experience a significant queuing impact due to the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 2.6 percent in the left turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach to Grand Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2035 Future Without Project 95th percentile queuing. The left turn lane queue would increase from 386 up to 396 feet in a location with only 300 feet of storage in the existing left turn lane. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -75 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Forbes Blvd./ B 13.7( C 17.8( B 19.0 D 30.6( D 31.5( B 14.96) Allerton Ave. Airport F 82.61) F 84.3G> D 50.4G> E 62.9G> E 63.4G> D 49.61) Blvd. /Grand Ave. 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes by 1.5 percent in the through lanes on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with unacceptable 2035 Future Without Project queuing. The eastbound through movement queue would increase from 630 up to 637 feet in a location with only 250 feet of storage. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15a: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements as shown in Figure 4.8- 22. The full fair -share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy by the City. • Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue — Restripe the Grand Avenue eastbound approach to provide a shared through /left turn lane and a shared through /right turn lane. Levels of service resulting from intersection improvements are shown in Table 4.8 -23, 2035 Mitigated Intersection Levels of Service. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15b: • Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp. Provision of additional lanes on any of the intersection approaches to increase capacity would require either widening of bridge structures across the U.S. 101 freeway and /or the Caltrain rail line and possibly roadway diversion around the supports for the Southbound Flyover off -ramp. In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, City Public Works staff has determined that there are no feasible measures that would provide any increased capacity for the Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp. Impact after Mitigation: The improvements described under Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15a are feasible and would reduce the project's impacts to a less than significant level at the Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue intersection, but due to technical and financial considerations, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -15b which applies to the Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue /U.S. 101 Northbound On -Ramp, cannot be completed. Therefore, this impact, while reduced, would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.8 -16: Implementation of the proposed project would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline at four off - ramps, and result in operational impacts on one U.S. 101 off -ramp and one U.S. 101 on -ramp under 2035 with Project conditions. (Potentially Significant; Significant and Unavoidable) As shown in Table 4.8 -8, Off -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, the following off -ramps would experience a significant impact from backups extending to the freeway mainline from the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -76 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes at this off -ramp by 1.2 percent compared to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. This would result in traffic backing up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes at this off -ramp by 1.8 percent compared to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. This would result in traffic backing up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive Intersection During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes at this off -ramp by 1.5 percent compared to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. This would result in traffic backing up to the freeway mainline more frequently. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane Intersection During the AM peak hour, the project would increase volumes at this off -ramp by 1.03 percent compared to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. This would result in traffic backing up to the freeway mainline more frequently. The following off -ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would experience a significant impact from the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection During the AM peak hour at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection, the project would increase off -ramp volumes by 1.2 percent (from 2,426 up to 2,456 vehicles) with 2035 Future Without Project volumes already exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour capacity of the off -ramp. As shown in Table 4.8 -9, 2035 Future Without On -Ramp Capacity and Volumes, the following on -ramp to the U.S. 101 freeway would experience a significant impact from the addition of project traffic to 2035 Future Without Project volumes. • U.S. 101 Northbound One -Lane On -Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue Intersection During the PM peak hour at the U.S. 101 Northbound on -ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection, the project would increase on- ramp volumes by 1.2 percent (from 2,532 up to Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -77 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation 2,563 vehicles) with 2035 Future Without Project volumes already exceeding the on -ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -16_ The improvements that would be necessary to mitigate the potentially significant impacts to the off -ramps identified above are not feasible for the reasons discussed below. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection In light of economic, environmental, and technological concerns, there are no other mitigation measures considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions (Mitigation Measure 4.8 -11a) that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off -ramp storage. Additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an additional two to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard (through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the southbound flyover off -ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off -ramp widening would also require expansion of bridge structures, which would be prohibitively expensive. Provision of additional lanes would require acquisition of additional righty -of -way along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off - ramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp to Airport Boulevard /Miller Avenue Intersection — There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane Intersection — There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -78 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation • U.S. 101 Northbound Off -Ramp to East Grand Avenue /Executive Drive Intersection — There are no additional improvements considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff that could be provided at either the off -ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off -ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off -Ramp (Flyover) Diverge to Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard Intersection — No improvements are considered feasible by South San Francisco Public Works staff to mitigate the impact. Should it be desired to provide a second off -ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off -Ramp (flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard, it would likely be necessary to move the Southbound Off -Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between the two southbound off - ramps. A second off -ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long (1,000 -foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of available space. This would be infeasible given the restrictions imposed by the location of the northbound off -ramp overpass connection to Bayshore Boulevard. There is no room for provision of this lane. • U.S. 101 Northbound One -Lane On -Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue Intersection — Provision of a second on -ramp lane would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. While this measure would accommodate the 2035 Future With Project volume of about 2,563 vehicles per hour, it would require the approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Impact after Mitigation: For reasons presented above, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.8 -17: Implementation of the proposed project would not result in operational impacts to any of the study freeway mainline segments under 2035 with Project conditions. (Less than Significant) As shown in Table 4.8 -17, 2035 Future Freeway Mainline Levels of Service, the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to freeway operation. On freeway segments with unacceptable LOS F operation under 2035 Future Without Project conditions, the addition of project traffic would increase volumes by less than 1 percent. This would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -79 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Impact 4.8 -18: Project - related traffic would turn from Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue into project driveways which would create safety impacts on Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) The project site would be accessed via two driveway connections to Forbes Boulevard and two driveway connections to Allerton Avenue. AM and PM peak hour turn movement projections for each driveway are presented in Figure 4.8 -23, Year 2015 Project Driveway AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes, and Figure 4.8 -24, Year 2035 Project Driveway AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes. The Forbes Boulevard driveways would be located about 240 and 425 feet west of the Allerton Avenue intersection. The easterly driveway would serve a pickup /drop -off and visitor - parking area, while the westerly driveway would provide direct access to the project's parking garage. The driveways would be connected internal to the site. The easterly driveway would align with a break in the raised median islands along the street, while the westerly driveway would not. The median break at the easterly project entrance is about 50 feet long and would allow storage of one vehicle waiting to make a left turn into the site. The heaviest inbound left turn movement would occur during the morning commute, when about 1 to 2 vehicles would be expected to make this turn (or, on average, one vehicle every 30 minutes). It would be very unusual to have a demand for two left turns into the site at the same time. The existing median break would be able to accommodate this storage demand. However, there would be no room for left turn deceleration other than in the through travel lane. There is currently a raised median island about 70 feet long at the location of the proposed westerly driveway. Fifty- foot -long median breaks are located on either side of the island. Although only 4 to 5 vehicles would be expected to turn left into this driveway during the AM commute, they would be required to conduct either a U -turn movement at the median break to the west or a diagonal movement across the eastbound travel lanes on Forbes Boulevard if using the median break to the east. This could result in potentially significant safety concerns. The two Allerton Avenue driveways would be located about 360 and 650 feet south of Forbes Boulevard. Allerton Avenue is 40 feet wide adjacent to the project site and striped as a two -lane street with bike lanes. Access to two other businesses is provided on the east side of the street. The site's southerly driveway would be expected to experience the heaviest traffic volumes (about 99 percent of the project traffic using Allerton Avenue) as it provides direct access to the project's parking garage, while the site's northern driveway is expected to experience the lower volumes (1 percent of the project's Allerton Avenue traffic) as it only provides access to a truck unloading dock. These driveways would not be connected internal to the site. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -80 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 N SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - January 2012 FIGURE 4.° - 23 I i Year 2015 Project Driveway AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes 0868 - 001.01/12 AM PEAK • SOURCE: Crane Transportation Group - January 2012 FIGURE 4.° - 24 I i Year 2035 Project Driveway AM and PM Peak Hour Volumes 0868 - 001.01/12 4.8 Transportation and Circulation Allerton Avenue is wide enough for vehicles waiting to make a left turn into the site to be passed on the right (in the Class II striped bike lane). However, the lack of a formal left turn lane on the approach to the southerly driveway or a continuous two -way left turn lane extending between the two project driveways (and also serving the two businesses on the east side of the street) would result in less orderly traffic flow along this section of roadway than desirable. Sight lines at the existing Forbes Boulevard driveway intersections are more than 700 feet to the west and approximately 400 feet to the east. Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 40 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) is 305 feet. Therefore, sight lines are acceptable at these locations. Sight lines at the project's Allerton Avenue driveway intersections would be as follows. • North Driveway — 250 feet to the north — 800+ feet to the south • South Driveway — 400 feet to the north — 800+ feet to the south Minimum stopping sight distance for a vehicle speed of 35 miles per hour (five miles greater than the posted speed limit) is 250 feet. This is a realistic evaluation of speed for northbound traffic at both driveways and for southbound traffic at the south driveway intersection. However, southbound Allerton traffic leaving the Forbes Boulevard intersection would likely be traveling at only 25 to 30 miles per hour at the north driveway. Minimum stopping distances for speeds of 25 and 30 miles per hour are 155 and 200 feet, respectively. Therefore, sight lines would be acceptable at the south driveway, but only marginally acceptable at the north driveway. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -18: The applicant shall be responsible for the following safety improvements. These improvements shall be completed before occupancy. • Provide at least a 75- foot -long left turn deceleration lane plus taper on the westbound Forbes Boulevard approaches to both project driveways. • Stripe a continuous two -way left turn lane along the project's Allerton Avenue frontage that would serve movements to /from both project driveways as well as to the businesses on the opposite side of the street. However, this would require removal of the Class II bike lanes recently striped along the street, or widening of the Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -83 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 4.8 Transportation and Circulation street by at least 8 feet. Alternatively, the Class II bike lanes could be replaced by a Class III signed bike route, which would allow striping of the continuous turn lane. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the improvements listed above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -18, which are feasible, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact 4.8 -19: On -site circulation would adequately conform to City guidelines and good traffic engineering practice. (Less than Significant) As part of this analysis, the internal circulation plan shown on the August 2010 site plan developed by DES Architects /Engineers was evaluated. Each project driveway would be channelized at least 50 feet internal to the site. In addition, all surface lot and garage parking aisles are shown to be 25 feet wide, which would meet City code criteria and good traffic engineering practice. Crosswalks would be provided between the parking garage and both project buildings. Therefore, this analysis determined that the internal circulation plan was adequate. Mitigation Measures: None required. Impact 4.8 -20: The project as proposed would not provide a walkway from the project buildings to Allerton Avenue or provide sidewalks along Forbes Boulevard. This lack of infrastructure would impact pedestrian safety. (Potentially Significant; Less than Significant with Mitigation) Internal walkways are shown on the site plan connecting both buildings and the parking garage. One walkway would extend to Forbes Boulevard, but no walkways would extend to Allerton Avenue. In addition, no sidewalk would be provided along the site's Forbes Boulevard frontage. Lack of these walkways would be a significant safety concern. Mitigation Measure 4.8 -20: The applicant shall revise the site plan to provide sidewalks along the project's Forbes Boulevard frontage as well as a connection between internal walkways and the Allerton Avenue sidewalk. Impact after Mitigation: Implementation of the revised site plan described above in Mitigation Measure 4.8 -20 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.8 -84 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2nd Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 ALTERNATIVES 6.1 INTRODUCTION California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) specifies that the range of reasonable alternatives to be included in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must consist of alternatives that "would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project." Alternatives are evaluated in an EIR to provide information on whether or not a variation of a proposed project would reduce or eliminate the project's significant impacts within the basic framework of the objectives. The range of alternatives studied in the EIR must be broad enough to permit a reasoned choice by decision - makers when considering the merits of the project. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) specifies that the range of alternatives is governed by the "rule of reason," requiring the evaluation of only those alternatives "necessary to permit a reasoned choice." Further, an EIR "need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative." Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the analysis of a "No Project Alternative." The purpose of describing and analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The State CEQA Guidelines state that the No Project Alternative is the circumstance under which the project would not proceed. This could include buildout of a site under existing plans or the preservation of existing conditions. In both cases, the consequences of not approving the project must be discussed. Under CEQA, alternatives that are remote or speculative should not be discussed in the alternatives analysis. Additionally, alternatives should focus on reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts associated with the project as proposed. The 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project is described and evaluated for its environmental impacts in Section 3.0 of the April 2007 Draft EIR and Section 4.0 of this EIR, with an emphasis on potentially significant impacts and recommended mitigation measures to avoid these impacts. The alternatives selected for analysis in this section were identified based on the ability of these alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, while attempting to meet the basic objectives of the project. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives The evaluation of alternatives provided in the April 2007 Draft EIR has been revised, where appropriate, and presented in this 2n' Recirculated Draft EIR in light of the changes in the project's traffic, air quality, and GHG impacts. 6.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Alternatives in the EIR should be feasible, and should attain most of the basic project objectives. Objectives of the proposed 494 Forbes R &D Project originates from the development goals included in City's General Plan, including the East of 101 Area Plan. As part of its application, the applicant has provided the City of South San Francisco with the following list of proposed project goals and objectives: • Convert the under - utilized vacant lot to a higher and better use; • Permit campus -style office, high - quality office and R &D uses (General Plan Guiding Policy 3.5 -G -3); • Capitalize and expand upon the high - quality office and R &D development recently built near the project site; • Retain the flexibility to develop more or less R &D space than office space to respond to market conditions and opportunities; • Build a project that has the potential to create quality jobs for residents of South San Francisco; • Build a project that is economically viable in the East of 101 Area based on market conditions and projected service requirements for the area; • Generate net property taxes, sales taxes and other fees from the project and enhance property values; • Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Business and Technology Park; and • Take advantage of views of the Bay from proposed new buildings and open spaces. 6.3 OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project would result in significant or potentially significant impacts to the following resources (before mitigation): • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives • Transportation /Circulation • Utilities and Service Systems Most of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through incorporation of mitigation measures. However, due to the infeasibility of mitigation measures, impacts related to traffic back -ups on the freeway and vehicle queues at intersections would remain significant and unavoidable. The analysis below presents the alternatives that were considered for this project. Each alternative is examined for its ability to reduce environmental impacts relative to the proposed project, feasibility of implementation, and ability to meet project objectives. 6.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL This section presents an evaluation of three alternatives to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard Office /R &D Project: • No Project Alternative • The 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative • The 0.50 Floor Area Ratio Alternative A summary comparison of the environmental effects of the proposed project and the alternatives is included at the end of this section in Table 6.0 -3. 6.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Description As required under the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR's alternatives analysis must include consideration of the No Project Alternative. The "No Project" analysis discusses the existing conditions as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (2) and (3) (A)). Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed R &D uses would not be established on the project site and it would remain a vacant industrial site formerly occupied by clothing manufacturing businesses. Because the site has already been cleared and some grading has occurred, it is assumed that under this alternative, the site would remain in its current undeveloped and un- vegetated condition. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives The No Project Alternative would decrease the diversity of businesses in the area and as a result, would not increase employment opportunities in the area, as would occur under the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would not fulfill the East of 101 Area Plan's stated purpose of maximizing the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties in the City's East of 101 Area. This alternative would prevent the site from contributing to the development of R &D uses and the campus style character which is promoted by the City's General Plan. Impact Analysis Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce environmental impacts in almost all categories to less than significant levels, as no development would occur under this alternative. Because the project site is currently vacant and un- vegetated, the project site would not be consistent with the aesthetic values of surrounding sites. However, all other significant and significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project would be avoided under this alternative. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, including increasing quality employment opportunities, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, generating net property taxes and sales taxes, or creating campus -style office and high - quality office and R &D uses. 6.4.2 Alternative 2: 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative Description Under this alternative, the project's Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the current 1.0 FAR for the 326,020- square -foot project, to a FAR of 0.75 and building space of 244,550 square feet, a 25 percent reduction in project size. This reduced development intensity would result in fewer employees at the site. The estimated number of employees under this alternative would be 1,223. While the overall square footage would be reduced under this alternative, the footprint of the project would not change. In order to support optimal efficiency for Biotechnology /Research & Development businesses, a minimum standard floor plan is required for prospective tenants, which includes minimum floor to ceiling heights and desired floor plates. The desired footprint for Biotechnology /Research & Development is approximately 30,000 square feet. With the reduced building space of 244,550 square feet and a minimum floor plate of 30,000 square feet, Buildings A and B would each consist of four stories. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide extensive landscaping and public areas on the site, as well as drainage improvements. Using the project's parking ratio of 1 space /350 square feet of building space, Alternative 2 would require approximately 699 parking spaces, a reduction of 232 spaces (25 percent) from the proposed project. The proposed garage would therefore be reduced from a 4 -level garage under the proposed project to a 3 -level garage under this alternative. Impact Analysis The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of the alternative will substantially increase the impact. Aesthetics Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 2 would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts. Air Quality As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 2 would not result in any significant construction and operational air quality impacts as a result of added vehicle trips in the area. Because this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the project site than the proposed project, the operational air quality impacts associated with vehicle trips would be slightly less than those identified under the proposed project. Similarly, this alternative would result in reduced air emissions due to construction because of the reduction in the building space that would be constructed. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1, which is recommended by the BAAQMD for all construction projects, would still be implemented to further minimize construction emissions. The potential human health risk impact from project operation would still remain speculative under this alternative and Mitigation Measure 4.2 -4 would still be recommended for this alternative. Geology and Soils Impacts to the exposure of people and /or structures to strong seismic groundshaking would be somewhat reduced under this alternative, due to the fact that fewer people would be employed at the project site. Impacts related to the exposure of structures to effects of differential settlements and increases in erosion during the construction phase of the project would be the same as those described for the proposed Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -5 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives project. It is assumed that while there would be less square footage constructed under this alternative, the footprint of the project would not change. As a result, no decreases in the potential for erosion or the exposure of structures to differential settlements would be realized by this alternative. Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 2 would have the potential to result in impacts associated with potential exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater during construction, the potential for a spill of hazardous materials during project operation, operation of the project within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport, and the potential for volatile organic compounds affecting site users through the inhalation of vapors released from the subsurface into indoor air. Mitigation Measures 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Hydrology and Water Quality While the building space to be constructed under this alternative would be reduced by approximately 25 percent, the project footprint would not change under this alternative. As a result, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project under Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed project. Mitigation Measures 4.5 -1 through 4.5 -5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 2 would not result in any significant land use impacts. Noise While the project footprint would not change under this alternative, development under Alternative 2 would result in somewhat reduced noise impacts compared to those described for the proposed project. Because the building space would be reduced by approximately 25 percent under this alternative, it is expected that one of the two construction phase would be shortened, thereby decreasing the duration of construction - related less than significant noise impacts in the project area. As pile driving would be required under this alternative, the significant impact from construction -phase vibrations would still occur and Mitigation Measure 4.7 -4 would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -6 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives level. The less than significant operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be further reduced, due to reduced vehicle trips (see Transportation, below). Transportation Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 2 would result in new vehicle trips in the project area. Under this alternative, a total of 140 AM peak hour trips and 115 PM peak hour trips would be generated. Table 6.0 -1, Project Trip Generation - 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative, provides a summary of the specific vehicle trips estimate for this alternative. Table 6.0 -1 Project Trip Generation - 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative Source: Crane Transportation Group 2011; Impact Sciences 2011 ITE peak hour fitted curve equation trip rate reduced by 20 percent, reflecting City- mandated TDM program requirements in 2015 to reduce project trip generation. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 8 1 h Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. The number of trips generated under this alternative would still result in an increase above the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours. As described previously in this EIR, C /CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion Management Program (C /CAG Guidelines) specify that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and /or tenants would mitigate all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development. Since the threshold would be exceeded under this alternative, Mitigation Measure 4.8 -1 would still be required and the applicant would be responsible for creating and implementing a TDM program. As a result of the fewer trips generated under this alternative, the following traffic impacts would be reduced or avoided: • Impact 4.8 -8: Implementation of Alternative 2 would not result in a decline in level of service to unacceptable levels at any intersections under year 2015 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -10: Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase traffic volumes which would increase vehicle queuing at two intersections (instead of three intersections under the proposed project) above Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -7 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 R &D 244,515 0.47 115 0.10 25 0.07 17 0.40 98 6.0 Alternatives levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under year 2015 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -13: Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase traffic volumes; however, this would not result in any significant level of service operational impacts at intersections under year 2035 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -16: Implementation of Alternative 2 would increase traffic volumes which would result in operational impacts on one U.S. 101 off -ramp and one U.S. 101 on -ramp (and avoid backups extending to the freeway mainline at four off -ramps under the proposed project) under year 2035 with alternative conditions. All of the other traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project would still occur and Mitigation Measures 4.8 -1 through 4.8 -18, with the exception of Mitigation Measure 4.8 -8, would be required to reduce most impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to future freeway mainline and intersection levels of service. Utilities As Alternative 2 would reduce the total square footage of the project, fewer employees would be accommodated at the project site. This reduction in employees would translate in a reduced demand for water services in the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative is still likely to increase demand for water resources provided to the CWSC by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, resulting in a potentially significant impact, and Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1 would be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Alternative 2, the total square footage of the project would be reduced by approximately 25 percent resulting in proportionally less GHG emissions during construction. The reduced building space would be expected to accommodate proportionally fewer employees resulting in reduced operational emissions (i.e., from vehicle trips, proportionally less energy use for heating and cooling, reduced lighting and water use, and reduced generation of wastewater and solid waste). Therefore, the total operational GHG emissions would be approximately 25 percent less than those expected to result under the proposed project. The GHG emissions per service population would however be the same as both the total emissions and the total service population would be proportionally reduced. Therefore, the less than significant GHG impacts of the proposed project would be the same under this alternative. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -8 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would support the project objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, and creating campus -style office and high - quality office and R &D uses. This alternative would also support objectives to convert the under - utilized lot to a higher and better use, would capitalize, and expand upon the high - quality R &D development recently built near the site, and would take advantage of bay views from proposed new buildings and open space areas. This alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage proposed. 6.4.3 Alternative 3: 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative Description This alternative would develop a smaller version of the proposed project within the project site. Under this alternative, the project's FAR would be reduced from the current 1.0 FAR for the 326,020- square -foot project, to a FAR of 0.50 and building space of 163,035 square feet. As noted under Alternative 2, the desired footprint for Biotechnology /Research & Development is approximately 30,000 square feet. With the reduced building space of 163,035 square feet and a minimum floor plate of 30,000 square feet, this alternative would consist of two buildings, with each building involving about three stories (or a combination of a four -story building and a two -story building). Like the other alternatives, Alternative 3 would also result in extensive landscaping and public areas on the site, as well as drainage improvements. This reduced development intensity would result in fewer employees at the site. The estimated number of employees under this alternative would be 815. Due to the substantially decreased FAR under this alternative, parking facilities required for the project would be substantially reduced in size compared to the proposed project. Using the project - parking ratio of 1 space /350 square feet of space, Alternative 3 would require approximately 466 parking spaces, a reduction of 465 spaces (50 percent) over the proposed project. The proposed garage would therefore be reduced from a 4 -level garage under the proposed project to a 2 -level garage with a similar footprint under this alternative. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -9 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Impact Analysis The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of the alternative would substantially increase the impact. Aesthetics Compared to the proposed project, all structures would be smaller under this alternative. Landscaping and other attributes would be the same. Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 3 would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts Air Quality As with the proposed project, development under Alternative 3 would not result in any significant air quality impacts associated with the construction and operations. Similarly, this alternative would result in reduced air emissions due to construction because of the reduction in the building space that would be constructed. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -1 which is recommended by the BAAQMD for all construction projects would still be implemented to further minimize construction emissions. The potential human health risk impact from project operation would still remain speculative under this alternative and Mitigation Measure 4.2 -4 would still be recommended for this alternative. Geology and Soils Impacts to the exposure of people and /or structures from strong seismic groundshaking would be the same under this alternative as the proposed project. These impacts include exposure of people and structures to strong seismic ground shaking events, exposure of structures to adverse effects of differential settlements, and increased erosion during project construction. Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1 through 4.3 -5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project under Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials as those described for the proposed project, including potential for exposure to contaminated soils and groundwater during construction, the potential for a spill of hazardous materials during project operation, operation of the project within the jurisdiction of the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport, and the potential for volatile organic compounds affecting site users through the inhalation of vapors released from the subsurface into Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -10 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives indoor air. Mitigation Measures 4.4 -1 through 4.4 -5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Hydrology and Water Quality While the square footage under this alternative would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, the project footprint under this alternative would be substantially the same. As a result, development of the 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project under Alternative 3 would result in an impact associated with increased runoff flows from the project site to the City's stormwater facilities. Mitigation Measures 4.5 -1 through 4.5 -5 would be required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Land Use and Planning Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 3 would not result in any significant land use impacts. Noise While the project footprint would not change under this alternative, development under Alternative 3 would result in reduced noise impacts compared to those described for the proposed project. Because the building space would be reduced by approximately 50 percent under this alternative, it is expected that construction period would be shortened, thereby decreasing the duration of exposure to construction - related less than significant noise impacts in the project area. As pile driving would be required under this alternative, the significant impact from construction -phase vibrations would still occur and Mitigation Measure 4.7 -4 would be required to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The less than significant operational noise impacts of the proposed project would be further reduced, due to reduced vehicle trips (see Transportation, below). Transportation Similar to the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project, Alternative 3 would result in new vehicle trips in the project area. Under this alternative, a total of 94 AM peak hour trips and 78 PM peak hour trips would be generated. Table 6.0 -2, Project Trip Generation, 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative, provides a summary of the vehicle trips estimate for this alternative. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -11 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Table 6.0 -2 Project Trip Generation -0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative Source: Crane Transportation Group 2011; Impact Sciences 2011 ITE peak hour fitted curve equation trip rate reduced by 20 percent, reflecting City- mandated TDM program requirements in 2015 to reduce project trip generation. Trip Rate Source: Trip Generation, 8th Edition by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2008. As a result of the fewer trips generated under this alternative, the following traffic impacts would be reduced or avoided: • Impact 4.8 -1: The number of trips generated under Alternative 3 would be less than the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips. • Impact 4.8 -8: Implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in a decline in level of service to unacceptable levels at any intersections under year 2015 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -9: Implementation of Alternative 3 would not cause signal warrants to be met at any intersections. • Impact 4.8 -10: Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase traffic volumes which would increase vehicle queuing at one intersection (instead of three intersections under the proposed project) above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under year 2015 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -11: Implementation of Alternative 3 would not result in operational impacts to any freeway mainlines, on- ramps, or off -ramps under year 2015 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -13: Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase traffic volumes; however, this would not result in any significant level of service operational impacts at intersections under year 2015 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -15: Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase traffic volumes which would increase vehicle queuing at one intersection (instead of two intersections under the proposed project) above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under year 2035 with alternative conditions. • Impact 4.8 -16: Implementation of Alternative 3 would increase traffic volumes which would result in operational impacts on one U.S. 101 off -ramp (and avoid backups extending to the freeway mainline at four off -ramps and one U.S. 101 on -ramp under the proposed project) under year 2035 with alternative conditions. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -12 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 R &D 162,914 0.471 77 0.101 17 0.071 12 0.401 66 6.0 Alternatives All of the other traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed project would still occur and Mitigation Measures 4.8 -4 through 4.8 -18, with the exceptions of Mitigation Measures 4.8 -8, 4.8 -9, and 4.8 -11, would be required to reduce most traffic impacts to a less than significant level. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to future freeway mainline and intersection levels of service. Utilities As Alternative 3 would reduce the total building space of the project, fewer employees would be accommodated at the project site. This reduction in employees would translate in a substantially reduced demand for water services in the project area. However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative is still likely to increase demand for water resources provided to the CWSC by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, resulting in a potentially significant impact. This impact would remain potentially significant under this alternative and Mitigation Measure 4.9 -1 would be required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under Alternative 3, the total building space constructed for the project would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, resulting in reduced GHG emissions during construction. The smaller buildings would be expected to accommodate proportionally fewer employees resulting in proportionally reduced operational emissions (i.e., from vehicle trips, energy use to heat and cool the buildings, reduced lighting, water use, and wastewater and solid waste generation). While the total emissions would be lower, the operational GHG emissions per service population would be the same as under the proposed project. The impacts related to GHG emissions would be the same under this alternative as under the proposed project. Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would support the project objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, and converting the under - utilized parcel to a higher and better use. This alternative would capitalize and expand upon the high - quality R &D development recently built near the site, and would likely take advantage of some bay views from proposed new buildings and open space areas. While this alternative would result in campus -style R &D development, it would do so at a greatly reduced density compared to other alternatives. This alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -13 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives 6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be identified in an EIR. The State CEQA Guidelines also note "if the environmentally superior alternative is the 'no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of development under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project. This alternative would avoid significant traffic impacts and potentially significant impacts on geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and utilities. Therefore, this alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the key objectives of the proposed project with respect to R &D development. Of the remaining alternatives, the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would avoid some of the project's significant impacts with regards to traffic. As the square footage of R &D space would be reduced by 50 percent as compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would accommodate a proportionally smaller project population, and would in turn result in decreased vehicle trips to the project site. This reduction in vehicle trips would result in fewer vehicle emissions, thereby resulting in improved air quality conditions compared to the other alternatives. Table 6.0 -3, Summary Comparison of 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project Alternatives, provides a comparison between the environmental effects of the proposed project and those of the alternatives. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -14 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Table 6.0 -3 Summary Comparison of 494 Forbes Boulevard R &D Project Alternatives Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -15 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Proposed Project Alt. 2 Alt. 3 (before and after Alt. 1 0.75 Floor Area 0.5 Floor Area Project Impact mitigation) No Project Ratio Ratio Air Quality Construction of the proposed project would generate emissions that Impact 4.2 -1 would not result in a violation of an air quality standard or contribute LTS NI LTS LTS substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. This would result in a less than significant impact. Research and Development uses envisioned by the project would not generate substantial criteria pollutant emissions from motor vehicles associated with employee trips and area sources (e.g., natural gas Impact 4.2 -2 combustion) that could violate an air quality standard, contribute LTS NI LTS- LTS - substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or conflict with, or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality management plan. This would result in a less than significant impact. The proposed project would increase carbon monoxide concentrations at busy intersections and along congested roadways in the project Impact 4.2 -3 vicinity but would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial LTS NI LTS LTS - pollution concentrations. This would result in a less than significant impact. The project operations may or may not expose nearby sensitive Impact 4.2 -4 receptors to concentrations of toxic air contaminants in excess of NA NI NA NA acceptable levels. This impact conclusion is speculative. Project construction activities would not expose nearby sensitive Impact 4.2 -5 receptors to concentrations of toxic air contaminants in excess of LTS NI LTS- LTS - acceptable levels. This would result in a less than significant impact. The proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a Impact 4.2 -6 substantial number of people. This would result in a less than LTS NI LTS- LTS - significant impact. The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable Impact 4.2 -7 net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in LTS NI LTS- LTS - nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This would result in a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -15 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Proposed Project Alt. 2 Alt. 3 (before and after Alt 1 0.75'' Floor Area 0.5 Floor Area Project Impact mitigation) No Pro j ect Ratio Ratio The proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable Impact 4.2 -8 increase in toxic air contaminants when combined with other LTS NI LTS- LTS - construction projects, stationary sources, and mobile sources within 1,000 feet of the project site. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Contaminated soil and groundwater could be exposed during Impact 4.4 -1 excavation and grading activities, exposing construction workers to LTS NI LTS LTS hazardous materials. This would be a less than significant impact. Accident conditions during the transportation or use of hazardous Impact 4.4 -2 substances during project operation could create a spill of hazardous S/LTS NI LTS LTS materials which could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. The project would be located within the jurisdiction of the Airport LTS Impact 4.4 -3 Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport and could NI LTS LTS conflict with the Plan's policies. This would be a less than significant impact. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from contaminated groundwater Impact 4.4 -4 may pose a risk to site users through inhalation of vapors released LTS NI LTS LTS from the subsurface into indoor air. This would be a less than significant impact. Upon occupancy, the proposed project could emit hazardous Impact 4.4 -5 emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, LTS NI LTS LTS substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. This would be a less than significant impact. Noise Implementation of the proposed project would not result in exposure Impact 4.7 -1 of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards LTS NI LTS- LTS - established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or Noise Ordinance. This would be a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project Impact 4.7 -2 vicinity above levels existing without the project nor would it expose LTS NI LTS LTS - persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the City of South San Francisco General Plan or Noise Ordinance. This would be a less than significant impact. The proposed project would result in temporary or periodic noise Impact 4.7 -3 increases associated with construction activities. This would be a less LTS NI LTS- LTS - than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -16 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Proposed Project Alt. 2 Alt. 3 (before and after Alt 1 0.75'' Floor Area 0.5 Floor Area Project Impact mitigation) No Pro j ect Ratio Ratio Project construction activities could expose sensitive receptors to Impact 4.7 -4 excessive groundborne vibration levels. This would be a potentially S/LTS NI S- S_ significant impact. Construction of the proposed project, when combined with other Impact 4.7 -5 construction projects in the vicinity, would not result in a cumulative LTS NI LTS- LTS - impact associated with a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This would be a less than significant impact. The operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with the operation of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, Impact 4.7 -6 would not result in a cumulative impact associated with a substantial LTS NI LTS- LTS - permanent increase in ambient noise levels. This would be a less than significant impact. Traffic and Circulation Trips generated by the proposed project would exceed 100 net new Impact 4.8 -1 trips during AM and PM peak hours. This would be considered a S/LTS NI S- LTS potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any Impact 4.8 -2 intersection level of service significant impacts under Existing with LTS NI LTS- LTS - Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase existing Impact 4.8 -3 traffic at any unsignalized intersection such that it meets peak hour LTS NI LTS- LTS - signal warrant criteria under Existing with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase existing peak Impact 4.8 -4 hour traffic volumes resulting in a 95th percentile vehicle queuing S/LTS NI S- S_ impact at one intersection under Existing with Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase existing AM Impact 4.8 -5 peak hour volumes resulting in volumes that exceed acceptable S/LTS NI S- S_ capacity at one off -ramp under Existing with Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the peak Impact 4.8 -6 hour volumes at any study on -ramp above acceptable capacity limits LTS NI LTS- LTS - under Existing with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the level of Impact 4.8 -7 service of any U.S.101 freeway mainline segments under Existing with LTS NI LTS- LTS - Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -17 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 Proposed Project Alt. 2 Alt. 3 (before and after Alt 1 0.75'' Floor Area 0.5 Floor Area Project Impact mitigation) No Pro j ect Ratio Ratio Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes Impact 4.8 -8 above acceptable limits at one study intersection under 2015 with S/LTS NI S- S_ Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic Impact 4.8 -9 volumes, which would cause a signal warrant to be met at one S/LTS NI S- S_ intersection under 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle queuing at three intersections above levels determined to be acceptable Impact 4.8 -10 by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with S/LTS NI S- S_ Project conditions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes which would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline at Impact 4.8 -11 one off -ramp and result in operational impacts to one U.S. 101 off- S /SU NI SU SU ramp under 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes Impact 4.8 -12 on the U.S. 101 freeway, but would not result in unacceptable LTS NI LTS- LTS - operation on any study freeway segment under 2015 with Project conditions. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes Impact 4.8 -13 but would not result in any significant level of service operational LTS NI LTS- LTS - impacts at study intersections under 2035 with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes Impact 4.8 -14 at an unsignalized intersection that would exceed signal warrant S/LTS NI S- S_ criteria levels under 2035 without Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle queuing at two intersections under 2035 with Project conditions above Impact 4.8 -15 levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco S /SU NI SU SU and Caltrans. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -18 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 6.0 Alternatives KEY Proposed Project NI: Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Less than significant impact (before and after Alt 1 0.75'' Floor Area 0.5 Floor Area Project Impact mitigation) No Pro j ect Ratio Ratio Implementation of the proposed project would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline at four off - ramps, and result in Impact 4.8 -16 operational impacts on one U.S. 101 off -ramp and one U.S. 101 S /SU NI SU SU on -ramp under 2035 with Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in Impact 4.8 -17 operational impacts to any study freeway mainline segments under LTS NI LTS- LTS - 2035 with Project conditions. This would be a less than significant impact. Project - related traffic would turn from Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Impact 4.8 -18 Avenue into project driveways which would create safety impacts on S/LTS NI S S_ Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Impact 4.8 -19 On -site circulation would adequately conform to City guidelines and LTS NI LTS LTS - good traffic engineering practice. The project as proposed would not provide a walkway from the project Impact 4.8 -20 buildings to Allerton Avenue or provide sidewalks along Forbes S/LTS NI S S Boulevard. This lack of infrastructure would result in a significant impact to pedestrian safety. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Construction and operation of the proposed project would generate Impact 4.10 -1 GHG emissions both directly and indirectly. However, the emissions LTS NI LTS- LTS - would not have a significant impact on the environment. The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, Impact 4.10 -2 policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions LTS NI LTS LTS of greenhouse gases. The impact would be less than significant. KEY NI: No Impact LTS: Less than significant impact S: Significant impact SU: Significant and unavoidable impact NA: Not Applicable Source: Impact Sciences 2012 Impact Sciences, Inc. 6.0 -19 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 7.0 REPORT PREPARATION South San Francisco Planning Department (Lead Agency) 315 Maple Avenue City of South San Francisco, California 94080 Girard H. Beaudin, Senior Planner Linda Ajello, Associate Planner Impact Sciences, Inc. 555 12th Street, Suite 1650 Oakland, California 94607 Shabnam Barati, Managing Principal /Project Manager Jennifer Millman, Project Planner Alan Sako, Air Quality Manager Eric Bell, Air Quality Analyst Ian Hillway, Publications Manager Emily Chitiea, Publications Editor Lisa Cuoco, Publications Coordinator Crane Transportation Group 2621 East Windrim Court Elk Grove, California 95758 Mark Crane, Managing Principal Impact Sciences, Inc. 7.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 8.0 REFERENCES American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air - conditioning Engineers. 2004. ANSI /ASHRAE Standard 6.21 -2004. (AHRAE 2004) Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2011. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. May. BAAQMD and Association for Bay Area Governments. Undated. Climate, Physiography and Air Pollution Potential- Bay Area and Its Subregions (Referenced by County). BAAQMD. 2004. BAAQMD Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report 2002. June. BAAQMD. 2008. Emissions Inventory Summary Report, Base Year 2005. December 24. BAAQMD. 2009. "Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status." http: //hank.baagmd.gov /pin / air _quality /ambient_air_quality.htm (accessed October 23, 2009). California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2008. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. (CAPCOA 2008) California Air Resources Board. 2010. "Ambient Air Quality Standards." http: / /www.arb.ca.gov/ research /aags /aags2.pdf. September 8. (CARB 2010b) California Air Resources Board. 2010. "iADAM Air Quality Data Statistics." California Air Resources Board Air Quality Database. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /adam /welcome.html. (CARB 2010a) California Air Resources Board. 2010. "California Greenhouse Gas 2000 -2008 Inventory by Scoping Plan Category - Summary," http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /inventory /data /data.htm. (CARB 2010c) California Air Resources Board. 2010. "California Greenhouse Gas 1990 -2004 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary," http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /inventory /archive /archive.htm. (CARB 2010d) California Air Resources Board. 2010. "California Greenhouse Gas 2000 -2008 Inventory by IPCC Category - Summary," http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /inventory /data /data.htm. (CARB 2010e) California Air Resources Board. 2010. Staff Report: Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets For Automobiles And Light Trucks Pursuant To Senate Bill 375. (CARB 2010f) California Air Resources Board. 2007. Initial Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking, Proposed Regulation for Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32). (CARB 2007) California Air Resources Board. 2008. Local Government Operations Protocol for the Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventories, Version 1.0. (CARB 2008b) Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0 -1 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 8.0 References California Air Resources Board. 2008. Preliminary Staff Draft Proposal: Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act. (CARB 2008a) California Air Resources Board. 2009. "Stationary Equipment Refrigerant Management Program," http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /reftrack /reftrack.htm. (CARB 2009) California Building Standards Commission. 2009. 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. California Building Standards Commission. 2010. "CALGreen," http: / /www.bsc.ca.gov /CALGreen /default.htm. California Climate Action Registry. 2009. General Reporting Protocol: Reporting Entity -Wide Greenhouse as Emissions Version 3.1. (CCAR 2009) California Department of Finance. 2010. "E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001 -1008, with 2000 Benchmark," http: / /www.dof.ca.gov /research /demographic /reports /estimates /e- 5/2009/. (CalDOF 2010) California Department of Finance. 2009. "Financial & Economic Data: Gross Domestic Product, California," http: / /www.dof.ca.gov /HTML /FS_ DATA /LatestEconData /FS_Misc.htm. (CalDOF 2009) California Energy Commission. 2002. Diesel Use in California, Remarks by Commissioner James D. Boyd. (CEC 2002) California Energy Commission. 2006. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. (CEC 2006). California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. 2006. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. (Cal EPA 2006) California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Cal /EPA). 2003. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Cal /EPA. 2003. Recommended Interim Risk Management Policy for Inhalation -Based Residential Cancer Risk. Caltrain. 2009. Comment Letter Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report — Gateway Business Park Master Plan. December 9. Crane Transportation Group. 2011. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for 494 Forbes Boulevard. October. EIP Associates. 2006. Draft Master EIR for Genentech Corporate Facilities. Prepared for City of South San Francisco. December. Energy Information Administration. 2007. "Other Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride," http: / /www.eia.doe.gov /oiaf/ 1605 /ggrpt /summary /other_gases.html. Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0 -2 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 8.0 References Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2012. EDR Radius Map Report: 494 Forbes Blvd, Inquiry Number: 3273669.1s. March. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 1996. "Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change — Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." (IPCC 1996) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers," http : / /ipcc - wgl.ucar.edu /wgl /docs/ WG1AR4_SPM_PlenaryApproved.pdf. (IPCC 2007) Office of Planning and Research. 2008. Technical Advisory — CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. (OPR 2008) Office of Planning and Research. 2009. Proposed Draft CEQA Guideline Amendments for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. (OPR 2009) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2009. Shoreline Areas Potentially Exposed to Sea Level Rise, Central Bay West Shore. (BCDC 2009) San Francisco International Airport (SFO). 2011a. Basemap: 65 CNEL Contour 3rd Qtr 2007. Accessed December 1. SFO. 2011b. Comparative Traffic Report, July 2011. July. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report to the 2003 Draft Air Quality Management Plan. Diamond Bar, California. August. http: / /www.agmd.gov /cega/ documents / 2003/ agmd /finalEA /agmp /AQMP_FEIR.html (accessed January 22, 2007). South San Francisco, City of, and Crane Transportation Group. 2006. Terrabay Phase 3 Final EIR. October. South San Francisco, City of. 1986. South San Francisco Municipal Code. South San Francisco, City of. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan. Prepared by Brady and Associates. South San Francisco, California. July. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. South San Francisco General Plan. Prepared by Dyett & Bhatia. South San Francisco, California. October. South San Francisco, City of. 2005. 249 East Grand Avenue Draft EIR. Prepared by Lamphier- Gregory. October. South San Francisco, City of. 2005. 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Office /R &D Project. Prepared by Morehouse Associates. September. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. "Data Finders," http: / /www.census.gov /. (U.S. Census Bureau 2009) Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0 -3 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2 ^d Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012 8.0 References U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Quality Database. http: / /www.epa.gov /air /data/ (accessed October 23, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. "Glossary of Climate Change Terms." http: / /www.epa.gov /climatechange /glossary.html. (US EPA 2008a) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. "Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 - 2006," http: / /www.epa.gov /climatechange/ emissions /usinventoryreport.html. (US EPA 2008b) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. "Climate Change." http: / /www.epa.gov /climatechange. (US EPA 2009) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "High GWP Gases and Climate Change," http: / /www.epa.gov /highgwp /scientific.html #sf6. (US EPA n.d.[a]) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Methane: Sources and Emissions," http: / /www.epa.gov /methane /sources.html. (US EPA n.d.[b] Impact Sciences, Inc. 8.0 -4 494 Forbes Blvd. R&D Project 2n^ Partial Recirculated Draft EIR 0868.001 April 2012