Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso RDA 4-2001 RESOLUTION NO. 04-2001 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BAY WEST COVE PROJECT WHEREAS, an Addendum to a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared in accord with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of South San Francisco Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof, has been prepared to address the environmental effects of proposed changes to the site plan/project description in Bay West Cove Planning Area 1; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum references the certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report on the Bay West Cove Project; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum explained the decision not to prepare a Subsequent EIR, pursuant to Section 15162; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum reviewed and analyzed impacts which were found to be potentially significant in the SEIR. The following significant impact topics in the SEIR were reassessed in the Addendum, in response to the proposed changes in the project description: · Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed by the General Plan; and · Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, and restrictions on parking to reduce congestion; and · Air Quality, including construction dust, and increases in regional air pollution; and · Earth, including soil stability, lateral spreading, and liquefaction; and · Human Health, including exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials, and potential water quality degradation during operations; and · Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation during construction; and · Cultural Resources, including potential to damage unknown cultural sites and artifacts; and · Utilities, including impacts to aging wastewater collection facilities, a potential shortfall in existing on-site wastewater collection facilities, cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity; and August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. · Public Services, including demand for police services, need for an emergency communications signal; equipment; and · Cumulative impacts; and WHEREAS, the required findings, attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part hereof, determine that the proposed changes to the project description will not result in any impacts which cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels; and, WHEREAS, traffic impacts and air quality impacts would be reduced in severity by proposed changes to the project description, but not to the extent that the impacts would not remain significant and unavoidable and require reference to a statement of overriding considerations, made by the City in its approval of the Bay West Cove Project, Nov. 21, 2000. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Redevelopment Agency hereby approves the Addendum to the SEIR for the Bay West Cove Project, based upon the required findings. I hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Boardmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Karyl Matsumoto and John R. Penna, and Vice-Chair Eugene R. Mullin NOES: Chair Joseph A. Fernekes ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. EXHIBIT A ADDENDUM To the Bay West Cove Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Certified by the City of South San Francisco, Nov. 21, 2000 REASON FOR PREPARATION OF AN ADDENDUM The developers of Planning Area 1 in the Bay West Cove Project in South San Francisco have proposed a change to the kind and amount of commercial business square footage to be built in Planning Area 1. Some of the office space authorized in Planning Area 1 would be converted to R&D/biotechnology space. The business space would occupy four buildings in the proposed site plan, rather than three buildings in the original plan. Parking would be reconfigured in the revised plan. Ancillary space, including retail/restaurant space and childcare facility, and a 350 room hotel would not change. The lead agency determined that an Addendum to the previously certified EIR Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to assess the impacts of the revised commercial space on the environment. The Addendum will be made available to decision-makers to enable them to take action on the proposed development in Planning Area 1. No Need for a Subsequent EIR Some changes and additions to the Final SEIR are necessary, but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for a subsequent EIR have occurred (15164.(a). On the basis of substantial evidence in the record, no major changes are proposed which will require major revisions to the previous EIR. Nor would the changed project result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In fact, the proposed project would result in some less significant impacts (e.g.,traffic and air quality) than the original project. No new information has arisen that was not known or could not have been known when the previous SEIR was prepared. Therefore, no subsequent EIR is required for the project, as revised. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Changes in Development Program The amount of office space currently authorized for Planning Area 1 would be reduced from 600,000 gsf to 223,354 gsf of office space, while 388,622 gsf would be added for Research and Development (R&D) and biotechnology industries (see Table A). The overall commercial business space would be reduced from 600,000 gsf of office space and 20,000 gsf retail/restaurant in the original plan to 611,976 gsf of mixed office and R&D space (withl0,000 gsf of retail/restaurant space in the office building and 10,000 gsf of retail/restaurant space in R&D buildings.). The number of parking spaces would be essentially the same for both projects - !,743 in the original plan and 1,731 in the proposed plan. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Figure 1 August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Figure 2 August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Table A Building Usage Planning Area 1, Bay West Cove Land Use (excludes Approved Project Proposed Project Gross hotel and childcare in Gross Square Feet of Square Feet of Building both approved and Building Area Area proposed projects) Office 600,000 223,354 * R&D Industries 0 388,622 ** Retail/restaurant 20,000 *** Total 620,000 611,976 · One, 9-story building at 223,354 gsf · * Three four-story R&D buildings totaling 388,622 gsf · ** It is assumed that 10,000 gsf of retail/restaurant space would be located in the office building and 10,000 gsf of retail/restaurant space would be located in R&D buildings. The actual mix and quantity of retail and office space within the overall 20,000 gsf may vary. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT This section discusses changes to the impacts defined in the Supplemental EIR as a result of modifications to the project description. The significant impacts are organized in the same order as chapters in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Land Use and Planning SEIR Impact 4.2.2: Project exceeds allowed square footage. The square footage of development in the SEIR project exceeds the maximum square footage allowed by the General Plan. Mitigate by allowance for floor area bonuses, consistent with the General Plan and feasible trip reduction, and other Transportation Demand Management measures. Addendum Response: The square footage of development would be about 8,000 gsf less than the original project (611,976 gsf. versus 620,000 gsf). This would result in a slightly less significant amount of development that exceeds standards in the General Plan. Mitigation measures would not change. Transportation and Circulation SEIR Impact 6.4.2: Project exceeds 100 vehicular trips. The SEIR project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips, which must be mitigated according to the Congestion Management Program guidelines of the the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Mitigate by implementing a TDM program which credits trips for feasible alternative mode shift measures. Addendum Response: The shift from office space to R&D space would reduce vehicular trips for the proposed project, because R&D industries generate less AM and PM peak hour traffic than office space. From a traffic impact standpoint, the "worst case" scenario is represented by the approved precise plan which has 600,000 gsf of office space and no R&D space. The proposed project would reduce the number of AM peak hour trips by 14% and the number of PM peak hour trips by to 18%, as shown in Tables C, because of the lower trip generation rates for R&D space than for office space. However, if some of the 388,662 gsf of space in the 4- story buildings is used for offices instead of R&D, the proposed project would generate more trips. Although the number of trips generated by the proposed project would still remain well above 100, the fewer trips resulting from the project would make the required TDM program more feasible. Table B Year 2002 Trip Generation Approved Project* Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 600,000 gsf of Office 10.24 6,144 1.45 870 1.38 828 0 gsf of R&D .... 10,000 gsf of Retail 40.67 407 0.67 7 2.93 30 10,000 gsf of Restaurant 89.95 900 3.32 34 4.78 48 Total 620,000 gsf 7,451 911 906 Table C Year 2002 Trip Generation Proposed Project* Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips 213,354 gsf of Office** 10.24 2,184 1.45 309 1.38 294 378,622 gsf of R&D** 7.54 2854 1.15 435 1.0 378 10,000 gsf of Retail 40.67 407 0.67 7 2.93 30 10,000 gsf of Restaurant 89.95 900 3.32 34 4.78 48 Total 611,976 gsf 6345 785 750 15% less than in (14% less than in (18% less than in Table B) Table B) Table B) *Tables B and C are adapted from the Final SEIR Response to Comments, Bay West Cove Commercial Project, Table 9 Revised Project Trip Generation. **Office and R&D space was reduced to incorporate 10,000 gsf retail and 10,000gsf restaurant August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. SEIR Impact 6.4.3: Traffic added to over-capacity U.S. 101. The SEIR project would contribute traffic to three CMP freeway segments, causing the segments to operate at LOS F. Mitigate through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic, although the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Addendum Response: The conversion of office space to R&D space would reduce peak hour trips, and therefore reduce the significance of the impact. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 6.4.4: Decline in LOS at 3 intersections. The SEIR project would result in the decline in LOS below "D" at three intersections for year 2002 baseline plus project traffic. Mitigate through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program, and make physical improvements to intersections where feasible, although the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Addendum Response: The reduction in trips generated could reduce the significance of impacts to the impacted intersections. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 6.4.5: Cumulative decline in LOS at 7 intersections. The SEIR project would result in a decline in LOS below level "D" at seven intersections for the year 2020 + baseline plus project traffic. Mitigate through implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Program, and make physical improvements to intersections where feasible, although the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Addendum Response: The reduction in trips generated could reduce the significance of impacts to the impacted intersections. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 6.4.6: Parking shortfall. The proposed parking in the SEIR project is inadequate based on zoning ordinance standards; however, this is not significant because the General Plan encourages a reduction in parking standards for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. The original plan calculated the required parking based upon current city standards. Those standards are shown along with standards in the approved Bay West Cove Specific Plan in Table D. As shown in Table E, the approved project for Planning Area 1 provided about 2,080 spaces for office (1980 spaces) and retail (100 spaces) based upon the current parking standards. Addendum Response: Based upon the Bay West Cove Specific Plan standards, the revised project would require about 7% fewer parking spaces than the approved project: a reduction from 2,080 spaces to about 1,936 spaces (632 spaces for offices, 1,204 spaces for R&D and 100 spaces for retail and restaurants) as shown in Table F. By way of comparison, Figure 1 Original Site Plan shows 1,743 parking spaces in the garage and parking lots (excluding the hotel) in Planning Area 1. Figure 2 Proposed Site Plan shows 1,731 spaces. It appears that the proposed project would have a shortfall of about 205 spaces (1,936 - 1731), based upon the potentially revised parking standards. Mitigate through reduced parking standards identified in Table D consistent with General Plan policies for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction methods. The standards are effectively maximum rather than minimum standards to help ensure the success of trip reduction measures. Table D. Recommended Parking Standards in Final SEIR and Specific Plan Standards Current City-wide Bay West Cove Land Use Minimmn Parking Specific Plan Standards Standards (SSFMC Sec. 20.61)* Office 3.3/1000 gsf 2.83 / 1,000 gsf R&D 4/1,000 to 50,000 gsf; 3.1 / 1,000 gsf plus 3/1,000 over 50,000 gsf Retail 5/1,000 gsf 1 / 200 gsf Restaurant 5/1,000 gsf 1 / 200 gsf * The regulations set target parking standards that may be reduced if warranted. Source: adapted from table, page 51, Draft Final Supplemental Impact Report, Response to Comments, Bay West Cove Commercial Project August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Table E. Parking Requirements for Approved Project based on Current Parking Standards in Table D Land Use and Parking Based on Development in Current Minimum Planning Area 1, Citywide Standards SEIR Office 600,000 gsf 1,980 spaces based on 3.3/1,000 Retail 10,000 gsf 50 spaces based on 5/1,000 gsf Restaurant 10,000 gsf 50 spaces based on 5/1,000 gsf Total - 2,080 spaces Source: adapted from table, page 51, Draft Final Supplemental Impact Report, Response to Comments, Bay West Cove Commercial Project Table F. Parking Requirements for Proposed Project based on Bay West Cove Specific Plan Standards in Table D Land Use and Parking Based on Proposed Bay West Cove Development in Specific Plan Planning Area 1 Standards Office 223,354 gsf 632 spaces based on 2.83/1,000 R&D 388,622 gsf 1,204 spaces based on 3.1/1,000 gsf Retail/ 20,000 gsf 100 spaces Restaurant based on 1/200 gsf Total - 1,936 spaces Source: adapted from table, page 51, Draft Final Supplemental Impact Report, Response to Comments, Bay West Cove Commercial Project Note: The above table ignores parking generated by the approved hotel and day care facilities, because they remain unchanged parts of the project. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Air Quality SEIR Impact 7.2.2: Construction dust. The SEIR project would emit construction dust that could be a nuisance to nearby properties and people with respiratory problems. Follow dust control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Addendum Response: The potential for dust emissions would be the same for the approved project as the proposed project. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 7.2.3: Increase in regional air pollution. The SEIR project would contribute to cumulative regional air pollution emissions from motor vehicles. Mitigate by implementing a Transportation Demand Management program to reduce vehicular trips. Addendum Response: The approximately 20% reduction in trip generation that would result from a shift from office to R&D is a beneficial impact to regional air quality. However, because other required TDM measures would not fully mitigate the impact, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Earth SEIR Impact 9.2.2: Potential instability of fill soil. The SEIR project could cause potential instability of fill soil. Mitigate in compliance with Geotechnical Safety Element policies of the East of 101 Area Plan, including site specific investigations to design foundations that will minimize instability and damage. Addendum Response: The addendum project will not change the susceptibility of the site to instability from fill soil. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 9.2.3 Lateral spreading potential. The SEIR project could cause lateral spreading due to ground shaking. Mitigate in compliance with Geotechnical Safety Element policies of the East of 101 Area Plan, to reduce the potential for liquefaction-induced lateral spreading. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Addendum Response: The addendum project will not change the susceptibility of the site to lateral spreading. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 9.2.4 Liquefaction potential. The SEIR project site could be susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake. Mitigate in compliance with Geotechnical Safety Element policies of the East of 101 Area Plan, and examine the potential for liquefaction at individual buildings, and design foundations to mitigate for liquefaction. Addendum Response: The addendum project will not change the susceptibility of the site to liquefaction. Mitigation measures would not change. Human Health SEIRImpact 10.2.2: Exposure to hazardous materials. The SEIR project could expose sensitive receptors, including construction workers, to hazardous materials during excavation for utilities and building foundations. Mitigate by preparing a Soil Management Plan prior to site grading. Include a Health and Safety section to reduce exposure of humans to hazardous materials through such measures as dust control, administrative controls for cleanup workers use of respiratory equipment, and other measures, incompliance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board site Cleanup Order. Addendum Response: The addendum project would be as susceptible to exposure to hazardous materials as the approved project. Mitigation measures would not change. Hydrology and Water Quality SEIR Impact 11.2.2: Water quality degradation during operations. The SEIR project would increase the potential for water quality degradation during the operational phase of the project. The project could increase contaminated stormwater runoff into sensitive waters. Mitigate by preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), in accordance with best management practices of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and in compliance with the City's Clean Water Permit. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Addendum Response: The potential for water quality degradation by the proposed approved project would be the same as the approved project. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIR Impact 11.2.3: Water quality degradation during construction. The SEIR project would increase the potential for water quality degradation during construction of the project. Erosion and sedimentation would be expected to increase as soils are excavated, stockpiled and regarded. Mitigate by preparing an NPDES general construction permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and a SWPPP for approval by the City. Addendum Response: The potential for water quality degradation by the proposed approved project would be the same as the approved project. Mitigation measures would not change. Cultural Resources SEIR Impact 13.2.2 Potential to unearth cultural sites. The SEIR project would have the potential to damage unknown cultural sites and artifacts during excavation and construction. Mitigate by stopping work, requiring an evaluation of the find by a cultural resource consultant, and implementation of CEQA Guidelines Supplementary Document J. Archaeological Impacts. Addendum Response: The potential for unearthing cultural resources would be as likely for the approved project as for the proposed project. Utilities The SEIR found no significant impacts to water supply. However, the less than significant topic 14.1.4 is reevaluated in this section, in response to the new development proposed in the project description. SEIR Impact 14.1.4: Increased water usage due to R&D development. The approved project would increase the use of water produced by the San Francisco Water Department and distributed by the California water Services Co. within the City of South San Francisco (see calculations of water demand in Appendix A). The project would contribute to future demands that may exceed projections by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. and the East of 101 Area Plan. However, CWSC determined that it could meet all future demand in South San Francisco, so the impact on water supplies was deemed less than significant. The revised project should incorporate the water conservation measures set forth in both General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan policies, pursuant to California Assembly Bill 325, which requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping in all new development. It was recommended that the City encourage land uses with high process water demands to institute recycling programs. Addendum Response: The proposed land use changes would increase total water use in Planning Area 1 to almost 505,000 gpd, or approximately 42 percent higher than the approximately 356,500 gpd now projected under the development plan that was reviewed in the SEIR (see calculations of revised water demand in Appendix A). The SEIR calculations have been revised downward because lower, more conservative demand rates are now being used by the City to estimate demand for biotech/R&D uses. As a result, even though the proposed land use change would increase water demand as compared with the previous development plan, it would still be less than the 608,150 gpd calculated in the SEIR, so the associated water supply impacts should be less severe than determined in the SEIR. There would still be a water supply impact associated with the proposed changes to the development plan, though, since future water use is projected to be higher than under the SEIR approved development plan. In addition to this increase in demand, CWSC now expects that its allocation from the San Francisco Water Department may be restricted in the future, and Water Company officials are concerned about possible overdraft of CWSC's supplemental source, the Peninsula groundwater basin. As a result, the project's additional water demand would be expected to increase the likelihood of a shortfall at some time in the future, while contributing to worsening water shortages throughout the Bay Area and California. CWSC has no plans to limit or otherwise restrict water use and new connections, so the impact of the revised project's additional demand would not be significant. Additional mitigation measures that go beyond those set forth in the SEIR would not be necessary. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. .... SEIR Impact 14.2.7: Potential failure of collection facilities. The SEIR project would increase the risk of serious wastewater backups if the aging pumps and controls at wastewater pumping station #4 experience an operational failure. Mitigate by contributing the fair share cost of upgrading pump station #4 in accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan and the Capital Improvement Program budget for FY 2004-2005. Addendum Response: The improvements needed at Pump Station No. 4 to accommodate the project's wastewater flows without an increased risk of operational failure are scheduled for completion during the next fiscal year, so there would be no impact associated with the proposed increase in wastewater generation on the project site. Mitigation measures would not be necessary. However, it is recommended the City recalculate the project's proportionate share of the cost of these improvements, based on the increased flow rates in Appendix B. SEIR Impact 14.2.8: Shortfall in on-site wastewater collection facilities. The SEIR project could have a capacity shortfall in existing, on-site wastewater collection facilities, because they were designed for a mix of land uses with potentially lower wastewater production rates than are now proposed on the project site. Mitigate by preparing detailed engineering studies that provide conservative estimates of wastewater production on the site. If these studies indicate that the planned facilities may not have sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows, the developers should pay to upgrade or install new facilities as directed by the City Engineer. If the studies indicate that a capacity shortfall is not likely, the project engineer and City Engineer should devise a monitoring program that would alert the City when additional capacity would be needed. This capacity would then be designed and installed by the project developers or building owners. Addendum Response: The proposed biotech/R&D facilities in Area 1 would generate higher rates of wastewater flow than the office space they replace, making it more likely that existing, on-site collection facilities would not be able to accommodate peak flow rates once the project is built out. However, as shown in Appendix B, the total flow rate would be lower than the rate calculated for the SEIR project, owing to a change in wastewater generation rates used by the City. Since total flows would be lower, the mitigation measure set forth in the SEIR would adequately address this situation, so no further mitigation is needed Mitigation measures would not change. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. "' SEIR Impact 14.2.9: Cumulative impacts to the wastewater system. Higher than anticipated wastewater flows on the SEIR project and throughout the East of 101 area could eventually result in a capacity shortfall at the WQCP, constraining future growth and/or requiting the construction of additional treatment capacity sooner than anticipated in the current WQCP expansion plans. Mitigate by developing an area-wide program that encourages future R&D, high-technology and biotechnology businesses to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged to the collection and treatment systems, in accordance with General Plan Policy 5.3-1-7. The program could include incentives to implement recycling and/or pretreatment and, where appropriate, provide assistance in planning these facilities so as to maximize the benefit to the City's wastewater system. Addendum Response: The revised project's estimated wastewater flow of 408,215 gpd would utilize approximately 16 percent of the 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of additional treatment capacity that will become available upon completion of improvements at the WQCP. Other projects that are already approved or under construction east of 101 will utilize another 23 percent of this capacity, leaving only 61 percent, or 1.525 mgd, that is uncommitted and available to serve continued development. This rapid rate of utilization makes it increasingly likely the City will mn out of treatment capacity before 2015, the original design life of the current improvement program (refer to Appendix B for flow calculations and additional discussion). Mitigate this projected shortfall in future treatment capacity by vigorously implementing the recycling and pretreatment programs recommended in the SEIR. SEIR Impact 14.2.10: New topic not in SEIR: Potential capacity shortfalls in existing, off-site collection facilities. The existing Gateway Blvd. pumping station #2 may not have sufficient capacity to accommodate existing wastewater flows plus new peak flows from the fully developed project site (refer to Appendix B for peak flow calculations and additional discussion). In addition, the City is concerned there may be capacity restrictions or other structural problems within downstream collection lines, which could eventually constrain future development in the East of 101 area. The project developers would mitigate the potential capacity shortfall at the pumping station by evaluating the existing components and projected flow rates as directed by the City Engineer. If it is confu'med that additional capacity may eventually be needed, the developers would improve and upgrade the station as necessary, or they would pay the project's fair share of associated improvement costs to support construction by others at a later date. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. The City should develop a sewer collection model to determine where restrictions may be located so that they can be identified, prioritized and corrected, to ensure future orderly development throughout the East of 101 area. Benefiting property owners or development sponsors would make a fair share contribution to the cost of the model and any needed improvements, in accordance with a schedule established by the City's Department of Public Works. Public Services SEIR Impact 15.2.2 Demand for police services. The SEIR project would create an increased demand for police services. About one officer and one/half of the cost of a police vehicle would be required. Mitigate by preparing a Security and Safety Plan which would provide for private security guards on-site beginning with the construction phase. Contribute to half the cost of a police vehicle. The City would not require developer funding for the additional police officer. Addendum Response: The revised plan would create the same demand for police services as the approved plan. Mitigation measures would not change, unless City policies have changed on requirements for private developers to contribute to the cost of additional police services. SEIR Impact 15.3.2 Blockage of emergency communications. The SEIR project creates a demand for communications equipment for the City of South San Francisco that can overcome a signal-blocking effect of San Bruno Mountain. Emergency communications between police and emergency vehicles and police and fire departments may be interrupted by the mountain. Mitigate by contributing a fair share contribution to the placement of emergency radio equipment on the tallest building in the Bay West Cove project. Addendum Response: The original and revised site plans show a one nine-story building in the northwest portion of Planning Area 1 that would be suitable for a roof- top enclosure for the radio equipment, consistent with the SEIR. Mitigation measures would not change. SEIRImpactl8: Cumulative impacts. The SEIR project would cause cumulative traffic, air quality and wastewater impacts. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. ..... Mitigate the traffic and air quality impacts by implementing a TDM program and recommendations of the "East of 101 Areawide Traffic Study" - now renamed the East of 101 Transportation Improvements Plan. Reduce the discharge of wastewater through programs such as pretreatment and recycling. Addendum Response: The cumulative impacts would not change as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation measures would not change. APPENDIX A: WATER SUPPLY This appendix relates to addendum impact topic 14.1.4. dealing with potentially wasteful use of limited water supplies. The land use changes proposed at the Bay West site are all located within the portion of the site designated Planning Area 1. This area had previously been approved for construction of 600,000 square feet of office space, a 350 room hotel, 10,000 square feet of retail and a 10,000 square foot restaurant. In the new proposal, 388,622 square feet of biotech space would be added and the amount of office space would be reduced to 203,354 square feet, with the other uses remaining unchanged. These modifications would be expected to change the project's future water use, as shown in the calculations presented below Except for the proposed biotech space, estimates of the project's water demand are based on the demand rates set forth in the certified EIR. For biotech, and also for R&D, demand rates have been revised in accordance with recent water use studies performed by Ray Honan, the City of South San Francisco's Environmental Compliance Coordinator. In these studies, Mr. Honan documented water use at one of the R&D buildings and at one of the manufacturing buildings on the Genentech campus. The records showed the R&D building used an average of 250 gallons per day (gpd) per 1000 square feet (s.f.), while the manufacturing building used almost 1300 gpd/1000 s.f. Converting these values to the units used in the SEIR yields a demand rate that ranges from approximately 11,000 to more than 56,000 gpd per net acre, versus the 25,000 gpd per net acre figure applied to all biotech buildings in the SEIR. Pharmaceutical manufacturing is not a permitted use at the project site, but prototype development is, so some future tenants could use significantly more water than the typical R&D facility. To account for this possibility and to provide a reasonably conservative estimate of future water use, it will be assumed that approximately 80 percent of the biotech uses will be strictly R&D and the remainder will be "prototype" development. This yields an average water demand rate of 450 gpd/1000 s.f., which is used to estimate the proposed project's water use and to recalculate the water use presented in the SEIR. It is noted that the demand rate per hotel room has also been revised upward by approximately 20 percent, in accordance with design guidelines approved by Mr. Honan. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Appendix A (Continued) Water Demand - Previously Certified SEIR Planning Area 1 1. Offices: 600,000 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 2000 employees 2000 employees @ 20 gpd/employee = 40,000 gpd 2. Restaurant: 10,000 s.f. @ 1250 gpd/1000 s.f. = 12,500 gpd 3. Retail: 10,000 s.f. @ 115 gpd/1000 s.f. = 1150 gpd 4. Hotel: 350 rooms @ 185 gpd/room (revised rate) = 64,750 gpd 5. Landscaping: 20% of the 20 acre site 4 acres @ 2 acre feet/acre/year, over a 5 month irrigation season = 17,035 gpd Planning Area 1 Subtotal = 135,435 gpd Planning Areas 2&3 1. Offices: 168,585 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 562 employees 562 employees @ 20 gpd/employee = 11,240 gpd 2. Restaurant: 5000 s.f. @ 1250 gpd/1000 s.f. = 6250 gpd 3. Retail: 5000 s.f. @ 115 gpd/1000 s.f. = 575 gpd 4. Childcare: 100 children + 10 staff (estimate) 110 persons @ 25 gpd/person = 2750 gpd 5. Biotech/R&D: 403,415 s.f. @ 450 gpd/1000 s.f. (revised rate) = 181,535 gpd 6. Landscaping: 20% of the 22.2 acre site 4.4 acres @ 2 acre feet/acre/year, over a 5 month irrigation season = 18,740 gpd Planning Areas 2&3 Subtotal = 221,090 gpd Bay West Total = 356,525 gpd August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Appendix A (Continued) Water Demand - Proposed Revised Project Planning Area 1 1. Offices: 203,354 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 678 employees 678 employees @ 20 gpd/employee = 13,560 gpd 2. Restaurant: 10,000 s.f. @ 1250 gpd/1000 s.f. = 12,500 gpd 3. Retail: 10,000 s.f. @ 115 gpd/1000 s.f. = 1150 gpd 4. Hotel: 350 rooms @ 185 gpd/room (revised rate) = 64,750 gpd 5. Biotech/R&D: 388,662 s.f. @ 450 gpd/1000 s.f. (revised rate) = 174,900 gpd 6. Landscaping: 20% of the 20 acre site 4 acres @ 2 acre feet/acre/year, over a 5 month irrigation season = 17,035 gpd Planning Area 1 Subtotal = 283,895 gpd Increase = 210 % Planning Areas 2&3 - no change from previously approved project Planning Areas 2&3 Subtotal = 221,090 gpd Bay West Total = 504,985 gpd Increase = 142 % August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. APPENDIX B: WASTEWATER The land use changes proposed at the Bay West site are as described in Appendix A: Water Supply. The calculations below illustrate the effect of these changes on the project's estimated wastewater generation. The wastewater generation rate for biotech and R&D uses has been revised in accordance with the findings of a recent water use study by the City of South San Francisco. As described in Appendix A, the study found that water use ranged from 250 gpd/1000 s.f. for R&D to 1300 gpd/1000 s.f. for pharmaceutical manufacturing. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 80 percent of the biotech space will be used for R&D and 20 percent for prototype development, a permitted use that could potentially have a water demand that approaches the manufacturing rate. This yields a composite water demand of 450 gpd/1000 s.f. Wastewater generation rates will be estimated at 90 percent of water demand, or approximately 400 gpd/1000 s.f. This value will be used to calculate wastewater flows for the proposed project, to recalculate wastewater flows presented in the SEIR for the previously approved plan, and also to estimate cumulative wastewater flows by approved projects throughout the East of 101 area. As noted in Appendix A, the projected biotech/R&D wastewater generation rate may be somewhat conservative, resulting in flow rates that are higher than actually occur on a developed site. However, this value provides a reasonable factor of safety that should adequately allow for future businesses that use more water and generate higher wastewater flows that the typical biotech or R&D operation. As with water demand, the estimated wastewater generation rate per hotel room has also been revised upward by 30 gpd per room, an increase of almost 25 percent. Wastewater Generation - Previously Certified SEIR Planning Area 1 Flow rate computations are based on the following, generally accepted rates of wastewater production: 1. Offices: 600,000 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 2000 employees 2000 employees @ 15 gpd/employee = 30,000 gpd 2. Restaurant: 10,000 s.f. @ 1000 gpd/1000 s.f. = 10,000 gpd 3. Retail: 10,000 s.f. @ 90 gpd/1000 s.f. = 900 gpd 4. Hotel: 350 rooms @ 155 gpd/room (revised rate) = 54,250 gpd Planning Area 1 Subtotal = 95,150 gpd Planning Areas 2&3 1. Offices: 168,585 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 562 employees 562 employees @ 15 gpd/employee = 8430 gpd 2. Restaurant: 5000 s.f. @ 1000 gpd/1000 s.f. = 5000 gpd 3. Retail: 5000 s.f. @ 90 gpd/1000 s.f. = 450 gpd 4. Childcare: 100 children + 10 staff (estimate) 110 persons @ 20 gpd/person = 2200 gpd 5. Biotech/R&D: 403,415 s.f. @ 400 gpd/1000 s.f. (revised rate) = 161,365 gpd Planning Areas 2&3 Subtotal = 177,445 gpd Bay West Total = 272,595 gpd August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Wastewater Generation Rate - Proposed Revised Project Planning Area 1 1. Offices: 203,354 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 678 employees 678 employees @ 15 gpd/employee = 10,170 gpd 2. Restaurant: 10,000 s.f. @ 1000 gpd/1000 s.f. = 10,000 gpd 3. Retail: 10,000 s.f. @ 90 gpd/1000 s.f. = 900 gpd 4. Hotel: 350 rooms @ 155 gpd/room = 54,250 gpd 5. Biotech/R&D: 388,622 s.f. @ 400 gpd/1000 s.f. (revised rate) = 155,450 gpd Planning Area 1 Subtotal = 230,770 gpd Increase = 242 % Planning Areas 2&3 - no change from previously approved condition Planning Areas 2&3 Subtotal = 177,445 gpd Bay West Total = 408,215 gpd Increase = 150 % As discussed under the Addendum Response, total wastewater flow, under both the previously approved and the proposed development scenarios, would be lower than calculated in the SEIR, because the wastewater generation rate now being used for biotech/R&D land uses has been revised downward (this change was only partially offset by the increased generation rate used for each hotel room). However, the comparison being made for this analysis shows that under these new generation rates, the proposed land use changes in Planning Area 1 would be expected to result in higher wastewater flows than under the previously approved SEIR land use plan.. Supplementary information for Topic 14.2.9, Cumulative Impacts to the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upon completion of the upgrade and improvement program currently under way at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), approximately 2.5 million gallons per day (gpd) of dry weather treatment capacity will become available to serve new development within the City. The revised project's estimated average flow of 408,215 gpd would represent about 16 percent of this total allotment. This, however, should be added to the office, Biotech/R&D, hotel and residential projects already approved or under construction east of 101. These projects, which do not include additional projects in the application or design stage, would have an estimated average daily flow of 598,335 gpd. 1. Offices: 2,048,510 s.f. @ 300 s.f./employee = 6828 employees 6828 employees @ 15 gpd/employee = 102,420 gpd 2. R&D: 754,220 s.f. @ 400 gpd/1000 s.f. (revised rate) = 301,690 gpd 3. Hotels: 670 rooms @ 155 gpd/room (revised rate) = 103,850 gpd .........4. Single Family Residential: 197 homes @ 225 gpd/home = 44,325 gpd 5. Multi-Family Residential: 307 homes @ 150 gpd/home = 46,050 gpd Other Projects Total = 598,335 gpd August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. When combined with the proposed revision at Bay West Cove, the total flow would be 1,006,550 gpd, or 40 percent of the City' s share of increased capacity at the WQCP. This makes it more likely that the City will run out of treatment capacity before 2015, as envisioned when the plant improvements were designed. In order to reduce the use of available capacity at the WQCP and extend the life of the current improvement program, the recycling and pretreatment programs set forth in the mitigation measure in the project's approved EIR should be vigorously pursued on the project site and throughout the East of 101 area. Supplementary Information for Topic 14.2.10. Potential Capacity Shortfalls in Existing Off-Site Collection Facilities As noted in the EIR, wastewater from the Bay West Cove site would be pumped to the City's existing gravity sewer that drains to Pump Station No. 2 on Gateway Blvd., just south of Oyster Point Blvd. It was estimated in the SEIR that this station had a current average flow rate of 192,000 gpd, which equals 133 gpm. Applying a peaking factor of 3.5 (to approximate the flow that a station's pumps must actually carry), yields a current peak flow of 467 gpm, or 533 gpm less than the station's 1000 gpm reliable capacity. If the revised project's average flow rate of 408,215 gpd (283 gpm) is also increased by a peaking factor of 3.5, its peak flow would be 990 gpm, or 457 gpm more than the available reliable capacity. So long as both 1000 gpm pumps are in service, the station would be able to accommodate this additional flow, but if one pump is out of service (as assumed in making "reliable" capacity determinations), the existing pumping capacity would be exceeded. The project sponsors should evaluate Pump Station No. 2, as directed by the City Engineer, to determine what improvements would be needed to increase its capacity to a level that could reliably accommodate peak flow rates from the fully developed project site, as well as from other contributing properties in the vicinity. Because there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with projections of wastewater flow from Biotech/R&D sites (as discussed above), it is possible this capacity upgrade would never be needed. As a result, rather than making the upgrade at this time, when the station still has a significant amount of excess capacity, it is recommended the City and the project sponsors enter into a development agreement that would provide the project's proportionate share of the cost of the upgrade at such time that it is warranted in the future. The project's share could be calculated at that time, based on documented water use records. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. EXHIBIT B FINDINGS OF FACT ADDENDUM To The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Bay West Cove Commercial Project Certified Nov. 21, 2000 Pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines August 27, 2001 Momhouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. T i r ~ T I INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Addendum An Addendum to a certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed change in the project description for Planning Area 1 of the Bay West Cove Commercial Project, located on the north of side of Oyster Point Boulevard in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco. Project Description The proposed change to the type and amount of commercial business would entail a reduction in the amount of office space from 600,000 gross square feet to 203,354 gsf, with the addition of 388,662 gsf of research and development/biotechnology space. The amount of ancillary space in the original plan, including retail/restaurant space and childcare facility, and a hotel would not change. The business space would occupy four buildings in the proposed site plan, rather than three buildings in the original plan. Parking would be reconfigured in the revised plan. Summary of Impacts The proposed change would result in a fewer number of employees than the approved plan. This would result in 14% to 18% fewer peak hour vehicular trips by employees and a corresponding reduction in traffic congestion and regional air pollution emissions. Other impacts of the proposed project would be essentially the same as the impacts defined in the Supplemental FEIR. The proposed changes to the project description would not result in any impacts of greater significance than the impacts identified in the Final SEIR, with the exception of demand for water and wastewater treatment capacity. All of the significant impacts identified in the FEIR were revisited in the Addendum, in light of the modified project description. The Addendum compares the impacts and mitigation measures defined in the SEIR with the impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project. That comparison provides the basis for the identification of changed impacts, for which new findings are required. The Addendum also identifies minor additions to mitigation measures which the lead agency may wish to add as conditions of approval of the revised project. Findings No public agency shall approve a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies any significant environmental effects unless the agency makes one or more written t~mdings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each findings [CEQA Guideline 15091.(a)]. In response to CEQA, an addendum to an EIR has been prepared to enable the lead agency decision-makers to take action on the proposed revised project. August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. Applicability of Previous Findings Upon certification of the Final SEIR on Nov. 21, 2000, the lead agency approved findings of fact on the Bay West Cove Project. The findings remain applicable for all mitigation measures identified in the Addendum for the changed project, with the exception of impacts to water supply and wastewater treatment capacity. Therefore, no findings are required for the unchanged mitigation measures, while findings are necessary to confirm the adequacy of mitigation measures for water and wastewater impact. Finding on Impact 14.1.4 Increased Water Usage due to R&D Development Demand for water to serve the revised plan in Planning Area 1 would increase by 43% over the water needed to serve the approved plan. However, as explained in the Addendum, the City has sufficient water capacity to meet project needs. While the proposed project increased the significance of the impact, the mitigation measures defined for the SEIR project remain applicable. The City finds that mitigation measure 14.1.4 is feasible and required by the General Plan, and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Conservation measures should be implemented that are set forth in the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan policies, pursuant to California Assembly Bill 325, which requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping in all new development The City should also encourage R&D/biotechnology industries that have high process water demands to institute recycling programs. Finding on Impact 14.2.7 Potential Failure of Collection Facilities The revised project would increase the risk of serious wastewater backups if the aging pumps and controls at wastewater pumping station #4 experiences an operational failure. The project should contribute its fair share cost of upgrading pump station #4 in accordance with the East of 101 Area Plan and the Capital Improvements Program budget for FY 2004-2005, based upon projected flow rates in Appendix B. Pump station #4 is to be improved during the next fiscal year, so there would be no impact associated with the proposed increase in wastewater generated by the revised project. The City finds that the mitigation measure 14.2.7 is feasible and required and, through the City's Public Works Department, would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Finding on Impact 14.2.8 Shortfall in On-site Wastewater Collection Facilities. The revised project would generate higher amounts of wastewater than the approved project, making it more likely that existing, on-site collection facilities would not be able to accommodate peak flows once the project is built out. However, as shown in Appendix B, the total flow rate would be lower than the rate calculated for the SEIR project, owing to a change in wastewater generation rates used by the City. Since total flows would be lower, the mitigation measure set forth in the SEIR would adequately address this situation, so no further mitigation is needed. The City finds that no mitigation measures are necessary, although measures identified in the SEIR should be implemented, including preparation of detailed engineering studies that provide conservative estimates of wastewater production. If these studies indicate that the planned facilities may not have August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E. sufficient capacity to accommodate future flows, the developers should pay to upgrade or install new facilities as directed by the City Engineer. If the studies indicate that a capacity shortfall is not likely, the project engineer and City Engineer should devise a monitoring program that would alert the City when additional capacity would be needed. This capacity would then be designed and installed by the project developers or building owners. If implemented, this measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Finding on Impact 14.2.9 Cumulative Impacts to the Wastewater System The revised project would utilize approximately 16% of the 2.5 million gallons per day (MGD) of additional treatment capacity that will become available upon completion of improvements at the WQCP. In combination with other projects, the Bay West Cove revised project will make it likely that the City will run out of treatment capacity before 2015, the original design life of the current improvement program. See Supplementary Information for Topic 14.2.9 in Addendum Appendix B for projections of cumulative wastewater treatment capacity. The City should develop an area-wide program that encourages future R&D, high-technology and biotechnology businesses to reduce the volume of wastewater discharged to the collection and treatment systems, in accordance with General Plan Policy 5.3-1-7. The program could include incentives to implement recycling and/or pretreatment. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and required, and recycling and pretreatment programs recommended in the SEIR should be implemented. The implementation of the measure would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Finding on Impact 14.2.10 Potential Capacity Shortfalls in Existing, Off-site Collection Facilities. The existing Gateway Blvd. pumping station //2 may not have sufficient capacity to accommodate existing wastewater flows plus new peak flows from the fully developed project site (refer to Appendix B for peak flow calculations and additional discussion). The project sponsor would evaluate the station nd projected flow rates as directed by the City Engineer. If it is confirmed that additional capacity may eventually be needed, the developers would improve and upgrade the station as necessary, or they would pay the project's fair share of associated improvement costs to support construction by others at a later date. The City finds that the mitigation measure is feasible and required, and would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. End Exhibit B Findings of Fact BayWestAddendum2 August 27, 2001 Morehouse Associates/Andrew Leahy, P.E.