The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGenentech Master Plan Update Final EIRGenentech Campus Master Plan Update Response to Comments / Final Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2017052064 Lead Agency: City of South San Francisco May 2020 Prepared for: City of South San Francisco Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Prepared by: LAMPHIER-GREGORY Genentech Master Plan Update, Draft EIR Page i Table of Contents Genentech Master Plan Update Final EIR Chapter Number Page 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Purpose of the Final EIR ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 No New Significant Information .................................................................................................................. 1-2 Organization of this Final EIR ...................................................................................................................... 1-3 Uses of this Final EIR .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 Summary of Impacts, Alternatives and Mitigation Measures .................................................................... 1-6 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 Letter A and Responses, State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research ........................ 2-2 Letter B and Responses, Caltrans District 4 ................................................................................................ 2-4 Letter C and Responses, California Highway Patrol ................................................................................... 2-9 Letter D and Responses, San Mateo County Department of Public Works ............................................. 2-11 Letter E and Responses, City of San Bruno .............................................................................................. 2-16 Letter F and Responses, San Francisco International Airport .................................................................. 2-20 Letter G and Responses, Rob Lau ............................................................................................................. 2-24 Letter H and Responses, Koray Ergur ....................................................................................................... 2-26 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3-1 Changes and Corrections to the Draft EIR -VMT ........................................................................................ 3-1 Changes and Corrections to the Draft EIR – LOS Analysis ........................................................................ 3-10 4: References Report Preparers and Contacts ................................................................................................................... 4-1 Additional References – Final EIR ............................................................................................................... 4-2 List of Tables and Figures Table Number Page 1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................... 1-10 Figure Number Page 2-1 Colma Creek Flood Control Zone ................................................................................................. 2-14 2-2 South San Francisco Storm Drain System MS4 Map .................................................................. 2-15 Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1- 1 1 Introduction and Executive Summary Purpose of the Final EIR This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document prepared by the City of South San Francisco as Lead Agency, containing environmental analysis for public review and for City decision-makers to use in their consideration of approvals for discretionary actions needed on the proposed Genentech Master Plan Update Project (Project). On November 8, 2019, the City of South San Francisco released a Draft EIR for the Project. The 45-day public review and comment period on that Draft EIR ended on December 23, 2019. During the public review and comment period, the City of South San Francisco held a public hearing before the City Planning Commission on December 19, 2019. The purpose of this hearing was to inform the public about the contents of the Draft EIR and to receive oral comments on the Draft EIR about its adequacy and accuracy. This Response to Comments document, together with the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR Appendices, constitute the Final EIR for the Project. Due to its length, the full text of the Draft EIR is not included within this Response to Comments document, but is incorporated by reference as part of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR is available for review at the City Planning Division offices at 315 Maple Avenue in South San Francisco, and on the City’s website at: http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/fol/424187/Row1.aspx Following the required 10-day agency review of this Response to Comments document, the City of South San Francisco will hold a public hearing to consider making a recommendation to the City Council regarding certification of the Final EIR. The City Council will then hold a separate hearing to consider the Planning Commission’s recommendations and to determine whether to certify that the Final EIR adequately discloses the environmental effects of the proposed Project, and that the Final EIR has been completed in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Before the Planning Commission makes any recommendation to the City Council as to approvals needed for the Project, and before the City Council considers approval of discretionary actions requested as part of the Project, both the Commission and the Council must independently review and consider the information contained in the Final EIR. Required Contents of the Final EIR The City of South San Francisco has prepared this document pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, which specifies that the Final EIR shall consist of the following: ● The Draft EIR or a revision of that Draft EIR ● A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR ● Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR (either verbatim or in summary) ● The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the environmental review process ● Any other information added by the Lead Agency as part of its environmental review of the Project Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-2 This Final EIR incorporates comments from public agencies and the public. It also contains the Lead Agency’s response to those comments. Areas of Public Concern Public comments primarily concern the environmental and CEQA topics discussed below. ● The Project’s consistency with Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan, Project contributions towards access improvements at the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, impacts related to storage capacity of intersections near US-101, and the City of South San Francisco’s responsibility as lead agency to ensure implementation of all required mitigation measures (Caltrans). ● Stormwater runoff from the site (particularly any runoff that may outfall into the Colma Creek flood control channel), and compliance with Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) (including requirements to incorporate post-construction stormwater control and low- impact development measures (San Mateo County Department of Public Works) ● Water supply and demand assumptions presented in the Draft EIR as derived from the Water Supply Assessment prepared by the California Water Service (CalWater) and provided to the City for use in the Draft EIR, and projection of wastewater flows to the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) (City of San Bruno) ● The proximity of the Project site to San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and requirements to consider federal, State and local regulatory reviews specific to airport noise and land use compatibility standards, Federal Aviation Administration building height restrictions, and airspace safety criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (SFO) ● The Project’s potential effects on special-status species (Rob Lau) No New Significant Information Under section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for public review but prior to certification of the Final EIR. The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project, or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The above standard is “not intend[ed] to promote endless rounds of revision and recirculation of EIRs.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1993) 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1132.). “Recirculation was intended to be an exception, rather than the general rule.” (Ibid.) CEQA case law emphasizes that “‘[t]he CEQA reporting process is not designed to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation, evoking revision of the original proposal’” (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 736-737; see also River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Development Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 154, 168, fn. 11.). “CEQA compels an interactive process of assessment of environmental impacts and responsive project modification which must be genuine. It must be open to the public, premised upon a full and meaningful disclosure of the scope, purposes, and effect of a consistently described project, with flexibility to respond to unforeseen insights that emerge from the process. In short, a Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-3 project must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification during the CEQA process.” (Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 33rd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936 (internal citations omitted)). Here, the clarifications and information provided in this Final EIR are exactly the kind of revisions that the case law recognizes as legitimate and proper. This Response to Comment document includes certain clarifications of information presented in the Draft EIR, but does not add significant new information as defined under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. More specifically: ● No new significant environmental impacts have been identified. ● No substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impact that was previously identified in the Draft EIR has been identified. ● There is no feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the Draft EIR that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the Project, and that the Project applicant declines to adopt. ● The Draft EIR was not fundamentally inadequate or conclusory in nature such that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. Information presented in the Draft EIR and in this Response to Comments document supports the City’s determination that recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. Organization of this Final EIR This Response to Comments document contains responses to comments that were raised during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR. Following this Introduction chapter, Chapter 2 of this document contains a copy of each letter or correspondence received by the City commenting on the Draft EIR, and provides individual responses to CEQA-related comments raised. Chapter 2 also includes a list of all agencies, organizations and individuals that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review and comment period. On December 19,2019, the City of South San Francisco held a joint Planning Commission/City Council public hearing on the Project and the Draft EIR. During that hearing, the Planning Commission and City Council made comments and raised questions regarding the Project (e.g., issues related to public art, the Project’s proposed Transportation Demand Management program, and the details of how the Project’s proposed Trip Cap would be implemented, but had no comments specific to the Draft EIR. No changes or revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to those comments. There are no text changes or corrections to the Draft EIR necessitated in response to comments received on the Draft EIR. Use of the Final EIR Pursuant to CEQA, the Final EIR is a public information document for use by governmental agencies and the public. The information contained in the Final EIR is subject to review and consideration by the City of South San Francisco, prior to its decision to approve, reject or modify the Project. The South San Francisco City Council must independently certify that they have reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR and that the Final EIR has been completed in conformity with the requirements of CEQA before making any decision regarding the Project. The Final EIR identifies significant effects that would result from the implementation of the Project. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-4 City of South San Francisco Approvals This EIR is intended to provide the environmental review necessary for the following City of South San Francisco approvals: ● Approval of the proposed Campus Master Plan Update ● Approval of a zoning text amendment to the Genentech Master Plan zoning district (Chapter 20.260 of the City of South San Francisco Zoning Code) ● Approval of a Development Agreement (as may be desired by both Genentech and the City) If the City of South San Francisco does approve the Genentech Master Plan Update and each of the related discretionary approvals, this EIR is intended to provide sufficient detail to enable the City and other responsible governmental agencies to make informed site-specific decisions on future individual development projects within the Campus. The City intends to use the streamlining and tiering provisions of CEQA to the maximum feasible extent, so that future environmental review of subsequent discretionary approvals for individual development projects within the Genentech Campus and public improvement projects carried out in furtherance of the Campus Master Plan Update are expeditiously undertaken, without the need for repetitive and redundant environmental review. A nonexclusive list of subsequent discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be required by the City, beyond those necessary for approval of this Master Plan Update and zoning text amendments, and which may rely on this EIR in the event CEQA applies to such permit or approval, includes: ● Conditional Use Permits (pursuant to Chapter 20.260.006(C), Minor Use Permits (pursuant to Chapter 20.260.006(B), and/or Administrative Review (pursuant to Chapter 20.260.006(A) ● Design Review approvals for individual development projects within the Campus, pursuant to Chapter 20.480 (“Design Review”) of the City of South San Francisco Zoning Code ● Approval of subdivision maps or lot line adjustments as may be necessary to create individual development sites ● Encroachment permits for work within and close to public rights-of-way (pursuant to SSF Zoning Code, Chapter 13.04: Excavation And Construction on Public Property - Regulated) ● Demolition permits, grading permits, and building permits – including compliance with City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 15.08, California Building Code and California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act ● Tree Removal Permit pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code 13.30, to be approved before building permits are issued ● Waste Discharge permits from the Environmental Compliance Officer of the City of SSF ● Submittal of accepted General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), to be submitted prior to receiving a grading or building permit To the extent possible, the City of South San Francisco will rely on this EIR to provide environmental review for subsequent projects or their sites that are analyzed as part of this EIR. When individual projects contemplated under the Master Plan Update are proposed, the City will consider whether those projects’ environmental effects were fully disclosed, analyzed, and as needed, mitigated within this EIR. That consideration will determine whether the subsequent project is exempt from CEQA, whether the subsequent project warrants preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document, or whether the subsequent project warrants preparation of focused environmental review limited to certain site-specific issues. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-5 Other Regulatory Agency Approvals In addition to the City of South San Francisco, approvals and/or authorizations from a number of other responsible agencies will or may be required to implement individual development plans pursuant to the Campus Master Plan Update. These other agencies and their possible approvals pursuant to subsequent, individual development projects within the Campus may include, but are not limited to the following: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) ● Permits for new stationary source of NOx and/or ROG emissions and for modifications to existing stationary emission sources that result in increased NOx and/or ROG emissions, including the purchase of offset credits pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2-2: New Source Review, Section 302 ● Permits for stationary source air emissions and compliance with Regulation 2, Rule 1 for all portable construction equipment subject to that rule Bay Conservation and Development Commission ● Bay Plan Permits for any development activities that may occur within the 100-ft shoreline band, also requiring compliance with biological resource protection policies of the Bay Plan as may be incorporated into such permits CalWater ● Granting new water service connections and meters California Air Resources Board ● Permits for increased cap or trade of stationary source GHG emissions SF Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) / State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) ● Permit for coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit, including approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) ● National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for post-construction stormwater controls and low-impact development (LID) measures, including individual Stormwater Management Plans meeting Provision C.3 of the MRP ● Section 401 permit for discharge of dredged or fill material pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Although drainage channels within the site lack many of the habitat features usually present in jurisdictional waters of the State, there is some possibility these drainage ditches may be claimed as jurisdictional by the RWQCB. If the RWQCB claims jurisdiction of these features, any alteration of the drainage ditches would require a permit. California Department of Toxic Substances ● Review and approval of any activities that may disturb existing groundwater monitoring wells or the capped portion of the O’Brien site (in South Campus), including applicable deed restrictions and DTSC-approved Site Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan US Army Corp of Engineers ● Acceptance of Wetlands Delineation prior to any proposed fill or material alteration of on-site drainage ditches Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-6 ● Section 404 permit prior to the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. Presuming subsequent Wetland Delineations )see above) find the on-site drainage ditches are not “waters of the US”, no such federal wetlands permitting would be required Federal Aviation Administration ● Approvals for any proposed building exceeding FAA Part 77 height criteria Summary of Impacts, Alternatives and Mitigation Measures Significant and Unavoidable Impacts Based on the analysis presented in this EIR, the Project would result in the following environmental impacts that would be considered significant and unavoidable: Air Quality Impact Air Quality-4: During operations, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment, including emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. Specifically, the Project’s average daily operational emissions are projected to exceed 54 pound per day of reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides. Regulatory Requirement AQ 4 - New Source Review Offset requires Genentech to purchase offset credits pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2-2: New Source Review, Section 302 Offset Requirements for each new permitted stationary source of NOx and/or ROG emissions, and for any modifications to existing stationary emission sources that result in increased NOx and/or ROG emissions. Although TDM, energy efficiency features and regulatory requirements are incorporated into the Project, total emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources and other sources not requiring separate permits from BAAQMD would exceed the thresholds of significance. The health impacts associated with criteria pollutant emissions from the Project are conservatively estimated and the analysis indicates that anticipated health impacts are vanishingly small and that the actual health impacts may be zero. Noise Impact Noise-1: Construction activities pursuant to the Project could generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established in SSFMC Section 8.32.030. Construction projects pursuant to the Project will be required to implement Mitigation Measure Noise 1A - Construction Period BMPs for construction that is within 50 feet of an adjacent off-site property and where construction noise may exceed the 90-dBA limit of the SSF Municipal Code, and Mitigation Measure Noise 1B - Truck Routes (requiring that heavily loaded trucks be routed away from noise-sensitive and vibration- sensitive uses. With implementation of Genentech Noise Attenuation and Logistics Plans, construction-period noise effects on Genentech’s own on-Campus buildings would meet applicable OSHA requirements for safe workspaces and other private Genentech-based noise standards for healthy workplaces. Construction noise is typically not considered significant if its duration is for a period of less than one year, construction noise is temporary and episodic in nature and mitigation measures presented include all reasonable and feasible methods to reduce construction noise effects. However, since the details of construction activity cannot be known in advance, this impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-7 Transportation/Traffic Impact Transportation-1: The Project would contribute traffic to intersections in the Project vicinity that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for intersection levels of service (LOS) or queuing at twenty (20) of the 27 traffic study intersections. Regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures have been identified that are capable of reducing these impacts at 13 of the 20 affected intersections, but no feasible or certain improvements have been identified as capable of reducing impacts to a less than significant level at 7 affected study intersections. Either there are no feasible improvements capable of reducing the Project’s impacts, or implementation of mitigation improvements are within the jurisdiction of a separate agency (Caltrans) at these seven intersections, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Transportation-3: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, resulting in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service along two freeway segments. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including increased traffic on US-101 freeway segments. However, there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway segments due to constrained right-of-way and a corresponding inability to add traffic capacity or reduce vehicular delays. Impact Transportation-6: The Project would contribute to cumulative traffic levels that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for intersection levels of service (LOS) at 22 intersections. Mitigation measures identify improvements that could be made at 7 of the 22 affected intersections, but 4 of these improvements do not currently have an identified funding source. No feasible improvements have been identified as being capable of reducing impacts to less than significant levels under the Cumulative plus Project scenario at 15 affected study intersections. Impact Transportation-7: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service at two nearby freeway interchanges under Cumulative plus Project conditions. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including its contributions of traffic to freeway ramps, but impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Transportation-10: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service on freeway segments. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including increased traffic on US-101 freeway segments. There are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway segments, due to constrained right of way on US-101. These cumulative impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-8 Summary of Alternatives Two alternatives were considered in preparation of this EIR, but rejected. A “No New Development Alternative” was rejected because the Project is a revision of the existing 2007 Genentech Campus Master Plan, and the “no project” alternative will be rejection of the Project but continuation of the existing Master Plan and existing zoning regulations into the future. This EIR does not analyze nor does it foresee any “no build” scenario under which there is no new development beyond what exists at the Campus under the current baseline condition. Three alternatives are analyzed in this EIR. These alternatives are intended to meet the CEQA requirements for the EIR to describe the no project alternative as well as a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project, but would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects. ● Alternative #1: No Project: Alternative #1 (or the No Project) is defined as the current 2007 Master Plan and the existing Genentech Master Plan Zoning District remaining in place. Consistent with growth projections as analyzed in the prior 2007 Master EIR and 2012 Supplemental Master EIR, new development within the Campus would remain limited to a maximum buildout of up to 6 million square feet of building space, plus the 821,000 square feet added as the South Campus (originally the Britannia East Grand project) in 2013. ● Alternative 2: Reduced Project: Alternative 2 (the Reduced Project) would establish an overall growth limit within the Campus boundaries of up to 7.9 million square feet, or an overall floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.88 times the total area of the approximately 208-acre Campus. A 7.9 million square-foot buildout potential represents a mid-point between the 6.8 million square-foot buildout of the currently effective 2007 Master Plan, and the 9 million square-foot buildout potential of the proposed Project. The Reduced Project Alternative assumes that the Genentech Campus would meet a 28% trip reduction rate, consistent with current City requirements. ● Alternative 3: Alternative Mix of Land Uses: Under Alternative #3, the overall net new development within the Campus would be approximately 4.3 million square feet (same as the EIR Project Description) to a buildout of 9 million square feet. However, the mix of land uses within the Campus would have a substantially different shift from the higher trip-generating office land use assumed in the EIR Project Description, to the lower trip-generating lab and manufacturing space uses. One of the purposes of having an Alternative that mixes the land use composition of the future Campus buildout is to demonstrate the flexibility of the Master Plan Update and its proposed Trip Cap to respond to potentially changing building space demands at the Campus over time. None of the alternatives is capable of fully avoiding an environmental effect of the Project, or changing a significant impact of the Project to less than significant impact. Rather, the differences between the Project and the alternatives are measured in relative magnitude. Generally, the lower development potential of Alternative #1 (the No Project) would substantially lessen overall construction-period and operational emission of air quality pollutants, toxic air contaminants, GHG emissions, vehicle trips and demands on utilities as compared to the Project. Alternative #1 has a reduced development footprint, fewer identified Opportunity Sites where new development may occur, and does not include Opportunity Sites on steeper hillsides where mitigation measures would otherwise be required to address potential slope failure. Based on these substantially lessened impacts, Alternative #1 (the No Project Alternative) is environmentally superior to the Project and to all other alternatives. CEQA requires this EIR to identify another alternative that would be considered environmentally superior in the absence of the No Project Alternative. Like the No Project Alternative, the lower development potential of Alternative #2 would also substantially lessen overall construction-period and operational emissions of air quality pollutants, toxic air contaminants, GHG emissions and demands on utilities, as compared to the Project. Alternative #2 (the Reduced Project Alternative) is the environmentally superior alternative, but Alternative #2 (like the No Project Alternative) does not fully avoid any significant environmental effects of the Project Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-9 that cannot otherwise be substantially lessened or avoided with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in this EIR. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures The following Table 1-1 provides a summary of potential environmental impacts, the regulatory requirements applicable to new development within the Campus, recommended mitigation measures (as necessary), and the resulting level of significance after implementation of all regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. Table 1-1 incorporates all changes and additions that have been have in response to staff-initiated changes and/or comments on the Draft EIR. For a more complete discussion of potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures, please refer to individual topic area chapters of the Draft EIR. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-10 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Aesthetics Aesthetics 1: New development pursuant to the Project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. None needed Less than Significant Aesthetics 2: New development pursuant to the Project would not substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. None needed Less than Significant Aesthetics 3: New development pursuant to the Project would not substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the Project Area. Regulatory Requirement Aesthetics 3, Design Review: Pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s Zoning Code (Chapter 20.480: Design Review) the City will continue to review the design of new buildings on Campus. The City’s Design review criteria will be used to ensure that new buildings promote high-quality design, are well crafted and maintained, use high-quality building materials and are attentive to the design and execution of building details and amenities. Less than Significant Aesthetics 4: New development pursuant to the Project could result in new sources of increased daytime glare and nighttime illumination. Regulatory Requirement Aesthetics 4, Design Review for Light and Glare: Consistent with South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.480.006, new development pursuant to the Master Plan Update will be required to comply with the following design considerations relative to light and glare: 1. Open space, pedestrian walks, signs, illumination, and landscaping (including irrigation) shall be designed and developed to enhance the environmental quality of the site, achieve a safe, efficient, and harmonious development, and accomplish the objectives set forth in the precise plan of design and design criteria (Municipal Code section 20.480.006.6) 2. Electrical and mechanical equipment or works, and fixtures and trash storage areas, shall be designed and constructed so as not to detract from the environmental quality of the site. Electrical and mechanical equipment or works and fixtures and trash storage areas shall be concealed by an appropriate architectural structure that uses colors and materials harmonious with the principal structure, unless a reasonable alternative is identified (Municipal Code section 20.480.006.7) 3. Components considered in design review shall include but not be limited to exterior design, materials, textures, colors, means of illumination, landscaping, irrigation, height, shadow patterns, parking, access, security, safety, and other usual on-site development elements (Municipal Code section 20.480.006.8) Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-11 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Mitigation Measure Aesthetics 4A, Night Lighting: Maintain appropriate levels of night lighting at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads, consistent with minimum levels detailed in Genentech’s Security Plan and City building codes. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics 4B, Non-Reflective Glass and Surfaces: Design for new structures within the Project Area shall include the use of textured or other non-reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass types, including double-glazed and non-reflective vision glass, while achieving the requisite performance for energy conservation, internal comfort and glare control. All exterior glass must meet the specifications of all applicable building codes Air Quality AQ 1: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan None needed Less than Significant AQ 2: Throughout buildout of the Project, construction activities would result in emissions of criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment, including releasing emissions of ozone precursors and particulates. However, with implementation of Basic BMPs for all construction projects, and Additional BMPs for those construction projects that exceed screening criteria, construction emissions would be unlikely to exceed applicable thresholds. Best Management Practices AQ 2A, Basic Construction Measures: Consistent with BAAQMD recommendations, the following BMPs shall be implemented by all construction projects, regardless of itemized construction emission levels: a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c) 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. d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e) 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. f) 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. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-12 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h) 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. It is possible that variations in construction schedules will occur, resulting in construction of individual buildings exceeding the assumed annual average, or that multiple buildings may be constructed across the Campus at the same time. Therefore, the following requirement is recommended as a Condition of Approval for the Project, to address subsequent development-specific circumstances: Recommendation AQ 2: Project-Specific Construction Emission Analysis: A project- specific construction emissions analysis is required for all projects that exceed the assumptions of this analysis, including: a) Annual construction exceeding 215,000 square feet a year. b) Construction projects that individually exceed 227,000 square feet in size (the lower of BAAQMD screening sizes for either office parks or industrial parks) c) When two or more simultaneously occurring construction projects would exceed this screening size, or construction projects include more than two simultaneously occurring construction phases d) Construction projects that would include demolition, that would involve extensive site preparation (i.e., greater than default assumptions used by the URBEMIS model), or that involve extensive material transport (in amounts greater than 10,000 cubic yards of soil import/export) e) If a project-specific emission analysis exceeds the per-day construction emissions thresholds presented in Table 6-2, then a demonstration of consistency with the results in AQ-3 would also be required. AQ 3: During construction activities, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations from construction-related emissions. Specifically, the Project’s construction emissions could cause an excess cancer risk level exceeding 10 in 1 million at the maximally exposed sensitive receptor. None needed for construction activities on each of those Opportunity Sites as indicated on Figure 6-3 as not contributing to construction-period health risks (i.e., impacts would be less than significant). All construction activities pursuant to buildout of the Project may proceed on all Opportunity Sites without further site-specific or project-specific analysis if Mitigation Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-13 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance measure AQ 3: Diesel Particulate Filters, are installed on all diesel construction equipment (i.e., where health risk impacts would be mitigated to less than significant levels). Mitigation Measure AQ 3, Diesel Particulate Filters: Construction activity that occurs in proximity to the Genentech daycare center or the Early Years preschool on Allerton Avenue shall use off-road construction equipment installed with diesel particulate filters capable of reducing PM10 and PM2.5 emissions by as much as 85%. AQ 4: During operations, the Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for which the region is non-attainment, including emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. Specifically, the Project’s average daily operational emissions are projected to exceed 54 pound per day of reactive organic gas (ROG) and nitrogen oxides. Regulatory Requirement AQ 4, New Source Review Offset: Genentech shall purchase offset credits pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2-2: New Source Review; Section 302, Offset Requirements for each new permitted stationary source of NOx and/or ROG emissions, and for any modifications to existing stationary emission sources that result in increased NOx and/or ROG emissions. Significant and Unavoidable Although TDM, energy efficiency features and regulatory requirements are incorporated into the Project, total emissions of criteria pollutants from mobile sources and other sources not requiring separate permits form BAAQMD would exceed the thresholds of significance - AQ 5: During operational activities, the Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial health risk from operational-related emissions if operational sources of TAC emissions are not limited in location and operational parameters. None needed for operational source of TAC emission that operate within the emission parameters used in this analysis and located on any of those Opportunity Sites shown on Figures 6-5 and 6-6 as not contributing to operational-period health risks – (i.e., less than significant). Individual projects that include new sources of operational TAC emissions that would operate outside of the operational parameters used in this EIR are subject to the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure AQ 5A, Parameters for Operational Emissions: New operational sources of TAC emissions (i.e., emergency generators, laboratories with emissions stacks, or natural gas combustion at the Miura boilers or potential CHP) shall operate within the operational parameters as used in this analysis (as shown in Table 6-9). For any operational source of TAC emissions that does not operate within these parameters, a subsequent, Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-14 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance project-specific health risk analysis shall be performed. Any such subsequent, project- specific health risk analysis must be able to demonstrate that the proposed operational source of TAC emissions would not contribute to new or substantially more significant health risks to sensitive receptors than those health risks presented in this EIR. This conclusion may account for any additional project-specific measures to reduce TAC emissions included as part of such an emission source. Individual projects that include new operational sources of TAC emissions and that are sited at locations not shown on Figure 6-5 (for laboratories) or Figure 6-6 (for emergency generators) are subject to the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure AQ 5B, Locational Restrictions on Future Operational Emission Sources: Emergency generators and laboratories with emissions stacks shall be limited to those locations as shown on Figure 6-5 (for laboratories) or Figure 6-6 (for emergency generators), where their operations have been demonstrated to not exceed health risk thresholds. For any operational source of TAC emissions that are located outside of these locations, a subsequent project-specific health risk analysis shall be performed. Any such subsequent, project-specific health risk analysis must be able to demonstrate that the proposed location would not contribute to new or substantially more significant health risks to sensitive receptors than those health risks presented in this EIR. This conclusion may account for any additional project-specific measures to reduce TAC emissions included as part of such an emission source. Biological Resources Bio 1: The Project could potentially have an indirect adverse effect on Central California Coast steelhead, green sturgeon, longfin smelt and their tidal aquatic habitat within the Bay. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A, Construction General Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: All qualifying construction projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update shall comply with Provision C.6 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), including filing a Notice of Intent for permit coverage under the Construction General Permit 1) To obtain Construction General Permit coverage, construction projects must include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that demonstrates compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinances and other local requirements. 2) The SWPPP must demonstrate implementation of seasonally appropriate and effective best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains, before approval and issuance of local grading permits. 3) Such construction projects are required to implement the stormwater BMPs identified by the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, including Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-15 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance plans to address materials and waste management, equipment management and spill control, grading and earthmoving to prevent erosion, paving and asphalt work, concrete and mortar applications, painting and paint removal, landscaping and dewatering. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1B, Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan: All new Regulated Projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update will be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP, including requirements to incorporate post-construction stormwater control and low-impact development (LID) measures. Each individual development project must meet Provision C.3 requirements capable of reducing long-term impacts of development on stormwater quality. Some combination of the following post-construction stormwater controls will be required to demonstrate compliance with the hydraulic design criteria of the MRP: 1) Site design may include minimizing impervious surfaces minimizing impervious surfaces that are directly connected to the storm drain system, or using landscaping as a drainage feature. 2) Source control measures may include roofed trash enclosures, berms that control runoff from a pollutant source, use of indoor mats/equipment wash racks that are connected to the sanitary sewer (where allowed under separate sewer discharge permits), and regular inspection and cleaning of storm drain inlets. 3) Stormwater treatments may be met by a combination of measures that may include but are not limited to bioretention areas, flow-through planter boxes, infiltration trenches, extended detention basins, green roofs, pervious paving and grid pavements, rainwater harvesting and subsurface infiltration systems. Bio-2: The Project may cause a substantial adverse effect, both directly and through habitat modification, on California Ridgway’s rail (federally and state listed as endangered and designated as a state fully protected species). Mitigation Measure Bio 2A, Seasonal Avoidance: To avoid causing the abandonment of an active California Ridgway’s rail nest, construction activities within 750 feet of the coastal salt marsh habitat in the southeastern corner of the site (see Figure 7-9) shall be avoided during the rail breeding season (from February 1 through August 31). If avoidance is not possible, protocol-level surveys (see Mitigation Measure Bio 2, below) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine rail locations and territories. Mitigation Measure Bio 2B, Protocol-Level Surveys and Buffers around Calling Centers: Prior to any construction activity near the coastal salt marsh along the southeastern edge of the biological Study Area, a protocol-level survey, which involves a series of site visits between mid-January (beginning no later than January 31) and late March, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. The survey needs to be approved by the USFWS and Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-16 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance CDFW in advance. If breeding rails are determined to be present, construction activities shall not occur within 750 feet of an identified calling center during the breeding season. Mitigation Measure Bio 2C, Initiate Work during the Non-Breeding Season: Regular, ongoing disturbance within a work area that begins prior to the start of the nesting season or nest establishment in an area may deter California Ridgway’s rails from nesting near construction activities. If construction activities need to occur within 750 feet of suitable California Ridgway’s rail nesting habitat, such activities shall be initiated and shall reach peak levels of disturbance prior to the onset of the nesting season. Peak levels of disturbance is defined as construction noise in the vicinity of the suitable habitat reaching maximum levels, and construction activities that occur as near to the suitable habitat as required for the project. If an active nest is identified subsequent to construction activities reaching a peak level of disturbance, a buffer of 750 feet shall be established between Project activities and the nest. Bio 3: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on burrowing owls. Burrowing owls are a migratory species protected under the federal MBTA and California Fish and Game Code, and designated as a state species of special concern. None required Less than Significant Bio 4: The Project may cause a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on Alameda song sparrow, San Francisco common yellowthroat (both California species of special concern) and other native bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Mitigation Measure Bio 4A, Seasonal Avoidance: To the extent feasible, construction activities should be scheduled to avoid the nesting season. If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the nesting season, all impacts on nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be avoided. The nesting season for most birds in San Mateo County extends from February 1 through August 31. Mitigation Measure Bio 4B, Pre-construction/Pre-disturbance Surveys: If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between September 1 and January 31, then a pre- construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist to ensure that no nests will be disturbed during Project implementation. These surveys should be conducted no more than seven days prior to the initiation of any construction activities. During this survey, the ornithologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, ruderal grasslands, buildings) in and immediately adjacent to the impact area, as well as a construction zone of up to 300 feet from the edge of the construction zone into the southerly coastal salt marsh habitat (if applicable), for nests. Mitigation Measure Bio 4C, Buffers: If an active nest is found sufficiently close to work areas such that it would be disturbed by construction activities, the ornithologist shall Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-17 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically 300 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other species). Any active nests shall be monitored by the ornithologists to determine when the young fledge, and construction within the buffer zone can resume. Bio 5: The Project could potentially have an indirect adverse effect on harbor seal and California sea lion (both protected species under the Marine Mammal Protection Act), and their tidal aquatic habitat within the Bay. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A, Construction General Permit/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: (see additional details under Bio 1, above). Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1B, Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan: (see additional details under Bio 1, above). Less than Significant Bio 6: The Project would not interfere substantially with migratory bird corridors due to bird strikes with buildings. None required Less than Significant Bio 7: The Project could potentially result in adverse effects on coastal salt marsh and other sensitive habitat due to the spread of invasive and non-native plant species. Mitigation Measure Bio 7, Invasive Weed Control: Prior to ground disturbing activities, the Project work areas shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist/botanist for the presence of pampas grass, fennel and other highly invasive plant species from the California Invasive Plant Council list. a) Any invasive plants found within the area that is to be disturbed by development shall be removed and disposed of in a sanitary landfill. Alternatively, invasive plants may be disposed of in a high-temperature composting facility that can compost using methods known to kill weed seeds, taking care to prevent any seed dispersal during the process by bagging material or covering trucks transporting such material from the site. b) Cut soils from areas infested by weeds such as pampas grass and fennel that will be reused as fill elsewhere in the Project Area will be buried under hardscape or placed in areas to be managed with landscaping. c) During construction activities, all seeds and straw materials used on site shall be weed-free, and all gravel and fill material shall be certified weed-free. d) Construction vehicles and all equipment will be washed (including wheels, undercarriages and bumpers) before entering the Project Area. Vehicles will be cleaned at existing construction yards or car washes. Genentech will document that all vehicles have been washed prior to commencing work. Less than Significant Bio 8: The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A, Construction General Permit/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: (see additional details under Bio 1, above). Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1B, Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan: (see additional details under Bio 1, above). Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-18 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bio 9: The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.), waters of the U.S., and waters of the state through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A, Construction General Permit/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: (see additional details under Bio 1, above). Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1B, Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan: (see additional details under Bio 1, above). Mitigation Measure Bio 9, Drainage Channel Wetland Delineation: Although drainage channels within the site lack many of the habitat features usually present in jurisdictional waters of the State, there is some possibility these drainage ditches may be claimed as jurisdictional by the RWQCB. Prior to any proposed fill or material alteration of on-site drainage ditches (those indicated on prior Figure 7-8), a wetlands delineation based on the criteria of most current Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and any regional supplements shall be conducted. a) Presuming this wetland delineation finds the on-site drainage ditches are not Waters of the US and that these delineations are accepted by the Corps, then no further federal wetlands permitting is required. b) If the RWQCB claims jurisdiction of these features, any alteration of the drainage ditches would require a permit from the RWQCB and compliance with all standards and requirements of such permit. c) The RWQCB is likely to consider these drainage ditches as required parts of the overall Campus’ Stormwater Management Plan, and pursuant to subsequent Statewide General Construction Permits will likely require that the storm drainage functions of these features be replaced if they are affected. Less than Significant Bio 10: The Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. None required Less than Significant Bio 11: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Regulatory Requirement Bio 11A, Tree Removal Permit: All new development pursuant to the Project will be required to comply with City of South San Francisco Municipal Code 13.30, which prohibits the removal or pruning of protected trees without a permit. Pursuant to this regulatory requirement, Genentech will be required to retain a certified arborist to conduct pre-construction surveys of trees within the Project Area, and provide a map to the applicant and the City. Each identified protected tree that will be directly impacted by removal or pruning will require a Tree Pruning/Removal Permit pursuant to Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-19 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance the South San Francisco Municipal Code. This permit will be submitted to the City and must be approved before building permits are issued. Regulatory Requirement Bio 11B, Tree Replacement Planting: Replacement trees will be determined as set forth in Municipal Code Section 13.30.080, which provides that any protected trees that are removed shall be replaced as follows: 1) Replacement will be three 15-gallon size or two 24-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below. However, the director maintains the right to dictate size and species of trees in new developments. 2) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit will be replaced by three 24-inch box minimum size landscape trees of a species approved by the director for each tree so removed as determined below. 3) Replacement of a protected tree can be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. 4) If replacement trees cannot be planted on the property, payment of the replacement value of the tree, as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standards, plus the costs to the city to plant an equivalent tree elsewhere in the city, will be made to the city. Bio 12: The Project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan or other habitat conservation plan approved by local, regional or state agencies. None required Less than Significant Cultural Resources Cultural 1: Future development pursuant to the Project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of any known historical resources. None needed Less than Significant Cultural 2: Future development pursuant to the Project is not anticipated to uncover or disturb a known paleontological resource. None needed Less than Significant Cultural 3: During ground disturbing activities associated within the Project Area, it is possible that currently Mitigation Measure Cultural 3A, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program: A qualified archaeologist should conduct training for all construction personnel Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-20 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance unidentified historic-period archaeological resources could be discovered and disturbed. prior to Project-related construction and ground-disturbing activities. The training should include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities, and procedures to follow in the event of a discovery. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3B, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation: In the event of discovery of paleontological or historical archaeological resources during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery shall cease until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional. Historic-period archaeological resources may include stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures and remains with square nails, and refuse deposits or bottle dumps. a) If the qualified archaeologist determines the find is not significant and that there is no potential for the find to be a tribal cultural resource, then proper recordation and identification will ensue, and the project construction activity may continue without further delay. b) If the qualified archaeologist determines the find may potentially be a tribal cultural resource, a tribal representative shall be consulted to determine whether it is in fact a tribal cultural resource (see MM Cultural #D, below). c) If the qualified archaeologist determines an archaeological find is significant, then the archaeologist will excavate the find in compliance with state law and keeping project delays to a minimum, and shall implement specific mitigation measures to protect these resources in accordance with sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the California Public Resources Code. d) If it is determined that avoidance of the resource is not feasible, then a mitigation plan (including monitoring and data recovery) shall be prepared, with specific steps and timeframe identified. Work near the find may only resume upon completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3C, In the Event of Discovery of Human Remains: In the event of a discovery of buried human remains or suspected human remains, all construction activity within 50 feet shall cease until the remains have been evaluated by the County Coroner. a) If the County Coroner determines that an investigation into the cause of death is required, or that the remains are Native American, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the remains until appropriate arrangements are made. b) In the event that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code to identify the Most Likely Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-21 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Descendant. The Most Likely Descendant shall be consulted as to means for treating or re-interring the human remains and any associated grave goods, with appropriate dignity. Cultural 4: During ground disturbing activities associated within the Project Area, it is possible that currently unidentified or non-located tribal cultural resources could be discovered and disturbed. Mitigation Measure Cultural 3A, Cultural Resources Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP): see above Mitigation Measure Cultural 3B, Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation: see above Mitigation Measure Cultural 3C, In the Event of Discovery of Human Remains: see above Mitigation Measure Cultural 4A, Cultural Resources Monitoring: A qualified archaeologist shall monitor all construction-related activity expected to involve excavating, drilling or trenching at depths that may reach native sediment in those areas where tribal cultural resources are likely present (i.e., along the Project’s shoreline areas within the South and Lower Campus). Monitoring will continue for the duration of such activity or until culturally sterile sediments are reached (e.g., bedrock). The qualified archaeologist may determine to decrease or increase the monitoring efforts based on sediments observed, findings or the number of large ground-disturbing machines in operation. Mitigation Measure Cultural 4B, In the Event of Discovery of a Tribal Resource: If a Tribal cultural resource is uncovered during construction, work should be halted within 25 feet of the discovered materials and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-affected rock, or human burials. A tribal representative shall be consulted to determine an appropriate mitigation plan (including monitoring and data recovery), with specific steps and timeframe to be stipulated. Work near the found tribal cultural resource may only resume upon completion of a mitigation plan and/or recovery of the tribal cultural resource. Less than Significant Geology and Soils Geology 1: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements, future development pursuant to the Project would not expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects Regulatory Requirement Geology 1, Seismic Hazards: Pursuant to regulatory requirements, Genentech will be required to retain a certified licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies for each new development project pursuant to the Project. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-22 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance resulting from strong seismic ground-shaking and seismic-related ground failure. 1. Required geotechnical studies shall include site-specific geotechnical recommendations demonstrating compliance with all applicable seismic-related geotechnical engineering standards. 2. Recommendations shall be incorporated into individual development project designs and construction, providing an acceptable level of protection against seismic-related hazards. All new development pursuant to the Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements for seismic hazards, including but not limited to the following: California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which enables the City of South San Francisco to withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites, and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismicity and unstable soils California Building Code, which provides minimum standards for building design including but not limited to regulations governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Section 1613) City of South San Francisco Municipal Code - Chapter 15.08, which includes CBC standards as further modified by amendments, additions, and deletions adopted as the building code of the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan, Chapter 10, which sets forth policies and specific guidelines pertaining to site development and building design applicable to the unique geological hazards in the East of 101 Area, including the Project Area Geology 2: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements, most future development pursuant to the Project would not expose people and structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from landslides. Future development on steep hillside sites could pose increased risks of slope instability and landslide potential. Regulatory Requirement Geology 2, Landslide Hazards: Pursuant to regulatory requirements, Genentech will be required to retain a certified licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies for each new development project pursuant to the Project. 1. Required geotechnical studies shall include site-specific geotechnical recommendations demonstrating compliance with all applicable excavation design and slope stability standards. The East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element policies (specifically Policy Geo-7 through Geo-9) are designed specifically to mitigate impacts associated with landsliding and unstable slope conditions. 2. Recommendations shall be incorporated into individual development project designs and construction, providing an acceptable level of protection against landslide hazards. Mitigation Measure Geology 2, Geotechnical Requirements for Hillside Opportunity Sites: Site-specific geotechnical studies required for each new development at hillside Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-23 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Opportunity Sites (sites with slopes of 30 percent or greater) shall including site-specific geotechnical recommendations to address the stability of existing and proposed slopes, as well as the stability of all proposed excavations. These investigations and recommendations may include, but are not limited to the following: a) A geologic evaluation of the bedding properties of the underlying bedrock to determine if joints or fractures may project out of the proposed excavation during construction b) Recommendations for appropriate shoring systems to be used when making vertical cuts, including evaluation of the stability of the excavation as well as job-site safety considerations c) Evaluation of the drainage and infiltration properties of the existing slope bank d) Installation of horizontal drains to remove seepage e) Construction of a buttress wall at the base of the slope to reduce the risk of damage in the case of an accidental slope failure Geology 3: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements, future development pursuant to the Project that may be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that could become unstable because of development, and future development that may be on expansive soil, will not create a substantial risk to life or property. Regulatory Requirement Geology 3, Soils Hazards: Pursuant to regulatory requirements, Genentech will be required to retain a certified licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies for each new development project pursuant to the Project. 1. Geotechnical studies shall include site-specific geotechnical recommendations demonstrating compliance with all applicable soils-related building design requirements. 2. Site-specific recommendations may include design features (such as expansion joints, mounting foundations on concrete piles), or replacing existing soils on a project site with stable fill material such that structures can withstand soils expansion. Building pad substrates may also be applicable on soils subject to expansive potential, and weak soils may require re-engineering specifically for stability. Soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) may be included in excavation and construction plans, and/or piling supports that conform to implementation criteria described in the CBC, Chapters 16, 18, and A33 may need to be designed and implemented. 3. All recommendations shall be incorporated into individual development project designs and construction, providing an acceptable level of protection against soils- related hazards. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-24 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance All new development pursuant to the Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements to address soils constraints, including but not limited to the following: California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, which enables the City of South San Francisco to withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites, and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with seismically unstable soils California Building Code, Chapters 18A and 23 (or Uniform Building Code for Zone 4), which addresses building foundations and structural support requirements, subject to structural peer review City of South San Francisco Municipal Code - Chapter 15.08, which includes CBC standards as further modified by amendments, additions and deletions adopted as the Building Code of the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan, Chapter 10: Geotechnical Safety Element, which sets forth policies and specific guidelines pertaining to site development and building design applicable to soils conditions that exist in the East of 101 Area Geology 4: With implementation of all applicable regulatory requirements, future development pursuant to the Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Regulatory Requirement Geology 4, Grading Regulations: Pursuant to regulatory requirements, Genentech will be required to retain a certified licensed geotechnical engineer to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies for each new development project pursuant to the Project. Geotechnical studies shall include site-specific geotechnical recommendations demonstrating compliance with all applicable erosion control requirements, including but not limited to the following: 1. California Building Code, Chapter 18 (which regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations and retaining walls) and Chapter 33 (which regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control) 2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rules regarding fugitive dust, which would stabilize soils and prevent erosion through the reduction of dust generation by up to 85 percent 3. All new qualifying construction projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update will be required to comply with Provision C.6 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), including filing a Notice of Intent for permit coverage under the Construction General Permit, and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that demonstrates compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinances and other local requirements (see further details in Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A in the Hydrology chapter of this EIR) Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-25 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance 4. The evaluation of potential erosion of steeper slopes is also required as part of new development design in accordance with East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element policies. These policy requirements specify that slopes be graded and compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surface slumping or erosion, and that vegetative cover be applied to protect the slope from soil erosion. Geology 5: Future development pursuant to the Project would be served by the existing municipal sewer system. No septic tanks or alternate waste disposal systems are proposed for development. None needed No Impact Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG 1: The Project’s stationary source emissions will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Specifically, the Project will comply with the CARB Cap-and-Trade program, which is a method to achieve statewide reduction goals as set forth in AB 32. Regulatory Requirement GHG 1, Cap and Trade: Genentech is committed to minimizing emissions from stationary sources and continuing participation in the Cap-and-Trade program. Pursuant to this program, Genentech must meet the requirements by ensuring permits (through increased cap or trade) are obtained for incremental growth in these types of stationary source emissions. The Cap-and-Trade allowances must meet or exceed stationary source emission levels as reported to CARB pursuant to mandatory GHG reporting requirements. Compliance with the Cap-and-Trade program can be verified through publicly accessible data maintained by the California Air Resources Board, which includes statewide and facility-specific information on emissions reporting, offsets and allocations, and facility compliance with the Cap and Trade Program Less than Significant GHG 2: The Project’s stationary source emissions that are not otherwise addressed under the Cap-and-Trade program will not exceed 10,000 MT of CO2e per year, and thus will not contribute to global climate change at a level that is considered cumulatively considerable. None needed. Less than Significant GHG 3: The Project’s operational emissions will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Specifically, the Project is consistent with the City’s Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy (i.e., the SSF Climate Action Program, or CAP). Those operational- related GHG emissions that are fully covered under the SSF CAP do not represent a cumulatively considerable None needed. The Project’s indirect, operational GHG emissions attributable to mobile sources, water use, wastewater treatment and waste disposal are fully addressed in the City of South San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan (a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy). The CAP allows the City to determine that future development projects will have a less than significant impact on CAP-related GHG emissions if they comply with CAP GHG reduction measures. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-26 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance contribution to global climate change, and emissions that comply with the CAP are excluded from analysis of GHG emissions against the numerical land use-based threshold. GHG 4: The Project will not generate land use-based GHG emissions, other than those emissions addressed pursuant to the City CAP, that exceed the efficiency threshold of 4.6 MT of CO2e per year per service population (Project jobs) at year 2020. The Project’s land use-based GHG emissions would not contribute significantly to global climate change, and this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. No mitigation is required. The Project would not exceed the service-based efficiency threshold for land use-based GHG emissions by year 2020. Less than Significant GHG 5: The Project will not generate land use-based GHG emissions, other than those emissions addressed pursuant to the City CAP, that exceed the efficiency threshold of 2.7 MT of CO2e per year per service population at year 2030. The Project’s land use-based GHG emissions would not contribute significantly to global climate change, and this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable. No mitigation is required. The Project would not exceed the service-based efficiency threshold for land use-based GHG emissions by year 2030. Less than Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hazards 1: Implementation of the Project would not expose Genentech employees or the nearby public to significant hazards due to the routine transport, use, disposal or storage of hazardous materials (including chemical, radioactive and biohazardous waste). Regulatory Requirements Hazards 1A, Use of Chemical Materials: Genentech shall comply with all State, federal and local regulations, and Genentech programs, practices and procedures that ensure that the potential for worker and/or public exposure to hazardous chemicals from improper or unsafe activities or from accidents is less than significant. 1) To reduce the potential for exposure to airborne chemicals, workers shall take standard precautions such as working under fume hoods when using chemicals that could present exposure hazards. The chemical fume hood is a critical health and safety control in the laboratory setting, ensuring an adequate level of protection from possible harmful effects of chemicals. Proper use of fume hoods keeps toxic air contaminant levels within indoor laboratories below levels identified in guidelines of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (Threshold Limit Values) and OSHA legal limits (Permissible Exposure Levels). Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-27 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance 2) To prevent exposure through skin contact, Genentech shall require that protective clothing such as laboratory coats, gloves and safety glasses, be worn while handling hazardous materials. Proper washing after handling chemicals is required. Eating, drinking and smoking are prohibited in laboratories and other areas where hazardous materials are used. These procedures are disclosed to all staff that work with hazardous materials, and this training increases the safety awareness of Genentech employees and further reduces the risks of exposure to hazardous chemicals through inhalation, absorption, ingestion and injection. Should an accident occur that could cause exposure of an individual to hazardous materials, required emergency equipment (e.g., fire extinguishers, eyewashes and safety showers) are also available. 3) Cal/OSHA requires all institutions that use hazardous materials to implement a Hazard Communication Program and to train employees that use hazardous chemicals in the safe use of those materials. Genentech implements all safety procedures and conducts safety programs to ensure that these OSHA safety procedures are consistently followed. Genentech will continue to implement these (or equivalent) programs, practices and procedures, and will expand these programs as needed. Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 3203 of the General Industry Safety Orders) also requires every California employer to have a written Injury and Illness Prevention Program to provide a safe and healthful workplace. OSHA mandates methods of documenting, investigating and controlling accidents that result in skin penetration. Evidence presented during OSHA rule-making procedures indicates that these programs and methods are effective in reducing the number and severity of injuries and illness in the workplace. Regulatory Requirements Hazards 1B, Use of Radioactive Materials: The use of radioactive material at the Genentech site is specifically subject to the conditions of a radioactive materials license issued and administered by the Radiologic Health Branch of the DHS. Genentech administers and monitors facility compliance with license requirements. Radioactive materials licensing requirements include routine inspection and monitoring of areas where radioactive materials are used, to ensure that surfaces are not contaminated with radioactivity above background levels. Under the radioactive materials license, renovation or demolition of facilities using radioactive material requires decommissioning of the facilities. This involves radiation testing and conducting decontamination and waste handling activities in accordance with applicable regulations. 1) Use of radioactive materials at Genentech is monitored to ensure consistency with requirements of Genentech’s radioactive materials license as issued and administered by the Radiologic Health Branch of the DHS. These licensing requirements articulate Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-28 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance standards to maintain radiation exposure levels below applicable legal standards, thereby protecting users of radioactive materials. 2) Like all hazardous materials, the effects of the routine use of radioactive materials are limited to areas where exposure may occur and decreases substantially with distance. For this reason, the individuals most at risk would be those specially trained in the use of radioactive materials, thereby reducing the likelihood for accidental exposure through improper handling techniques. All individuals who handle radioactive waste are required to wear a personal monitor that determines their cumulative exposure to radiation. If the monitor indicates that established safety levels might be exceeded, the individual is prevented from being exposed to potential sources of radiation until the monitor indicates that safety levels can be maintained. Regulatory Requirements Hazards 1C, Use of Biohazardous Materials: Genentech complies with guidelines promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health that determine the level of safety precautions that must be used for four tiers of relative hazards. Biosafety Level 1 is for the least hazardous biological agents, and Biosafety Level 4 is for the most hazardous biological agents. Biosafety Levels for infectious agents are based on the characteristics of the agent (virulence, ability to cause disease, routes of exposure, biological stability and communicability), the quantity and concentration of the agent, the procedures to be followed in the laboratory, and the availability of therapeutic measures and vaccines. Biosafety Level 1 agents pose minimal or no known potential hazards to individuals and the environment. Biosafety Level 2 agents are considered to be of ordinary potential hazard and may produce varying degrees of disease through accidental inoculation, but may be effectively contained by ordinary laboratory techniques and specific laboratory equipment. Biosafety Level 3 agents pose a more substantial risk, and work with these agents must be conducted in contained facilities for which airflow is directed into the laboratory and access is controlled separately from public areas. 1. Occupational and public safety is protected by selecting the appropriate biological and physical containment levels for each biological material handled. Standard microbiological practices, such as limiting facility access, washing hands after handling, de-contaminating work surfaces, wearing gloves and other safety equipment, using biosafety cabinets, and proper disposal reduce risks resulting from exposure to biohazardous materials. 2. Current state testing, monitoring and disposal regulations, and Genentech’s own programs pertaining to the management of biohazardous materials (including Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-29 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance infectious agents), further ensure that risks associated with use of biohazardous substances remain less than significant. 3. Medical wastes are managed by Genentech as a biohazardous material, in accordance with Section 117635 of the California Health and Safety Code and with USDHHS guidelines and DHS regulations. Biohazardous medical waste is generally regulated in the same manner as hazardous waste, except that special provisions apply to storage, disinfection, containment, transportation and disposal. Regulatory Requirements Hazards 1D, Disposal of Hazardous Materials: Genentech disposes of hazardous wastes in compliance with Titles 8, 14, 17 and 22 of the California Code of Regulations. 1. Spent hazardous materials generated on a daily basis in research, production and maintenance facilities are placed in special containers and are kept in specially designated and ventilated accumulation areas. These hazardous wastes are collected and accumulated in designated and secured areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. Wastes are transported off- site by licensed hazardous waste transporters to permitted hazardous waste disposal facilities, and emergency response procedures for all on-site storage sites are included in the Genentech Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan. Biohazardous wastes are managed in the same way, though separately. 2. In accordance with strict regulatory guidelines of the Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the US EPA and the California Radiation Control Law (California Health & Safety Code Sections 114960-114985), Genentech collects, prepares and packages its radioactive waste. Radioactive waste is then transported by a radioactive waste broker to a licensed radioactive waste disposal facility. Regulatory Requirements Hazards 1E, Hazardous Materials Transport: The CHP and US DOT strictly regulate the transportation of hazardous materials to and from the site. Procedures mandated by federal and state laws and regulations including driver training and licensing, standardized hazard warning placards for vehicles, shipping manifest requirements and standards for classifying, handling and packaging hazardous materials, as well as continuation of existing (or equivalent) Genentech programs, practices and procedures, will ensure that the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials does not expose employees, visitors or the nearby public to significant health or safety risks. Hazards 2: Implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and Regulatory Requirements Hazards 2A, Off-Site Transportation of Hazardous Materials: The USDOT Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and implemented by Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-30 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Transportation of hazardous materials along any City or state roadways within or near Genentech is also subject to all hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the California Highway Patrol pursuant to the California Vehicle Code and the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). 1. In compliance with these regulations, Genentech’s programs, practices and procedures specifically govern receipt of hazardous materials. Licensed vendors bring hazardous materials to and from the facility, and manifests are completed and maintained by Genentech for all hazardous waste that is transported. The DTSC maintains copies of Genentech's waste manifests. In conformance with additional legal requirements, incoming radioactive material is monitored and recorded for each acquisition. Genentech processes and delivers all incoming radioactive materials to end users. 2. Section 31303 of the California Code of Regulations requires that when hazardous materials are transported on state or interstate highways, the highways that offer the shortest overall transit time possible shall be used. As required by federal and state laws, all other hazardous materials transportation regulations must be followed, including USDOT regulations for packaging and handling hazardous materials to prevent accidental spills of hazardous materials during transit. Compliance with all applicable federal and state laws, as well as all Genentech programs, practices and procedures related to the transportation of hazardous materials will continue to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit. Regulatory Requirements Hazards 2B, Hazardous Materials Use, Storage and On-Site Transportation: Management of risk and minimizing the potential for upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials is regulated by numerous federal, State and local laws and regulations. 1. The Cal EPA’s regulations pursuant to the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program addresses (among other matters) a number of programs specifically designed to minimize such risks. These programs require all businesses that handle hazardous materials to prepare a Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and inventory, a Risk Management and Prevention program, and compliance with Unified Fire Code requirements. These programs are implemented at the local level, and in South San Francisco, the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health (SMCDEH) is the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) responsible for implementation of these programs. 2. The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires that any business that handles hazardous materials Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-31 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance prepare a Business Plan. That Business Plan must include details of the facility and business conducted at the site, an inventory of hazardous materials that are handled or stored on site, an emergency response plan and a training program for safety and emergency response for new employees, with annual refresher courses. 3. The USDHHS, CDC, NIH and DHS all prescribe containment and handling practices for use in microbiological, biomedical and animal laboratories. Medical wastes must be managed as a biohazardous material, in accordance with Section 117635 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the management of biohazardous materials must comply with USDHHS guidelines and DHS regulations. 4. The Atomic Energy Act ensures the proper management of source, special nuclear, and by-product material. The California Radiation Control Law California Health & Safety Code Sections 114960-114985) is a regulatory program designed to provide for compatibility with the standards and regulatory programs of the federal government and integrate an effective system of regulation within the state. These laws and regulations govern the receipt, storage, use, transportation and disposal of sources of ionizing radiation (radioactive material), and protect the users of these materials and the public from radiation hazards. Hazards 3: Although some Project area facilities are included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment due to the presence of these listed facilities. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 3, DTSC Deed Restrictions and Enforcement Plan: The O’Brien site is still subject to deed restrictions and the Agreement for Operations and Maintenance (which includes a requirement to comply with the Land Use Covenant Implementation Enforcement Plan). As a result, the following regulatory controls remain applicable to this site: 1. Activities that may disturb existing groundwater monitoring wells shall not be permitted without prior review and approval by DTSC. 2. The capped portion of the site may be variously occupied by buildings, paved with either concrete or asphalt or covered with landscaping or other vegetative cover, clean soil imported from an off-site location, or with other suitable cover to mitigate direct exposure. 3. Engineering controls such as wind erosion control and dust suppression must be implemented during construction activities to minimize or mitigate potential exposure of contaminated soil. 4. Any contaminated soils that may be brought to the surface by future grading, excavation, trenching, backfilling or other activity shall be managed in accordance with Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-32 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance all applicable provisions of state and federal laws and regulations, including the DTSC- approved Site Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan. 5. The Site Management Plan includes administrative controls for construction workers (including designation of regulated areas, employee training and personal hygiene practices). Controls include personal protective respiratory equipment for construction workers, air monitoring to verify the effectiveness of hazard controls and to document emissions, training of construction employees or persons who may handle or come in contact with potentially hazardous materials and collection and analysis of surface soil samples from areas not covered with structures or a paved surface to verify the integrity of a clean soil cap. Hazards 4: New construction activities pursuant to the Project could expose construction workers or Genentech employees to a significant hazard through the renovation or demolition of buildings, or relocation of underground utilities that contain hazardous materials. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 4A, Discovery of Underground Storage Tanks: All known on-site storage tanks are above ground and conform to applicable federal, state and local regulations and are registered and permitted by the South San Francisco Fire Department. In the event that previously unknown USTs are uncovered or disturbed, they will be properly closed in place or removed. While removal could pose health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers and the public to tank contents or vapors, these potential risks will be reduced by managing the tank closure process according to established regulatory guidelines for investigation and closure of USTs, and for cleanup of sites contaminated by leaking USTs. These regulatory guidelines are established pursuant to the California EPA’s adopted Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, as implemented at the local level by the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 4B, Asbestos: Asbestos-containing materials are regulated both as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and as a potential worker safety hazard under the authority of Cal-OSHA. Any asbestos-containing materials in structures slated for demolition must be abated in accordance with State and federal regulations, prior to the start of demolition or renovation activities. 1. Section 19827.5 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that local agencies not issue demolition or alteration permits until an applicant has demonstrated compliance with notification requirements under applicable federal regulations regarding hazardous air pollutants, including asbestos. 2. The BAAQMD is vested by the California legislature with authority to regulate airborne pollutants, including asbestos, through both inspection and law enforcement, and is to be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed demolition or abatement work. 3. State regulations contained in 8 CCR 1529 and 8 CCR 341.6 through 341.14 must be followed where there is asbestos-related work involving 100 square feet or more of Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-33 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance asbestos-containing material. Asbestos removal contractors must be certified as such by the Contractors Licensing Board of the State of California. 4. The owner of the property where abatement is to occur must have a hazardous waste generator number assigned by and registered with the DTSC. The site owner or responsible party and the transporter of the waste are required to file a hazardous waste manifest that details the transportation of the material from the site and its disposal. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 4C, Lead-Based Paint: Both the federal OSHA and Cal- OSHA regulate worker exposure during construction activities that may disturb lead-based paint. The Interim Final Rule found in 29 CFR 1926.62 covers construction work in which employees may be exposed to lead during such activities as demolition, removal, surface preparation for repainting, renovation, cleanup and routine maintenance. The OSHA- specified compliance includes respiratory protection, protective clothing, housekeeping, special high-efficiency filtered vacuums, hygiene facilities, medical surveillance and training. No minimum level of lead is specified to activate the provisions of this regulation. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 4D, PCBs: Fluorescent lighting ballasts manufactured prior to 1978, and electrical transformers, capacitors and generators manufactured prior to 1977 may contain PCBs. In accordance with the Toxic Substances Control Act and other federal and state regulations, construction or demolition activities that may involve such materials must properly handle and dispose of electrical equipment and lighting ballasts that contain PCBs. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 4E, Construction Dewatering: Pursuant to Section 13263 of the California Water Code, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issues Waste Discharge Requirements to control discharges (including dewatering during construction) to land or water. Pursuant to these requirements, permits require contractors to implement best management practices during construction dewatering to avoid exposure of employees or construction workers to potentially contaminated groundwater. These BMPs may include, but are not limited to groundwater testing, containment of contaminated groundwater in storage tanks for subsequent treatment and/or disposal, and the provision of release response information. In the unlikely event that contaminated groundwater is discovered during construction activities, Genentech’s contractors will follow specific procedures to reduce the risk of exposure. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 4F, Building Demolition: Buildings demolished during construction activities could have contained biohazardous materials, including medical wastes, prior to demolition. Genentech's programs, practices and procedures, and current state testing, monitoring and disposal regulations pertaining to the management of Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-34 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance biohazardous materials (including medical waste) will eliminate or reduce the potential for biohazardous substances to be present in fixtures or building materials removed during demolition. Genentech’s radioactive materials license requires testing and implementation of decontamination and waste handling activities in accordance with applicable regulations when facilities using radioactive materials are decommissioned for purposes of renovation or demolition. Mitigation Measure Hazards 4, Site Assessment: If previously unknown contamination, underground tanks, containers or stained or odorous soils are discovered during construction activities, the construction contractor(s) shall stop work and appropriate investigation, sampling and comparison of data collected with health-based screening levels and/or consultation with a regulatory oversight agency shall be conducted to determine if the discovered materials pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers. a) If any such materials are discovered that exceed human health screening levels as noted in DTSC’s HERO HHRA Note 3 criteria for California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs) and/or Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), a remediation plan shall be prepared and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency in compliance with all applicable legal requirements, and to ensure the proper handling and management. b) Soil remediation methods may include, but are not limited to excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and off-site treatment, or disposal and/or treatment without excavation. c) Remediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater could include, but are not limited to on-site treatment, extraction and off-site treatment, and/or disposal. d) Construction schedules may need to 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. Hazards 5: The Project will not emit hazardous emissions nor handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, but may handle such substances within one-quarter mile of a childcare facility. See all regulatory requirements and mitigation measures listed pursuant to the routine transport, use, disposal or storage of hazardous materials (Hazards 1), reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment (Hazards 2), known hazardous materials sites (Hazards 3), and construction activities (Hazards 4), above Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-35 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Hazards 6: The Project is located within the Airport Land Use Plan boundaries of San Francisco International Airport (SFO), but the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project is not located near a private airstrip. Regulatory Requirement Hazards 6, FAA Building Height Criteria: Pursuant to the Project, the maximum heights of new buildings within the Project Area shall comply with the height regulations and restrictions as established by FAA criteria. 1) Pursuant to these height regulations, new buildings exceeding the FAA Part 77 “imaginary surface” height limits will be subject to FAA review and may be required to provide marking and/or lighting, or may not be found acceptable to the FAA if determined to have impacts to the safety or efficiency of operations at SFO. 2) No new structures will exceed heights that penetrate “critical aeronautical surfaces”. Less than Significant Hazards 7: Implementation of the Project could impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of mitigation measures will ensure this impact remains less than significant. Mitigation Measure Hazards 7A, Adequate Roadway Access: To the extent feasible, the Project applicant shall maintain at least one unobstructed lane in both directions on the site's roadways. At any time only a single lane is available, Genentech shall provide a temporary flag-person or other appropriate traffic control to allow travel in both directions. If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, Genentech shall provide appropriate signage indicating alternative routes. Mitigation Measure Hazards 7B, Lane Closure Request: To ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction projects may result in temporary lane or roadway closures, Genentech shall consult with the South San Francisco Police and Fire Departments to disclose any such temporary lane or roadway closures and to identify appropriate alternative travel routes. Less than Significant Hazard-8: The Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. None needed Less than Significant Hydrology and Water Quality Hydro 1: Future development pursuant to the Project could result in a violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A, Construction General Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: All new qualifying construction projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update shall comply with Provision C.6 of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) including filing a Notice of Intent for permit coverage under the Construction General Permit: 1) To obtain Construction General Permit coverage, construction projects must include a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that demonstrates compliance with the City’s Grading Ordinances and other local requirements. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-36 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance 2) The SWPPP must demonstrate implementation of seasonally appropriate and effective best management practices (BMPs) to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains, before approval and issuance of local grading permits. 3) Such construction projects are required to implement the stormwater BMPs identified by the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, including plans to address materials and waste management, equipment management and spill control, grading and earthmoving to prevent erosion, paving and asphalt work, concrete and mortar applications, painting and paint removal, landscaping and dewatering. Regulatory Requirement Hydrology 1B, Permitting Requirements for Dewatering Discharges: Depending on volume and pollutants of non-stormwater discharges associated with an individual construction dewatering activity, and the dewatering methodology to be applied, different regulatory requirements apply. For non-stormwater dewatering discharges, each individual construction project shall obtain coverage either under the Construction General Permit, Statewide Low-Threat Discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) or a site-specific NPDES permit. Typical dewatering methods permitted pursuant to these regulatory requirements include: 1) Discharge to a Stormdrain: Authorized non-stormwater may be discharged to a storm drain under the Construction General Permit. A permit from the local sewer agency must be obtained prior to such discharge. This approach is generally appropriate for water that contains some sediment and/or pollutants, but sediment may require pre- treatment and acceptable pollutants and pollutant levels are defined by the sewerage agency. Such permits typically include provisions for fees, requirements for pre- discharge testing and reporting, and establishment of acceptable discharge limitations/prohibitions typically pertaining to the chemical quality of the water, discharge flow rates and quantities. 2) Managing Water within the Project Site: Accumulated non-stormwater may be retained and managed on the construction site, general pursuant to statewide low- threat discharge Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). Retained water is evaporated, infiltrated into the soil, or is used onsite for dust control, irrigation or other construction-related purposes. This approach is generally appropriate for water that is free of pollutants, other than sediment. 3) Off-Site Treatment: This option is typically appropriate for water with toxic pollutants that cannot be discharged elsewhere. Under this approach, water is hauled off-site for treatment, typically involving a licensed commercial contractor who can remove, Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-37 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance transport and dispose (or treat and recycle) polluted water. General requirements of this approach include acceptance of a NOI for coverage under the Construction General Permit, plus chemical testing of water quality and management of the water as hazardous waste, with applicable regulatory agency (typically RWQCB) oversight (see also Mitigation Measure Hazards-4: Site Assessment in the Hazards and Hazardous Waste chapter of this EIR). 4) Site-Specific NPDES Dewatering Permits: For those dewatering activities that cannot obtain permission to discharge to the local sanitary sewer and where the discharge cannot be regulated under the Construction General Permit or the statewide low- threat discharge WDRs, site-specific NPDES Dewatering Permits may be sought. General requirements for site-specific NPDES dewatering permits include monitoring and reporting as required by the Regional Board, and discharge and receiving water requirements (including water quality objectives, discharge prohibitions and TMDLs) as defined in the Basin Plan and specific NPDES permit obligations. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1C, Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan: All new Regulated Projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update will be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP, including requirements to incorporate post-construction stormwater control and low-impact development (LID) measures. Each individual development project must meet Provision C.3 requirements capable of reducing long-term impacts of development on stormwater quality. Some combination of the following post-construction stormwater controls will be required to demonstrate compliance with the hydraulic design criteria of the MRP: 1) Site design may include minimizing impervious surfaces that are directly connected to the storm drain system, or using landscaping as a drainage feature. 2) Source control measures may include roofed trash enclosures, berms that control runoff from a pollutant source, use of indoor mats/equipment wash racks that are connected to the sanitary sewer (where allowed under separate sewer discharge permits), and regular inspection and cleaning of storm drain inlets. 3) Stormwater treatments may be met by a combination of measures that may include, but are not limited to bioretention areas, flow-through planter boxes, infiltration trenches, extended detention basins, green roofs, pervious paving and grid pavements, rainwater harvesting and subsurface infiltration systems. Hydro 2: Future development pursuant to the Project will not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such None needed Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-38 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance that the project may impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Hydro 3: Future development pursuant to the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site, or create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A - Construction General Permit/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (see above) Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1B - Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan (see above) Less than Significant Hydro 4: Future development pursuant to the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation as a result of a flood hazard, tsunami or seiche. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 4A, National Flood Insurance Program: Executive Order 11988 is a federal regulation that requires the prevention of uneconomic, hazardous or incompatible use of floodplains; protection and preservation of the natural and beneficial floodplain values; and consistency with the standards and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 4B, South San Francisco Municipal Code: Chapter 15.56, Section 15.56.140 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code identifies standards specific to construction in coastal high hazard areas. Developments shall be elevated above the flood level, anchored and constructed of materials resistant to flood damage. Less than Significant Sea Level Rise: Most of adverse effects of mid-century sea level rise at the Genentech Campus will likely be confined to the 100-foot shoreline setback along the Bay. This setback restricts Campus development adjacent to sensitive natural areas such as tidal wetlands, which also provide for storm surge and wave dissipation. In the longer term (or under accelerated and/or more severe weather conditions) adaptation to sea level rise at the Campus may prove to be more critical. None required. The effects that potential future sea level rise may have on the Project is not a CEQA matter. Therefore, analysis of potential sea level rise effects is provided for informational purposes only, but may also provide context for future City consideration of appropriate sea level rise adaptation strategies. Not a CEQA Impact Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-39 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Land Use Land Use 1: The Project would not physically divide an established community None needed No Impact Land Use 2: Implementation of the Project would modify or change certain land use regulations applicable to the Project Area, but would not cause a significant environmental impacts due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. None required. However, to clarify the City’s position regarding consistency with ALUCP criteria, the following mitigation measure is recommended: MM Land Use 2, Building Height Limits: Any proposed building within the Project Area that would exceed FAA notification heights shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA. a) Any structure that exceeds the Horizontal Surface Plane of 163.2 feet above mean sea level, that otherwise exceeds applicable FAA Part 77 criteria, or which exceed 200 feet above the ground level of its site shall be required to comply with the findings of an FAA aeronautical study. Structures subject to such FAA review shall comply with any FAA-recommended alterations in the building design and/or height, and any recommended marking and lighting of the structure as may be necessary to be found by the FAA as not posing a hazard to air navigation. b) The maximum height of new buildings within the Project area shall be the lower of the height shown on the SFO Critical Aeronautical Surfaces Map, or the maximum height determined by the FAA as being “not a hazard to air navigation” based on an aeronautical study. c) The Project proponent shall provide documentation to the City Planning Division demonstrating that the FAA has issued a ‘Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation” when such determination is applicable. Mitigation Measure Geology 2 - Geotechnical Requirements for Hillside Opportunity Sites (see above): This MM specifically requires site-specific geotechnical studies to be conducted for each new development at hillside Opportunity Sites, with implementation of site-specific recommendations as part of detailed plans for subsequent development. Less than Significant Land Use 3: The Project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. None needed No Impact Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-40 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Noise Noise 1: Construction activities pursuant to the Project could generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of noise levels that exceed the noise standards established in SSFMC Section 8.32.030. Mitigation Measure Noise 1A, Construction Period BMPs: The following mitigation measures are recommended for construction activity within the Project Area that is within 50 feet of an adjacent off-site property (i.e., where construction noise may exceed the 90dBA limit of the SSF Municipal Code). The Project applicant shall require, by contract specifications, that best management practices (BMPs) for construction activity be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: a) Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must be provided to surrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the construction period. b) Maintain all construction equipment to minimize noise emissions. All construction equipment shall be equipped with mufflers and sound control devices (e.g., intake silencers and noise shrouds) that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. c) Place stationary noise- and vibration-generating construction equipment away from sensitive uses where feasible. d) Construction staging areas and operation of earthmoving and or other noise- generating or vibration-generating equipment should be located as far away from noise sensitive sites as possible. e) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly prohibited. f) Schedule high noise-producing activities during times when they would be least likely to interfere with the noise-sensitive activities of the adjacent land uses, when possible. g) For any new development pursuant to the Project that may require deep foundations, consider the use of augured-cast-in-place piles or drilled shafts, rather than use of impact or vibratory pile drivers. h) Implement noise attenuation measures to the extent feasible, which many include, but are not limited to, noise barriers or noise blankets i) The construction contractor shall provide the name and telephone number of an on- site construction liaison. If construction noise is found to be intrusive to surrounding properties (i.e., if complaints are received), the construction liaison shall investigate Significant and Unavoidable Construction noise is typically not considered significant if its duration is for a period of less than one year, construction noise is temporary and episodic in nature, and mitigation measures presented include all reasonable and feasible methods to reduce construction noise effects. However, since the details of construction activity cannot be known in advance, this impact is conservatively considered significant and unavoidable Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-41 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance the source of the noise and require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem. Mitigation Measure Noise 1B, Truck Routes: The Project applicant shall require, by contract specifications, that heavily loaded trucks used during construction be routed away from noise-sensitive and vibration-sensitive uses to the extent possible. Genentech will also continue to prepare and implement a Noise Attenuation and Logistics Plan for any new development that is within 50 feet of an existing Genentech building, demonstrating consistency with all applicable OSHA requirements for safe workspaces, and any other private Genentech-based noise standards for a healthy workplace. Noise 2: Operational activities associated with the Project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Mitigation Measure Noise 2, Mechanical and Industrial Equipment Noise Reduction Requirements: The project applicant shall analyze or provide documentation of future exterior mechanical or industrial equipment to determine if the equipment would exceed applicable operational noise standards. If so, noise control measures must be provided to meet the City’s requirements. Typical noise control measures include barriers, enclosures, silencers and acoustical louvers at vent openings. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project applicant shall submit a report verifying that noise levels generated by project mechanical equipment are no greater than applicable noise standards at receiving properties. Less than Significant Noise 3: C Construction activities pursuant to the Project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration, but could adversely affect vibration-sensitive equipment and persons within the Project Area. Mitigation Measure Noise 3A, Pre-Construction Survey: Prior to the commencement of ground clearing activities, the project applicant shall verify that: a) no heavy construction activity that may generate a PPV of more than 0.10 inches/second at 25 feet would occur within 10 feet of an adjacent, non-Genentech building, and that b) no heavy construction activity that may generate a PPV of more than 0.20 inches/second at 25 feet would occur within 20 feet of an adjacent, non-Genentech building c) If no such construction activity would occur within these specified distances from an adjacent, off-site building, then construction activities would not exceed the building damage threshold, and construction may begin with no further action required for vibration effects. Mitigation Measure 3B, Changes to Construction Plans: If heavy construction activity is proposed at distances closer to an adjacent, non-Genentech building than those distances prescribed in Mitigation Measure Noise 3A, such that vibration impacts may result in damage to and adjacent building, the project applicant shall adjust the construction plan Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-42 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance such that it would not generate vibration levels at the adjacent building that exceed the building damage threshold of 0.50 inches per second PPV. Genentech will also continue to prepare and implement a Noise Attenuation and Logistics Plan for any new development that is within 20 feet of an existing Genentech building, demonstrating consistency with all applicable OSHA requirements for safe workspaces, and any other private Genentech-based noise standards for a healthy workplace. Mitigation Measure Noise 1A, Construction Period BMPs (see above) Mitigation Measure Noise 1B, Truck Routes (see above) Noise 4: Operational activities pursuant to the Project would not generate excessive ground-borne vibration, and would not adversely affect vibration-sensitive equipment or persons within the Project Area. None required Less than Significant Noise 5: Traffic generated by the Project would result in increased traffic volumes that would increase local ambient traffic noise levels by greater than 3 dBA CNEL at locations that would also meet or exceed 65 dBA CNEL, but the Project’s increased traffic noise would not adversely affect existing noise-sensitive receptors. None needed. Less than Significant Noise 6: The Project would not expose people working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels due to proximity to airport-related noise sources. None needed. Less than Significant Population, Housing and Employment Pop/Emp. 1: The Project will result in a substantial increase in local South San Francisco employment, but will not result in employment growth beyond that contemplated in the City, and will not induce population growth beyond that contemplated in the county or the region. Regulatory Requirement Pop. /Emp. 1: Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fees: Each new development project within the Genentech Campus will be required to pay the City’s established commercial linkage fee to mitigate impacts on affordable housing in the City. Less than Significant Pop/Emp. 2: Implementation of the Project would not displace any existing housing that would necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. None required Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-43 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Pop/Emp. 3: Implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people. None required Less than Significant Public Services Public Services 1: The Project would increase the number of employees in the Project Area over time, gradually increasing the demand for police within the Project Area. However, the Project is and will continue to be adequately served with police service from existing facilities or new facilities to be constructed per citywide efforts, and impacts related to police services would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirement Services 1, Public Safety Impact Fees: Genentech will be required to pay the City of South San Francisco’s Public Safety Impact Fees as applicable at the time of new construction. Less than Significant Public Services 2: The Project would increase the number of employees in the Project Area over time, gradually increasing the demand for fire and emergency medical services within the Project Area. However, the Project is and will continue to be adequately served with fire and emergency medical service from existing facilities or new facilities to be constructed per citywide efforts, and impacts related to fire and emergency medical services would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirement Services 2A, Compliance with Fire Code: Individual projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update will be required to comply with the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code), and the City Fire Marshall’s code requirements regarding on-site access for emergency vehicles. Regulatory Requirement Services 1, Public Safety Impact Fees: Genentech will be required to pay the City of South San Francisco’s Public Safety Impact Fees as applicable at the time of new construction. Less than Significant Public Services 3: The Project would increase the number of employees in the Project Area over time, gradually increasing the demand for recreational space within or near the Project Area. However, the existing Campus contains substantial public and private open space areas, and the Project includes plans for increasing open spaces with plazas, pathways, and common open space to serve new employees. Impacts related to recreational open space would be less than significant. Regulatory Requirement Services 3, Parkland Acquisition and Construction Fees: Genentech will be required to pay Parkland Acquisition and Construction fees pursuant to Chapter 8.67 of the SSF Municipal Code. Any changes or additions to the Bay Trail improvements within the Genentech Campus will be subject to BCDC consideration and approval of amended permit conditions. Through on- site provision of recreational opportunities, payment of in-lieu fees to support off-site recreational opportunities as required by SSF Municipal Code, and required BCDC jurisdictional permit approval processes, the Project will not result in significant environmental impacts related to parks or recreation facilities. Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-44 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Traffic and Circulation Transp 1: The Project would contribute traffic to intersections in the Project vicinity that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for intersection levels of service (LOS) or queuing at twenty (20) of the 27 traffic study intersections. Regulatory Requirement Transportation 1A - Assumed Signal Timing Adjustments: The Project Sponsor shall pay South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, representing their fair-share contribution toward the following traffic signal timing adjustments already included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program: a) Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1). Adjust the signal timing at the intersection to allow the southbound right-turn movement to overlap with the eastbound left turn movement. This timing adjustment would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. (LTS) b) Dubuque Avenue/101 NB off-ramp/Oyster Pt. Boulevard (#2). Adjust the signal timing at the intersection to provide additional green time for the eastbound movement in the AM, and to provide additional green time for the westbound movement in the PM. This signal timing would reduce the queue compared to the existing conditions. The queue would still exceed available storage space, but the Project would not further extend queues beyond existing conditions. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (conservatively SU) c) Gateway Boulevard/East Grand Avenue (#15). Adjust the signal timing at this intersection to convert the eastbound left turn phase from a lagging phase to a leading phase. This timing adjustment would reduce delay to an acceptable LOS D. (LTS) d) East Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue (#23): Optimize the signal timing, allowing the northbound right-turn movement to overlap with the westbound left-turn movement, and change the existing northbound through/left-turn lane to allow northbound through/left/right turn movements. These measures would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour. (LTS) Regulatory Requirement Transportation 1B - East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Improvements: The Project Sponsor shall pay South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, representing their fair-share contribution toward the following intersection improvements already included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program: a) Oyster Point Boulevard/Eccles Avenue (#6). Add an eastbound right-turn lane and provide a northbound configuration that includes a northbound right-turn lane, a northbound left-turn lane and a 100-foot northbound left-turn pocket, in conjunction with optimized signal timing. Because the addition of an eastbound right-turn lane Significant and Unavoidable Regulatory requirements and/or mitigation measures have been identified that are capable of reducing impacts at 13 of the 20 affected intersections, but no feasible or certain improvements have been identified as capable of reducing impacts to a less than significant level at 7 affected study intersections. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-45 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance would lengthen pedestrian crossing distances and overlap with an existing bike lane, a pedestrian refuge in the median and expanded green bike lane (conflict zone) markings should also be included. This measure would result in an acceptable LOS B in the AM peak hour. (LTS) b) Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive (#7). Extend the double northbound left-turn lanes to approximately 200 feet, add an eastbound right-turn pocket, add a second northbound left-turn lane, and adjust the signal timing to allow the eastbound right and northbound left movements to overlap. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS) c) Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): Add a second southbound left-turn lane and convert the southbound right-turn lane to a through/right lane. This measure would reduce delay and improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the AM peak hour. However, the improvements would not reduce the length of the southbound left turn queue, and as such the queuing impact would be significant and unavoidable. (SU) d) East Grand Avenue/Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard (#16): Add a westbound through lane, an eastbound right-turn lane, an eastbound through lane, and time-of-day geometry changes for northbound and southbound approaches. Because these improvements would lengthen crosswalk distances and exacerbate conflicts with bicyclists along East Grand Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, the mitigation should incorporate pedestrian refuge islands, bicycle conflict zone markings and consider the removal of slip lanes. This measure would decrease delay to an acceptable LOS D in both AM and PM peak hours. (LTS) e) East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (#17): Install a traffic signal, including a protected southbound left-turn movement. This measure would improve intersection operations to acceptable LOS B in the PM peak hour. (LTS) f) East Grand Avenue/DNA Way (#18): Install a traffic signal and add an additional eastbound left turn lane. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. (LTS) g) Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19): Widen the westbound approach to consist of three dedicated left turn lanes, one through lane, and one shared through-right lane. This measure would reduce both queuing and vehicular delay to an acceptable LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS) Mitigation Measure Transportation 1: Additions to East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program: The Project applicant shall pay its fair-share toward the following intersection improvements by either; 1) fully funding the following improvement subject to fee credits Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-46 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance if the improvement is subsequently included in the City’s CIP update; or 2) paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees if the City has included these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prior to issuance of building permits for development that triggers these mitigation improvements: a) 101 SB/Oyster Pt. Boulevard off Ramp (#4). Add an additional eastbound through lane, and change the signal phasing to implement an overlap phase for the northeast-bound right turn movement. These measures would reduce queues to levels not exceeding existing conditions. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (conservatively SU) b) Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8): Install a traffic signal with optimized signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS A in the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS with MM) c) Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard (#9): Adjust the existing signal timing and extend the southbound left turn pocket to 500 feet. This measure would partially mitigate the impact by decreasing delay, but the intersection would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour. (SU) d) Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/ US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10). Adjusting the signal timing to lengthen northbound through and eastbound right phases. This timing adjustment would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS C in the PM peak hour. However, this signal is operated by Caltrans and requests to modify signal timing may not be approved. As such, this impact is conservatively assumed to be significant and unavoidable. (conservatively SU) e) South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue (#20). Separate the existing shared northbound through/right lane into one northbound through lane and a northbound right turn lane, add one westbound through lanes, one eastbound right turn lane, one eastbound left turn lane and one southbound right turn lane. These improvements would lengthen crosswalk distances and exacerbate conflicts with bicyclists along Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard; consequently, median pedestrian refuges and green bicycle conflict zone markings should be added. This measure decreases delay to an acceptable LOS C during the AM peak hour and acceptable LOS D during the PM peak hour, and reduces queuing to an acceptable level. These improvements are only partially included the East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program. (LTS with MM) f) Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24): Install a traffic signal at this intersection, add a 250- foot eastbound left turn lane and a 100-foot northbound left turn lane and optimize Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-47 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance the signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to LOS B in the AM peak hour and LOS A in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM) g) Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25): Add a traffic signal at this intersection and optimize signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to LOS A in both the AM and PM peak hours. (LTS with MM) Transp 2: Although the Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, it would not resulting in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service at freeway ramp locations. None needed Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with, and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will further reduce its contribution of trips on the CMP network, including its contributions of traffic to freeway ramps. Less than Significant Transp 3: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, resulting in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service along two freeway segments (southbound US-101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard and northbound US-101 south of Produce Avenue). There are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway segments due to constrained right-of-way and a corresponding inability to add traffic capacity or reduce vehicular delay. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including increased traffic on US-101 freeway segments. Significant and Unavoidable Transp 4: The Project’s on-site vehicle circulation system would not present a design hazard. None required Less than Significant Transp 5: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. None needed. Less than Significant Transp 6: The Project would contribute to cumulative traffic levels that would result in conflicts with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures of effectiveness for intersection levels of service (LOS) at 22 intersections. Mitigation measures identify improvements that could be made at 7 of the 22 affected intersections, but 4 of these improvements do not currently have an identified funding source. No feasible improvements have been identified as being capable of reducing impacts to less Mitigation Measure Transportation 6A: Implement Existing plus Project Measures. Pursuant to regulatory requirements and mitigation measures identified under Existing plus Project conditions, the Project applicant shall pay its fair-share toward the following intersection improvements by either; 1) fully funding the following improvement subject to fee credits if the improvement is subsequently included in the City’s CIP update; or 2) paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees if the City has included these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prior to issuance of building permits for development that triggers these mitigation improvements. These Existing plus Project improvements also improve traffic conditions under the Cumulative plus Project condition, as indicated below: Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation measures identify improvements that could be made at 7 of the 22 affected intersections, but 4 of these improvements do not Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-48 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance than significant levels under the Cumulative plus Project scenario at 15 affected study intersections. a) Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue (#8): Implement Regulatory Requirement Transportation 1(d), which provides for installation of a traffic signal with optimized signal timing. This measure would improve Cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS B in the AM and LOS C in the PM peak hour. (LTS) b) Grand Avenue/Littlefield Avenue (#23): Implement Mitigation Measure Transportation 1(b), which provides for an adjustment to the signal timing to allow the northbound right turn phase to overlap with the westbound left turn phase. This measure would reduce Cumulative delay to LOS D in the AM peak hour. (LTS with MM) c) Mitchell Road/Harbor Way (#24): Implement Mitigation Measure Transportation 1(f), which provides for installation of a traffic signal at this intersection, and adding an additional 250-foot eastbound left turn pocket as well as a 100-foot northbound left turn pocket. These improvements would improve Cumulative intersection operations to LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS B in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM) Mitigation Measure Transportation 6B: Additions to East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program: If the City includes the following improvements in its East of 101 Transportation Impact Fee Program and Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the Project applicant shall pay its fair-share toward these intersection improvements by paying the City’s Transportation Impact Fees: a) Airport Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (#1): Add overlap phases for the southbound right and northbound right movements, and optimizing signal timing. This measure would improve intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D. However, this mitigation measure would not reduce the length of the southbound left turn vehicle queue to an acceptable level. There are no other feasible mitigations at this location. (SU) b) Dubuque Avenue/US-101 Ramps (#3): Change the eastbound through-right lane to a left-through-right lane, introduce an overlap phase for the southbound right turn movement and optimize the signal timing. This measure would reduce delay to achieve LOS D during the AM and PM peak hour, and would reduce eastbound left/through queue length to an acceptable level in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) c) Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#4): Increase cycle length to 160 seconds, providing an overlap phase for the northeast-bound right turn movement, and optimizing timing splits. These changes would decrease delay and improve operations to an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour, but would not improve cumulative operations to an acceptable level of service in the PM peak hour. This measure would also not reduce queuing to acceptable lengths. (SU) currently have an identified funding source. No feasible improvements have been identified as being capable of reducing impacts to less than significant levels under the Cumulative plus Project scenario at 15 affected study intersections. Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-49 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance d) Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US-101 SB Off-Ramp (#10): Adjust the signal timing to lengthen the westbound green time. This measure would improve cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. However, this intersection is under the jurisdiction of Caltrans and the City cannot ensure this mitigation is implemented. (SU) e) Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue (#11): Adjust the signal timing to lengthen the westbound green time. This measure would improve cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) f) Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19). Modify the signal timing. This measure would decrease delay but would not improve cumulative operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. (SU) g) South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#20). Update the signal timing. This measure would decrease delay but would not improve cumulative operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. (SU) h) South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue (#22): Separate the westbound left turn lane into one westbound left and one westbound through lane, and adjust the signal timing to allow the northbound right and westbound left movements to overlap in the AM peak hour. This improvement would reduce cumulative delay, but would not achieve an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, changing configuration of the westbound approach would reduce delay to LOS D. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection. (SU) i) Utah Avenue/Harbor Way (#25): Add a traffic signal at this intersection, and reconfigure the approaches to add one eastbound left turn pocket and one westbound left-turn pocket, and convert the existing shared westbound through-right lane to a right turn lane. This measure would improve intersection operations to LOS B in the AM and PM peak hours.(LTS with MM, conservatively SU) j) Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26). Extending cycle length and optimizing the signal timing at this location would improve cumulative intersection operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour, but would not result in decreased queue lengths on the southbound right turn movement. (SU) k) I-380 Eastbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#27): Extend the cycle length and optimize the signal timing at this location. This measure would improve intersection Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-50 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance operations to an acceptable LOS D in the PM peak hour. (LTS with MM, conservatively SU) Transp 7: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service at two nearby freeway interchanges (US-101/Oyster Point Boulevard and US- 101/Produce Avenue). There are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway interchanges. The northbound freeway on-ramp at Oyster Point Boulevard has a constrained right-of-way, and the Produce Avenue northbound off-ramp also has constrained right-of-way and a lack of capacity on surface roadways to accommodate more exiting vehicles Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including its contributions of traffic to freeway ramps. Significant and Unavoidable Transp 8: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service on the freeway at 7 freeway segments (northbound US-101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard; southbound US-101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound US-101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue; southbound US-101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue; northbound US-101 between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue; southbound US-101 between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue; and northbound US-101, south of Produce Avenue). As there are no feasible mitigation measures for these impacts to freeway segment due to constrained right of way on US-101. Consistent with C/CAG guidelines, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with and exceeds City requirements. That TDM program will serve to reduce its otherwise greater contribution of trips on the CMP network, including increased traffic on US-101 freeway segments. Significant and Unavoidable Transp 9: The Project’s calculated rate of VMT per employee is lower than the VMT target reduction thresholds of 15% below the regional average worker- based VMT, the Project would not exceed the VMT threshold, and VMT impacts of the Project would be less than significant. None required, other than the Project’s proposed TDM Program and Trip Cap Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-51 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance Utilities and Service Systems Utilities 1: The Project’s water demands would not exceed water supplies available to serve the Project, and there is sufficient water supplies to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dray and multiple dry years. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 1, CalGreen Water Conservation Standards: All new development pursuant to the Master Plan (the Project) are subject to the water conservation requirements of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Nonresidential (CalGreen, 2016), or as may be amended. These requirements, as pertaining to water conservation, include: 1) Installation of separate sub-meters or metering devices for each individual leased, rented, or other tenant space within the building projected to consume more than 100 gal/day, including, but not limited to spaces used for laboratories, and for water supplied to sub-systems used for make-up water for cooling towers, evaporative coolers, and steam and hot-water boilers. The intent of this code requirement is to reduce potable water use in new or altered buildings by making building owners and/or tenants aware of their daily potable water consumption to encourage voluntary reduction. 2) Install water conserving plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) that meet maximum allowable flow rates. The intent of this code regulation is to reduce the overall use of potable water within the building. 3) Compliance with mandatory Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) measures for outdoor water use in landscape areas, or a local water efficient landscape ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water. The intent of this code requirement is to reduce the overall outdoor water used for irrigation for both new landscaping areas and rehabilitated landscape projects. Less than Significant Utilities 2: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water conveyance facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects Regulatory Requirement Utilities 2, Water Service Connections: Genentech will be responsible for connecting new buildings pursuant to the Project to existing or new Cal Water service connections. All such water service connections will be required to adhere to applicable Code requirements, and these requirements will be incorporated into individual development project designs and construction. Less than Significant Utilities 3: The Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 3, Wastewater Discharge Permit: New development pursuant to the Project will be required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit from the Environmental Compliance Supervisor of the City of South San Francisco. Each new project shall comply with all requirements or limitations of that permit as cited in the City's Wastewater Discharge Ordinance, Municipal Code, Environmental Compliance Program or any applicable State and federal laws. New development projects pursuant to the Project Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-52 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance will be classified as institutional, commercial or industrial users, depending on the types of discharge from the facility. New industrial uses will be further classified as either Categorical Industrial User (an industrial user subject to categorical pretreatment standards or categorical standards), or as a Significant Industrial User (designated as such because the industrial use has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting operation of the treatment plant or to violate pretreatment standard or requirements). 1) New uses designated by the City of South San Francisco as Categorical Industrial Users will be required to develop and implement a plan designed to reduce the amount of pollutants of concern (copper, cyanide, selenium, mercury, perchloroethylene and tributyltin) discharged into the sanitary and the storm water sewer systems. Certain industrial uses within the Project Area may also require a pH neutralization system for pretreatment of industrial process wastewater discharge. 2) New uses designated by the City of South San Francisco as Significant Industrial Users will be subject to additional requirements or limitations as may be cited in the City's Wastewater Discharge Ordinance, Municipal Code, Environmental Compliance Program or any applicable State and federal Laws. Effluent sampling and monitoring is required to verify compliance with applicable regulations and limitations. Utilities 4: The Project will not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider (the City of South San Francisco) that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the Project’s wastewater treatment and disposal demands, in addition to its existing commitments. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 4, East of 101 Sewer Fees: New development within the Project Area will contribute to East of 101 sewer improvements in accordance with existing requirements of the East of 101 Sewer Fee contribution formula, established by Resolution 97-2002 (or as that resolution may be amended). These fees represent “fair-share” payments towards the availability of sewer collection, treatment and disposal capacity for the Project, and apply to all discretionary land use approvals, including Administrative Review, Minor Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits. Less than Significant Utilities 5: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater collection facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 5, Sewer Lateral Construction: Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code, Chapter 14.14 Sewer Lateral Construction, Maintenance and Inspection, as new development occurs within the Project Area, Genentech will be responsible for constructing, operating and maintaining all individual building sanitary sewer laterals from the building to the City sanitary sewer main. Mitigation Measure Utilities 5, Detailed Hydraulic Analysis and System Upgrades: Subsequent detailed hydraulic analysis will ultimately be needed pursuant to individual development projects that rely on the segment of sewer line contributing to Pump Station #8. The results of this detailed analysis will determine whether and when the capacity of these wastewater collection facilities may need to be increased to meet demand. The Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-53 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance wastewater collection system will be upgraded as necessary to accommodate future growth. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 4, East of 101 Sewer Fees (see above) Util-6: The Project will not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded storm water drainage facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1A, Construction General Permit/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: (see further detail in the Hydrology chapter of this EIR). Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1B, Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan: (see further detail in the Hydrology chapter of this EIR). Less than Significant Utilities 7: Future development pursuant to the Project will not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards or in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. The Project will comply with federal, state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 7A, Construction Waste Management Plan: Individual development projects pursuant to the Project will be required to develop and implement a Construction Waste Management Plan, pursuant to City Ordinance Chapter 15.60 Recycling and Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition. Pursuant to these requirements, each new construction project must: 1) Direct one hundred percent of inert solids to reuse or recycling facilities approved by the city, and either: 2) Take all mixed construction and demolition debris to a recycling facility and take all sorted or crushed construction and demolition debris to approved facilities, or 3) Separate by source all non-inert materials such as cardboard and paper, wood, metals, green waste, new gypsum wallboard, tile, porcelain fixtures, and other easily recycled materials, and direct them to recycling facilities approved by the city, and taking the remainder to a facility for disposal. In this option, calculations must be provided to show that the minimum amount of debris as specified by Section 4.408 of Chapter 4 of CALGreen has been diverted. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 7B, Recyclable Materials: Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code, section 8.28.070, persons desiring to participate in the recycling materials collection service program shall prepare and separate recyclable materials from other solid waste as required by the collection contract, so as to constitute source separated recyclable materials, and thereafter place the source separated recyclable materials within receptacles. 1) Each type of source separated recyclable material shall be placed in the receptacle designated for such purpose, and shall not be mixed with any other solid waste, including any other type of recyclable material. 2) Receptacles containing recyclable materials for multiple unit residential properties, commercial and industrial and/or institutional properties shall be of a size and Less than Significant Chapter 1: Introduction and Executive Summary Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 1-54 Table 1-1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Potentially Significant Impacts Regulatory Requirements / Mitigation Measures Resulting Level of Significance serviceability agreed to by the authorized recycling agent and placed at the designated collection location. Utilities 8: The Project would result in an incremental increase in the demand for gas and electrical power. However, the Project will not result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operation, or conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Regulatory Requirement Utilities 8, Energy Conservation: All new development pursuant to the Project will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to energy, including but not limited to the standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and the newest California Green Building Standards Code, as applicable, which incorporate energy-conserving design and construction requirements. Less than Significant Agriculture and Forest Resources Agriculture 1: The Project would not convert designated farmland under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, nor would it conflict with any existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, nor would it involve any changes to the environment that would result in the conversion of designated farmland. None needed No Impact Agriculture 2: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland or timberland, nor would it result in the loss of or conversion of forestland to non-forest uses. None needed No Impact Mineral Resources Minerals 1: The Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. None needed No Impact Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-1 2 Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Introduction This chapter includes copies of written comments received by mail or electronic mail during the public review and comment period on the Draft EIR. Specific responses to the individual comments in each correspondence follow each letter. Each correspondence is identified by an alphabetical designator (e.g., “A”). Specific comments within each correspondence are identified by a numeric designator that reflects the numeric sequence of the specific comment within the correspondence (e.g., “A-1” for the first comment in Comment Letter A). Responses focus on comments that pertain to the adequacy of the analysis in the Draft EIR or to other aspects pertinent to the potential effects of the Project on the environment pursuant to CEQA. Comments that address topics beyond the purview of this EIR or CEQA are noted as such for the public record. List of Comment Letters The following is a list of letters received by the City, commenting on the Draft EIR. Public Agencies Letter A: State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Letter B: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4 Letter C: California Highway Control, San Francisco Area Letter D: San Mateo County Department of Public Works Letter E: City of San Bruno Letter F: San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Members of the Public Letter G: Rob Lau Letter H: Koray Ergur A-1 A-2 Letter A State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-3 Response to Letter A State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research Response to Comment A-1 This comment states that the State Clearinghouse did submit the Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review, and that comments from the responding agencies are available on the CEQA database. The OPR CEQA database was checked for submitted comments, and two comments were submitted: one from Caltrans District 4 (see Letter B), and one from the California Highway Patrol (see Letter C). Response to Comment A-2 This comment acknowledges that the City has complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. No further response to this comment is required. B-1 Letter B California Department of Transportation, District 4 B-4 B-2 Letter B California Department of Transportation, District 4 (cont.) B-3 Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 2-6 Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Response to Letter B California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4 Response to Comment B-1 This comment references the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan, which identifies priority Class II/IV bikeway improvements at the US-101/Grand Avenue and US-101/Oyster Point Boulevard interchanges, and indicates that the Project should contribute to these improvements to promote bicycle access. The Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan Web Map shows minor interchange improvements (signage and striping) for a Class IIB facility at the East Grand Avenue interchange, and minor interchange improvements (signage and striping) for a Class IV bike facility at Oyster Point/Sister Cities Boulevard. 1 As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 17-61), pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code, Genentech is required to contribute to East of 101 transportation improvements in accordance with requirements of the East of 101 Transportation Fee Program, and Transportation Impact Fees may be used by the City to fund enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan. Payment of South San Francisco East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees represents the Project’s fair-share contribution toward planned bicycle system improvements and related project impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required to reduce project impacts on bicycle or pedestrian resources to a less than significant level. Response to Comment B-2 This comment suggests that the Project should contribute towards access improvements at the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, including crossing improvements at the Grand Avenue/East Grand Avenue intersection. It also suggests that the City/Project applicant should monitor the results of the upcoming Caltrans District 4 Pedestrian Plan to determine what pedestrian improvements related to the Project should be implemented as mitigation measures. The Genentech Master Plan will not have any direct adverse effects on any access improvements at the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and no mitigation is required. The Genentech Campus (at its nearest point) is approximately 0.8 miles from the new South San Francisco Caltrain Station site, and new development at the Campus will not affect the new station design. Genentech employees, as well as all employees in the East of 101 Area, will benefit from improved access to transit that the new Caltrain Station will provide. As an area- wide benefit, the City may elect to use a portion of collected East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, and/or may choose to amend its Transportation Impact Fee Program, to help fund enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure at the new station. Payment of South San Francisco East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees (or as these fees may be amended) represents the Project’s fair-share contribution toward planned bicycle and pedestrian system improvements to address cumulative effects. Response to Comment B-3 This comment suggests that the Project should determine whether there is adequate storage capacity at the US-101/Grand Avenue and US-101/Oyster Point Boulevard interchanges, and that if it is determined that there is inadequate storage capacity, the Project should mitigate its impacts on these ramps and intersections and/or contribute fair-share fees for these improvements. It also suggests that the Project sponsor coordinate with Caltrans, the County Transportation Authority, and the City of South San Francisco to implement mitigation measures for the impacted intersections owned by Caltrans. 1 Accessed 1/21/20 at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=91f1bb4eb7ff418092977b762b459d01 Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-7 The Draft EIR did include an evaluation of the storage capacity of intersections at and near the US-101 interchanges at East Grand Avenue and at Oyster Point Boulevard and concluded the following under Existing plus Project conditions: ● At the intersection at Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard (Intersection #1), and the intersection at Dubuque Avenue/101 NB off-ramp/101 SB on-ramp (Intersection #3), the Project would not extend or contribute to queues beyond existing storage distances. ● At the 101 NB/Oyster Point Boulevard off-ramp (Intersection #2), the Project would cause a greater than one percent increase in traffic volumes on the AM eastbound through movement, contributing to queues that already exceed the available storage length. Adjusting the signal timing to provide additional green time for the eastbound movement in the AM, and providing additional green time for the westbound movement in the PM (Regulatory Requirement Transp-1A[b]) would reduce vehicle queues as compared to existing conditions. The queue would still exceed available storage space, but the Project would not further extend queues beyond existing conditions. This traffic signal timing adjustment is already included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program and the Project Sponsor shall pay South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, representing their fair-share contribution toward this improvement. ● At the 101 SB/Gateway Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard off-ramp (Intersection #4), the Project would contribute more than one percent of total volumes to the northeast-bound right turn movement and to the shared eastbound through/right movement in the AM peak hour, causing queues to exceed available storage space. Adding an additional eastbound through-lane and changing the signal phasing to implement an overlap phase for the northeast-bound right turn movement (Mitigation Measure Transp-1[a]) would reduce queues to levels not exceeding existing conditions. To implement this mitigation measure, the Project applicant shall either fully fund the improvement subject to fee credits, or pay updated City Transportation Impact Fees if the City includes these improvements in its Capital Improvement Program (CIP). ● At the Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/101 SB off-ramp (Intersection #10), and at the East Grand Avenue/Grand Avenue intersection (Intersection #14), the Project would not extend or contribute to queues beyond existing storage distances. ● At the intersection of Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (Intersection #12), the Project would extend queues on the southbound left turn movement in the AM hour, which already exceed storage capacity. Adding a second southbound left-turn lane and converting the southbound right-turn lane to a through/right lane (Regulatory Requirement Transp-1B[c]) would reduce delay and improve intersection operations, but would not reduce the length of the southbound left turn queue. These improvements are already included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Program and the Project Sponsor shall pay South San Francisco’s East of 101 Transportation Impact Fees, representing their fair-share contribution toward this improvement, but the queuing impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The City of South San Francisco will coordinate with Caltrans and the County Transportation Authority to seek implementation of Transportation Impact Fee Program improvements at intersections owned by Caltrans. Response to Comment B-4 This comment notes that the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency, is responsible for all Project mitigation, including any needed improvements to US-101, and that the Project's fair-share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 2-8 Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR The City of South San Francisco recognizes its responsibilities as lead agency to ensure implementation of all required mitigation measures and regulatory requirements. As required by CEQA, the City will prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to identify all of the mitigation measures to which the Project will make fair-share contributions, as well as the scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring for these mitigation measures, consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15097. As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 17-57), the Project would increase freeway volumes by one to eight percent over existing traffic levels, but that there are no feasible mitigation measures for the Project’s impacts to freeway segments due to constrained right-of-way and a corresponding inability to add traffic capacity or reduce vehicle delay. Consistent with C/CAG Agency Guidelines for implementation of the 2015 Congestion Management Program, the Project will implement a TDM program that is consistent with, and exceeds City requirements, and that TDM program will serve to reduce its contribution of trips on US-101 freeway segments. From:Correa, Cruz@CHP To:Uhazi, Mary@CHP; OPR State Clearinghouse Cc:Ramos, Steve@CHP; CHP-30AAdesk; Scott, Mitchell@CHP Subject:EIR - 335 - SCH #2017052064 - No Impact Date:Monday, December 9, 2019 1:56:50 PM Attachments:RE 063-MHU Environmental Document Review-SCH#2017052064-DUE TO STATE CLEARINGHOUSE BY December 23 2019.msg I reviewed the notice of completion for SCH #2017052064, the Genentech Campus Master Plan Update, along with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Technical Appendices. No impact on the San Francisco Area’s local operations and or public safety by SCH #2017052064 was identified. Traffic-related issues that may arise have already been addressed in the DEIR or Technical Appendices. Please contact me with any questions or comments about my review. -- Cruz Correa Administrative Sergeant CHP – San Francisco Area (335) 455 8th Street San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 557-1094 C-1 Letter C California Highway Patrol Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 2-10 Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Response to Letter C California Highway Patrol Response to Comment C-1 This comment notes that no impacts to the San Francisco area local operations and or public safety was identified in the Draft EIR, and that traffic-related issues that may arise have already been addressed in the Draft EIR and/or Technical Appendices. No further response is required. D-1 D-2 Letter D County of San Mateo, Sept. of Public Works Letter D County of San Mateo, Sept. of Public Works (cont.) Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-13 Response to Letter D San Mateo County Department of Public Works Response to Comment D-1 The San Mateo County Flood Control District is a Countywide Special District that was created by State legislation in order to provide a mechanism to finance flood control projects. The legislation requires that a flood control zone be formed over an entire watershed, and a proposed funding source determined, prior to undertaking a flood control project. There are currently three active flood control zones within the SMCFCD, including Colma Creek. The Colma Creek Flood Control Zone was originally created in 1964 to construct flood control facilities in Colma Creek to alleviate flooding in the City of South San Francisco, and has since constructed numerous improvements to alleviate flooding along the Colma Creek channel. Based on available mapping (see Figure 1) the Genentech Campus does not appear to be included in the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. According to the South San Francisco Storm Drain System MS4 Map (see Figure 2),2 stormwater runoff from the Genentech Campus is directed into a series of underground stormdrain lines (primarily below Forbes Boulevard, DNA Way, Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue), which eventually drain into the San Francisco Bay, well outside of the outlet of Colma Creek. Stormwater runoff form the site is not directed to those City stormdrain lines that ultimately do outfall into the Colma Creek flood control channel. Response to Comment D-2 As indicated in the Draft EIR (Regulatory Requirement Hydro 1C - Provision C.3 Requirements/Stormwater Management Plan), all new Regulated Projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update will be required to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP, including requirements to incorporate post-construction stormwater control and low-impact development (LID) measures. Each individual development project must meet Provision C.3 requirements capable of reducing long-term impacts of development on stormwater quality. Standard City of South San Francisco condition of project approvals include requirements that sites subject to C.3 requirements of the MRP comply with provisions of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Technical Guidance Manual, including source controls (such as trash management) to limit pollution of receiving waters. 2 https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/environmental-compliance Source: San Mateo County Flood Control District Figure 1 Location of Project Area in relation to Colma Creek Flood Control Zone Colma Creek Flood Control Zone Genentech Master Plan Boundaries Source : https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/envi-ronmental-complianceFigure 2South San Francisco Storm Drain System MS4 Map E-1 E-2 Letter E City of San Bruno E-6 E-5 E-4 E-3 Letter E City of San Bruno (cont.) E-6 Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 2-18 Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Response to Letter E City of San Bruno Response to Comment E-1 Information presented on Tables 18-4 and 18-6 of the Draft EIR, indicating water supply and demands under normal years and drought conditions, were derived from the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared by the California Water Service (CalWater) in November 2017, and provided to the City for use in this EIR. These tables also match corresponding Tables 7-2 and 7-4 of CalWater’s 2015 Urban Water Management (UWMP) for the South San Francisco District. The comment specifically requests an explanation of why the “normal year” water demands as presented in Table 18-4 of the Draft EIR are lower than the “drought year” water demands is presented in Table 18-6 of the Draft EIR. The 2015 UWMP (page 19) includes the statement that, “the balance between supply and demand totals (as presented in Table 18-4 of the Draft EIR, and Table 7-2 of the UWMP) excludes use reductions that are not directly a function of CalWater supplies, but are externally-imposed by other entities, such as the 2015 state- mandated cutbacks.” City staff and our environmental consultants have interpreted this statement to mean that the externally imposed demand reductions (such as those imposed under the 2015 State-mandated cutbacks) are included in the basis for estimating future water demands under normal years, as presented in Table 18-4. However, these externally imposed demand reductions are not used as the basis for estimating future demands under drought years, as presented in Table 18-6. Under either of the water supply and demand scenarios presented in the Draft EIR, the higher water demands as presented in Table 18-6 of the Draft EIR represent the greatest demand as compared to supply, and demonstrate that the ‘worst-case’ (i.e., highest demands) have been assessed against ‘worst case’ (i.e., drought year) supply, and these impacts have been fully addressed in the Draft EIR. Response to Comment E-2 As indicated in the Draft EIR (page 18-17), “Table 18-4 shows the projected supply and demand totals for the three Peninsula Districts for a normal water year. In normal years, the full amount of Cal Water’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) of 39,967 AF is available, and the total of SFPUC-purchased water, SSF District groundwater and the Bear Gulch District surface supplies meets the combined demands of the three Districts through year 2040. Future demands are estimated as the product of future services and expected water use per service.” As suggested by Table 18-4, although the full ISG of SFPUC water is available, CalWater’s purchases would seek to match demands. For example, the year 2020 supply would include 1,535 AF of groundwater supplies, 1,260 AF of Bear Gulch District surface supplies, and purchase of 37,430 AF of the total 39,967 AF of CalWater’s ISG, such that water supply would meet expected demand. As demands increase over time, CalWater would purchase more of their SFPUC ISG supplies to meet growing demands. Response to Comment E-3 A detailed discussion of groundwater supplies and groundwater management planning efforts since 2003 is provided in the CalWater WSA (Appendix 18 to the Draft EIR). That information details the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, as amended in 2015 (SB 13, SB 226 and AB 1390), as well as the Groundwater Storage and Recovery Agreement between SFPUC, Daly City, San Bruno and CalWater (June 2016). That Agreement requires agencies to limit groundwater extraction from the Westside Basin to allow for storage recovery. In exchange, SFPUC supplies in-lieu water to affected agencies. The status of operating groundwater wells is evaluated annually, and restrictions are expected to continue through 2020. As noted in the CalWater WSA, a Westside Basin Model (HydroFocus, May 2011) indicated that the sustainable municipal pumping rate of the Westside Basin is 6.9 mgd, and CalWater, Daly City, and San Bruno intend to coordinate their respective pumping rates so that 6.9 mgd is not exceeded on an annual basis. Cal Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-19 Water plans to limit its production of groundwater from the Westside Basin to 1.37 mgd (1,535 AFY), which is consistent with current pumping capacity and historical pumping rates. As indicated in Response to Comment C-2, the water supplies indicated in Table 18-4 include this same 1,535 AF of groundwater supplies. Response to Comment E-4 As noted on page 18-3 of the Draft EIR, “South San Francisco and San Bruno jointly own the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP).” This joint ownership is pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the two cities, under which the City of South San Francisco operates the Plant. Consistent with the JPA, the City of San Bruno will be advised and consulted on any projects to expand or modify the Plant and/or outfalls, which may including future joint efforts with Genentech to consider innovative strategies to increase opportunities for water recycling. Response to Comment E-5 The year 2040 projection of 10.3 MGD of wastewater flows to the WQCP is the Final South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Facility Plan Update (Corollo Engineers, April 2011), and as specifically shown on Figure 1.3 of that document. The Draft EIR also cites the same Facility Plan Update to conclude that, “the treatment capacity of 13 mgd is adequate for a 30-year period, with an available reserve capacity of about 2.6 mgd.” The Draft EIR indicates that the Project’s estimated net new wastewater flows of approximately 0.3 mgd represent approximately 19 percent of the cumulative increase in average dry weather flows assumed in the Facility Plan Update by year 2040 and would not result in a cumulatively significant increase in treatment capacity demand at the WQCP. The Draft EIR does not suggest an allocation of the available 2.6 mgd capacity between SSF and San Bruno. Response to Comment E-6 As noted on page 18-15 of the Draft EIR, the water demand factors used in Table 18-3 are, “derived from Genentech’s 2016 CalWater utility bills for the Project Area, disaggregated by building and by land use type. These water demand factors account for all of the prior water conservation strategies and initiatives that Genentech has implemented since 2007.” As also indicated on page 18-15 of the Draft EIR, “By using water demand factors that already account for these prior water conservation and reduction efforts, Genentech is committing (at a minimum) to maintain these already reduced water use factors, and to extend comparable water conservation and reduction levels to all new development pursuant to the Project.” F-1 F-2 Letter F San Francisco International Airport F-4 F-3 Letter F San Francisco International Airport (cont.) F-5 F-6 Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 2-22 Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Response to Letter F San Francisco International Airport (SFO) Response to Comment F-1 This comment acknowledges that the Draft EIR recognizes the proximity of the Genentech Campus to SFO, and the requirements to consider federal, State, and local regulatory reviews specific to airport noise and land use compatibility standards, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Part 77 height restrictions, and airspace safety criteria of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). 3 This comment also encourages the City of South San Francisco to work closely with the C/CAG Board to determine project consistency with the ALUCP and other regulatory review procedures. The City intends to work collaboratively with the C/CAG Board for matters under their jurisdiction to ensure consistency with the ALUCP and other regulatory review procedures. Response to Comment F-2 The Draft EIR (page 13-4) recognizes that the Project Area is entirely within the SFO Airport Influence Area (AIA). As such, the compatibility criteria specific to noise, safety, and airspace protection as contained within the ALUCP are applicable to the Project, and the C/CAG Board will exercise its statutory duties to review the Project. An assessment of the Project’s consistency with ALUCP compatibility criteria specific to noise, safety, and airspace protection is provided in the Draft EIR (beginning at page 13-4), identifying no inconsistencies. Response to Comment F-3 As shown on Figure 13-1 of the Draft EIR, the Project Area is located outside of the area subject to airport operations-related noise contours of 65 dBA CNEL, in an area where commercial and industrial land use and related structures (such as the Project) are compatible, without restrictions. The Genentech Campus Master Plan Update does not propose any noise sensitive uses that would requires future evaluation. To the extent that Genentech Campus properties are required to include a real estate disclosure regarding airport impacts, such disclosures would be included in any future real estate transactions of Genentech- owned property within the Campus. Response to Comment F-4 The Draft EIR (at page 13-6 and as shown on Figure 13-2) fully discloses that the Project site is located within the FAA Part 77 Conical Surface for airport operations and that the FAA requires notification of proposed construction for any project that may have a potential effect on air navigation facilities. A “Determination of No Hazard” from the FAA is included as a requirement of individual projects pursuant to the Master Plan Update, as required per Mitigation Measure Land Use 2 - Building Height Limits. Response to Comment F-5 This comment concurs with Response to Comment F-3 (above) with respect to noise compatibility, agreeing that the Project Site is located outside of the projected 2020 CNEL 65 dB noise contour, where the noise compatibility policies of the ALUCP do not apply. 3 As found in Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP), City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), 2012 Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-23 Response to Comment F-6 The Noise chapter of the Draft EIR does indicate that childcare centers and preschools in the East of 101 Area are considered noise sensitive areas, but that noise impacts attributable to aircraft overflight would not adversely affect these uses (i.e., would not exceed 65 dBA CNEL) based on the noise contours as published in the ALUCP. G-1 G-2 Letter G Rob Lau Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Page 2-25 Response to Letter G Rob Lau Response to Comment G-1 The Biology chapter of the Draft EIR (Chapter 7) provides a comprehensive analysis of the Project’s potential effects on special-status species. The analysis is organized by sub-topics and species type. Nine special-status animal species are known to breed or could potentially breed in the Study Area or its vicinity, to occur commonly as non-breeders in the Study Area (and thus could potentially be substantially affected by activities that occur under the Project), and/or are of particular concern to regulatory agencies. These species include the Central California Coast steelhead, green sturgeon and longfin smelt, California Ridgway’s rail, burrowing owl, San Francisco common yellowthroat and Alameda song sparrow, and harbor seal and sea lion. Potential impacts resulting from implementation of the Project on each of these species, as well as potential impacts to sensitive natural communities, migratory birds, and impacts pertaining to invasion of non-native plant species, are fully analyzed in the Draft EIR and mitigation measures are identified, where necessary to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. Response to Comment G-2 The remainder of this comment letter addresses issues related to rent prices, tax revenue, and reinvestment by Genentech and other large companies back into the community. These comments pertain to the relative economic merits of the Project, but are not pertinent to environmental effects or CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15131, “economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. No response to these matters is required or provided in this EIR. From: Koray Ergur <[email protected]> To: "Rozzi, Tony" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "'Kevin Fuller'" <[email protected]>, "Andres Claure ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, Koray Ergur <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Genentech Master Plan EIR 12/23/2019 Mr. Rozzi, First, Thank you for sharing this information very promptly. By the time I realized existence of this proposal, I was already missed public hearing date by one day. When I contact you shared this valuable info you did email me information very rapidly. Thank You again, Now let’s get to the main points, 1. Oyster Point Island is about 1Mile square area approximately about 650 Acre “World BIO+TECH Headquarter City” (Area is Guesstimate Not Exact) 2. Genentech Master Plan Update 2019 Covering 207 Acres (Nearly Half of the Island) 3. UrbanX, Inc, Our company has a long term recorded ground lease next 99 years APN 015-200-190-5 About 108.75 Acre. Which is located front of Genentech land mass must have a access thru Genentech Campuses. (See attached flyer) 4. As we know shorelines being under sea levels are rising well known threats, Next era cities will be building on waters/oceans but, first project will be starting as a test/pilot projects in San Francisco Bay see attached “Seasteating” website Wikipedia page dated today! For make it easier you are reading, I already attached to this email and highlighted page #3 FYI! 5. I already personally shared with Genentech/City of SSF principals our Vision/Master Plan as well. (See Attached Meeting Notes and Discussions) 6. Based on what I have outlined 1-5 I have major vested interest/concern in Genentech Master Plan 2019. Make sure this master plan by 800-pound gorilla a/k/a “Genentech” does not kill our future vision/project. I do believe I have enough past bad experiences with City of SSF + Genentech, in order to be concerned, which they are; a. City of SSF currently has a fraudulent title on one of Ergur’s stolen property located at 938 Linden Avenue. As we speak H-1 Letter H Koray Ergur there is a currently on-going lawsuit at SF Court Case # CGC-16-550825 b. When City of SSF/Genentech build Bay Trail they build it 100% on our property (None on Genentech land) without even notifying property owner. (illegally) c. These are just a few others also exist. 7. Plus, I’m including Genentech parties as well as shared vision documents into this email. Our true intention is making sure both projects are dealt with together same studies, Last thing we don’t want to be bulldoze by both of you, Based on outlines above until we meet and discuss sone sort of win-win solution road map. Our position is strongly opposing this study at this point. Until we meet and reach some sort of understanding how we can solve it beneficial to all parties. Please make a proper registration with system our current position. Decision will be up to you guys, Are we going forward to war or work with harmony together! Choice is yours. Our choice is #2. Sincerely Koray Ergur Chapter 2: Response to Comments on the Draft EIR Page 2-28 Genentech Master Plan Update - Final EIR Response to Letter H Koray Ergur This letter and its attached materials do not raise any issues related to the Draft EIR or the environmental impacts of the Genentech Master Plan Update Project. Rather, it suggests plans for a separate project on approximately 108 acres within the San Francisco Bay (APN 015-200-190-5) adjacent to the Genentech Campus, and suggests that this separate project requires access through the Genentech Campus. This response provides no comment as to the legitimacy of any assertions made in the letter, other than to note that the City has no official application on file for such a project, and that such a project is not indicated in the South San Francisco General Plan. Thus, this separate project is not included in the cumulative baseline as used in the Draft EIR. This letter does reference the threats associated with rising sea levels. The Draft EIR (page 10-2) notes that “the over-abundance of GHGs in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has already started affecting the Earth’s climate system”, including effects related to sea level rise. Chapter 10 of the Draft EIR analyzes the Project’s contributions to GHG emissions, concluding that the Project effects would be less than significant with implementation of all regulatory requirements. Sea level rise is also addressed in the Hydrology chapter of the EIR (Chapter 12). The Hydrology chapter of the EIR includes (at page 12-24) a non-CEQA analysis of the effects that potential future sea level rise scenarios may have on the Genentech Campus site. Sid Commons Final EIR Page 3-1 3 Revisions to the Draft EIR Introduction The following chapter presents corrections and modifications to text as presented in the Draft EIR. These changes and corrections have been initiated by City of South San Francisco staff (as Lead Agency), specific to the topic of Vehicle Miles Travelled. No changes to the Draft EIR have been made, or are necessary in response to public comments received on the Draft EIR. Those comments on the Draft EIR received during the public comment period are fully addressed in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR, and no revisions to the Draft EIR were necessary to address those comments. As indicated in the Introduction to this document, this Response to Comments document, together with the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR Appendices, constitute the Final EIR for the Genentech Master Plan Update Project. Thus, changes to the Draft EIR presented below supersede the corresponding original text of the Draft EIR. Throughout this chapter, newly added text is shown in double underline format, and deleted text is shown in strikeout format. Changes are listed in the order in which they appeared in the Draft EIR. Changes and Corrections to the Draft EIR - VMT Draft EIR Approach to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Chapter 17 of the Draft EIR presented an evaluation of the potential impacts of the Master Plan Update (the Project) related to transportation. This chapter described the existing conditions in and near the Project Area, evaluated the extent to which transportation and traffic conditions may be affected by implementation of the Project, and identified mitigation measures, where needed, to address these potential impacts. As noted in the Draft EIR (beginning at page 17-100), pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released proposed changes to the state’s CEQA Guidelines in 2016 that amend the way transportation impacts are analyzed. Specifically, SB 743 (Public Resources Code Section 21099) required OPR to amend CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of Service (LOS) methodology for evaluating transportation impacts. These changes to CEQA Guidelines result in significant changes in how transportation impacts are evaluated, and also result in significant changes in how mitigation is imposed through the CEQA process. Mitigation may include measures that seek to reduce or avoid impacts related to vehicle miles travelled (VMT) and/or trip generation, rather than improvements to increase levels of service (LOS) to accommodate increased traffic demands. The Draft EIR also noted that the new CEQA Guidelines pertaining to transportation impacts that were created to implement SB 743 do not go into full effect statewide until July 2020. South San Francisco has yet to officially determine how these CEQA changes will be implemented, but they will become effective in the relatively near term. The Draft EIR provided an analysis of the Project’s impacts related to VMT, indicating that this analysis was for informational purposes only and was not considered a CEQA topic. However, the Draft EIR did indicate that its VMT analysis may provide a context for future City consideration of appropriate new VMT thresholds and mitigation strategies, as well as alternative investment programs for how the City uses its development impact fees. Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-2 Reconsideration of the VMT Approach The City of South San Francisco released the Draft EIR for the Project on November 8, 2019, and the 45-day public review and comment period on that Draft EIR ended on December 23, 2019. At that time, the July 2020 date for statewide implementation of the new CEQA Guidelines related to VMT was more than six months in the future. The City of South San Francisco has embarked on an effort to determine how these changes in transportation impact analyses will be implemented within the City, but no official action had yet been taken. As of the date of publication of this Response to Comment / Final EIR document the City has not adopted an official VMT methodology or related CEQA thresholds, although these are important considerations being deliberated pursuant to the City’s current General Plan Update effort. The Genentech Master Plan Update EIR is a programmatic document that evaluates the physical environmental and land use changes that may result from future development that could occur pursuant to adoption and implementation of the Genentech Campus Master Plan Update. These future developments and changes on the Genentech Campus will occur after the July 1, 2020 statewide mandate for VMT analysis. An important purpose of this Program EIR is to simplify the task of preparing subsequent project-level environmental documents for these future projects, and to use the streamlining and tiering provisions of CEQA to the maximum feasible extent. To achieve this purpose, specifically as it pertains to transportation impacts, the City has decided to elevate the VMT analysis as presented in the Draft EIR to a full CEQA topic, and not just presented for informational purposes. ● Elevating the VMT analysis as presented in the Draft EIR to a CEQA topic does not constitute “new information” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15188.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR. Other than now establishing the relative significance of this information pursuant to CEQA, all of the VMT-related analysis presented in the Draft EIR remains as-is. No additions or subtractions of that information (thresholds, methodologies or conclusions) are suggested (see detailed Changes to the Draft EIR, below). ● Elevating the VMT analysis as presented in the Draft EIR to a CEQA topic does not constitute “a new significant environmental impact” as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15188.5 (1). The VMT analysis presented in the Draft EIR concludes that, if assessed as a CEQA topic, the VMT impacts of the Project would be less than significant. This conclusion demonstrates that the Project’s VMT impacts are a less than significant effect (not a new significant effect), and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. ● In the absence of a City-preferred VMT threshold for CEQA analysis, the Draft EIR relied on guidance provided by the California Office of Planning and Research (OPR) in its “Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” (January 2016). This guidance document, which has been updated per the OPR “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA” (December 2018), suggests thresholds by which to assess VMT-based transportation impacts. These thresholds include: o A proposed residential project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita, whichever is higher. o A proposed office project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. o A net increase in total VMT for a retail project may indicate a significant transportation impact. Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-3 These are the same, or very similar thresholds that have been adopted by other cities that have chosen to be early-adopters of VMT as a CEQA topic.1 Use of these thresholds for this EIR is appropriate pursuant to CEQA, but does not preclude the City from ultimately adopting different thresholds in the future. ● Similarly, the methodology used in the Draft EIR to calculate VMT also relies on OPR’s recommendations, but does not preclude the City from adopting or using a different methodology in the future. Changes to the Draft EIR The following represent the specific changes to the Draft EIR (starting at page 17-100) that are needed to make the VMT analysis that was included in the Draft EIR into a full CEQA topic. Changes to Draft EIR beginning at Page 17-28 et.seq.: Thresholds of Significance City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County C/CAG guidelines, as well as changes to the state’s CEQA Guidelines initiated by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) pursuant to SB 743, were used to identify thresholds of significance to determine whether implementation of the Project would result in significant environmental impacts. The Project would have a significant transportation or circulation impact if it were to: 1. Exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the Congestion Management Program roadway system (C/CAG criteria) 2. Conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. These thresholds are specifically defined as: 3. If signalized intersection operations and all-way-stop operations would deteriorate from operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) to an unacceptable operation (LOS E or F) with the addition of project traffic a. If uncontrolled turn movements or side-street stop-controlled approach operations at intersections would deteriorate from operating at LOS E or better to LOS F and total volumes passing through the intersection would increase by at least one percent if at least one leg is connected to a Caltrans ramp, and two percent otherwise. Side street stop criteria are applicable only for approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour b. If the Project would increase the total traffic volume passing through an intersection by two percent or more, at an intersection with signalized or all-way stop operations already at a baseline LOS E or F, or when a side street stop controlled approach is at a baseline LOS F. Side street stop criteria are applicable only for approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour c. If Project traffic would increase baseline volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria levels 1 City of San Francisco Planning Department, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, February 2019, page 15; City of Oakland, Interim Update to Transportation CEQA Thresholds and Guidelines, October 2016; City of San Jose, Transportation Analysis Handbook, April 2018, page 17 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-4 d. If the Project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or more, at an intersection with baseline traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria levels e. Increase volumes on a given traffic movement downstream of Caltrans facilities by one percent or more, and in doing so would either cause vehicle queues to exceed existing storage space for that movement, or would contribute to existing vehicle queues that exceed storage space for that movement f. Degrade operation of the US 101 freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volumes, or increase volumes by more than one percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with baseline LOS F operation, or make a considerable contribution to a cumulative degradation of the US 101 freeway or freeway ramps operations, according to the same criteria 4. Substantially increase transportation hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses, or result in inadequate emergency access. 5. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 6. If the project would make a considerable contribution to a cumulative impact, based on the same criteria 7. Exceed an average daily VMT per-employee (worker) rate that is 15% lower than the regional average daily VMT rate, or 15% lower than the City’s average daily VMT rate (whichever is higher) The above significance criteria primarily relate to vehicular delay and traffic congestion. However, statewide legislation will render impacts based on vehicular delay no longer a significant impact under CEQA in the near future. Senate Bill (SB) 743 changes CEQA transportation impact analysis significance criteria to eliminate auto delay, LOS, and similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts under CEQA (although a jurisdiction may choose to maintain these measures under its General Plan). The proposed changes in CEQA Guidelines to implement SB 743 present Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as an appropriate measure of transportation impacts. At present, Although the City of South San Francisco has not officially adopted VMT as a transportation impact criteria or established local VMT significance thresholds, As a result, a VMT analysis is not included as part of this EIR, as a CEQA analysis, based on OPR guidelines and recommendations. , but is presented for informational purposes toward the end of this chapter. Changes to Draft EIR beginning at Page 17-89 et.seq.: Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) Impact Transportation 9: The Project’s calculated rate of VMT per employee is lower than the VMT target reduction thresholds of 15% below the regional average worker-based VMT, the Project would not exceed the VMT threshold, and VMT impacts of the Project would be less than significant. (Less than Significant) Pursuant to Senate Bill 743, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) released proposed changes to the state’s CEQA Guidelines in 2016 that will amend the way transportation impacts are analyzed. Specifically, SB 743 (Public Resources Code Section 21099) required OPR to amend CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to Level of Service (LOS) methodology for evaluating transportation Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-5 impacts.2 The new CEQA Guidelines sections created by SB 743 do not go into full effect statewide until July 2020, and South San Francisco has yet to determine how these changes will be implemented within the City. Therefore, the following analysis is provided for informational purposes only, and is not considered a CEQA topic. These changes to CEQA Guidelines will result in significant changes in how transportation impacts are evaluated pursuant to CEQA. These analytic changes may also result in significant changes in how mitigation is imposed through the CEQA process, potentially including measures that seek to reduce or avoid impacts related to VMT and/or trip generation, rather than improvements to increase levels of service (LOS) to accommodate increased traffic demands. These changes are not effective in South San Francisco yet, but they will likely become effective in the relatively near term. The analysis provided in this section of the EIR is for informational purposes only, and provides for a CEQA assessment of Project- related VMT-based impacts, and may provide a context for future City consideration of appropriate VMT thresholds, mitigation strategies and alternative investment programs for how the City uses its development impact fees. Criteria Used for this Analysis In the absence of a City-preferred methodology or threshold, this analysis relies on OPR’s Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (January 2016), which suggests several alternative means by which to assess transportation impacts, including the following: 3 1. Would the project achieve 15 percent lower per capita or per employee VMT than existing development? 2. Would the project achieve an average daily VMT per employee (worker) that is 15% lower than the regional average daily VMT rate or 15% lower than the City’s average daily VMT rate, whichever is higher? The OPR’s Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA finds (absent any more project-specific information to the contrary) that per capita or per employee VMT fifteen percent below the existing regional average daily per employee VMT rate, or 15% lower than the City’s average daily per employee VMT rate that of existing development may be used as a reasonable threshold, for the reasons described below: ● SB 743 states that the criteria for determining significance must promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. SB 743 also states the Legislature’s intent that the analysis of transportation in CEQA should better promote the state’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It cites in particular the reduction goals in the Global Warming Solutions Act and the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, both of which call for substantial reductions. The California Air Resources Board established long-term GHG reduction targets for the largest regions in the state that ranged from 13 to 16 percent. 2 Implementation of SB 743 must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks and a diversity of land uses.” (New Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).) Measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated.” Once the new CEQA Guidelines take effect state-wide, are amended to include those alternative criteria, auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. 3 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Revised Proposal on Updates to the CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Implementing Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), January 20, 2016 Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-6 ● Caltrans has developed a statewide VMT reduction target in its Strategic Management Plan. Specifically, it calls for a 15 percent reduction in per capita VMT compared to 2010 levels, by 2020. ● The First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan states, "Recognizing the important role local governments play in the successful implementation of AB 32, the initial Scoping Plan called for local governments to set municipal and communitywide GHG reduction targets of 15 percent below then- current levels by 2020, to coincide with the statewide limit." Achieving 15 percent lower per capita or per employee VMT than existing development is, therefore, both reasonably ambitious and generally achievable.4 If the Project were to result in VMT rates that exceed a 15% reduction threshold, the Project’s transportation effects could would be considered inconsistent with pending statewide and local environmental and transportation policies, and a significant effect. Use of OPR’s recommended VMT thresholds for this informational analysis does not preclude the City from ultimately adopting another methodology or alternative significance threshold in the future. Methodology For purposes of this analysis, Project-generated VMT per employee was measured relative to baseline data provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through their Travel Demand Model (“Travel Model One”).5 General components of the Travel Model One model include a wide array of analytical approaches including various transportation mode-choice models, activity duration models, time-use models and models of individual micro-simulations, etc. Ultimately, the combination of these datasets is designed to realistically represent travel behavior, adequately replicate observed activity- travel patterns and ensure model sensitivity to infrastructure and policies. MTC’s Travel Model One contains 1,454 regional Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs) that span across the San Francisco Bay Area. The model includes nine TAZs that represent the City of South San Francisco (TAZ #s 209 through 215, and 230 and 231). The Project Area is located in TAZ #212, which represents all of the East of 101 Area, as well as large portions of the industrialized areas south of Downtown along Spruce and Linden Avenues (see Figure 17-13). Several steps were taken to analyze the potential effects of the Project relative to VMT. These steps include: • Identifying the baseline VMT and potential target thresholds on a per-employee basis • Calculating the Project’s VMT per employee by applying VMT reductions resulting from Genentech’s proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, as well as daily VMT reductions based on other factors that influence daily travel behavior (i.e., on-Campus amenities, the DNA shuttle vans, etc.), and • Comparing the Project’s resulting per employee VMT rate to existing conditions, to a 15 percent lower per-employee VMT than existing development, and to a 15 percent reduction in the City of South San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area regional per employee VMT (for both existing - 2015, and future – 2040), to determine if the Project would exceed these alternative thresholds 4 Note: Lead agencies may apply more stringent thresholds at their discretion (Section 21099) 5 The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Travel Demand Model (“Travel Model One”) transportation model is an activity-based (or tour-based) travel demand model for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, and widely used by counties and communities throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The development methodology, datasets and metrics provided in the Model are often used by city and county agencies to develop their own travel demand models, and the data is regularly validated for consistency among all nine counties. Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-7 VMT Baseline and Targeted VMT Reductions Based on Travel Model One data, the most current (year 2015) VMT rate for TAZ #212 (the TAZ in which the Project is located) is 26.3 VMT per employee. The most current citywide average VMT rate (2015) is 25.9 23.9 VMT per employee, and the projected 2040 citywide average VMT rate is 23.3 25.9 VMT per employee. The higher per employee VMT rate for TAZ #212 as compared to the City average reflects the broader commute-shed for many of the tech and biotech companies located within this TAZ, where employees from across the region, travelling longer distances, commute to the East of 101 Area for highly desirable jobs. The latest data from Plan Bay Area also provides a current (year 2015) worker- based VMT for the region at 22.7 VMT per employee, and a projected year 2040 worker-based VMT for the region of 20.3 VMT per employee. Based on the thresholds used in this EIR, analysis, the target thresholds for VMT reductions are 15% below the 2015 and 2040 worker-based regional VMT rates. This represent a target rate of 19.3 VMT per employee (or 15% below the 2015 rate of 22.7 VMT per employee) in year 2015, and a target rate of 17.3 VMT per employee (or 15% below the 2040 rate of 20.3 VMT per employee) in year 2040. Note that this threshold conservatively compares the Project against the lower regional average VMT rates instead of the higher citywide average VMT rates, whereas OPR guidance allows comparison to whichever VMT rate is higher. Estimating the Project’s VMT Based on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates as applied to the Project’s net new land uses, the Project would generate approximately 32,200 daily trips.6 This is a baseline number of daily trips that does not account for any application of the Project’s TDM measures. ● The Project’s proposed TDM reductions (i.e., a 47 percent reduction in AM peak hour drive alone trips to the Campus as necessary to maintain the Trip Cap) are applied to all AM peak period trips to the Campus, all PM peak period trips from the Campus and partial application to mid-day trips to mirror the existing GenenBus schedules. This results in a 31% overall reduction in daily trips as compared to standard ITE rates, or approximately 22,200 total daily trips.7 ● Conservatively assuming an additional 5% reduction for internalized trips (i.e., daily trip reductions attributable to the availability of on-Campus amenities (e.g., cafeterias, personal services and daycare facilities), access to on-Campus DNA shuttles, and bicycle and pedestrian amenities, results in approximately 21,000 daily trips attributable to the Project. ● Multiplying these 21,000 daily trips by an average trip length of 10.2 miles per trip (a weighted average of home-based work trips and non-home-based trips for TAZ #212) for year 2015,8 the Project would generate approximately 214,200 total vehicle miles travelled. ● Multiplying these 21,000 daily trips by an average trip length of 9.3 miles per trip (the same weighted average of home-based work trips and non-home-based trips for TAZ #212) for year 2040, the Project would generate approximately 194,900 daily total vehicle miles travelled. ● Dividing these total daily vehicle miles travelled by the total number of new employees pursuant to the Project (12,500) yields an average of 17.1 VMT per employee for year 2015, and an average of 15.6 VMT per employee for year 2040. 6 Fehr & Peers (EIR Transportation consultant), personal communication, October 2018 7 This is the number of daily trips (conservatively) used in the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analysis as included in this EIR. 8 Derived from the MTC Travel Model One data Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-8 This calculation of these Project-specific VMT rates per employee, and a comparison to calculated VMT based on standard ITE rates (i.e., without the Project’s Trip Cap and associated TDM) is shown below in Table 17-25. Table 17-25: Calculation of Project VMT per Employee Project Project, Based on Standard ITE Rates For Year 2015 Project Daily Trips 21,000 32,200 Average Trip Length x 10.2 x 10.2 Total VMT 214,200 328,440 Project Employees ÷ 12,500 ÷ 12,500 Per Capita VMT 17.1 26.3 Regional Average Worker-Based VMT vs. 22.7 vs. 22.7 Percent Below/Above Regional Average Target -25% + 116% For Year 2040 Project Daily Trips 21,000 32,200 Average Trip Length x 9.3 x 9.3 Total VMT 194,880 298,816 Project Employees ÷ 12,500 ÷12,500 Per Capita VMT 15.6 23.9 Regional Average Worker-Based VMT vs. 20.3 vs. 20.3 Percent Below/Above Regional Average -23% + 117% Source: Correspondence with Fehr & Peers, 2019 Mitigation Measures Comparison against Thresholds None required. As indicated in Table 17-25, the Project’s calculated rate of 17.1 VMT per employee (year 2015) and 15.6 VMT per employee (year 2040) is lower than the VMT target reduction thresholds of 15% below the regional average worker-based VMT for both year 2015 and year 2040. The Project does would not exceed the VMT thresholds, used in this analysis. If assessed as a CEQA topic, and the VMT impacts of the Project would be less than significant. If the City of South San Francisco were to rely on the VMT thresholds used in this analysis for assessment of transportation impacts and mitigation measures under CEQA, then n No mitigation measures beyond the Project’s proposed Trip Cap and corresponding TDM trip reductions (i.e., 47 percent reduction in drive-alone trips) are would be required. Possible Implications for Future Project Analysis and Mitigation Measures Even if project-specific VMT impacts were to be determined less than significant, The City of South San Francisco could still requires projects, particularly those in the East of 101 Area, to pay traffic fees and/or implement roadway improvements. Existing General Plan policies address these Traffic Impact Fee requirements (i.e., General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6 regarding needed intersection and roadway improvements Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-9 to enhance mobility in the East of 101 Area, and Policy 4.2-G-12 providing for a fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements via development impact fees). However, the focus of CEQA analysis and applicable mitigation of traffic impacts has shifted would shift in a direction more consistent with General Plan Policy 4.2-G-10, which calls for making “efficient use of existing transportation facilities, improved alternate travel modes and enhanced integration of transportation systems serving South San Francisco to reduce vehicle-miles traveled.” 9 The Project’s VMT analysis presented above demonstrates the relative importance of an effective TDM program as a VMT reduction and overall trip reduction strategy. Alternatively, the cumulative traffic analysis presented under Impacts Transp 8, 9 and 10 above demonstrate that, even with implementation of all feasible LOS-based mitigation measures, traffic congestion will continue to be significant and unavoidable throughout many parts of the East of 101 Area, at freeway ramps and on the freeway. By reducing the number of cars from the overall transportation system with increased TDM performance, a more sustainable transportation system may be achievable, rather than increasing the capacity of roadways and intersections to accommodate increased vehicle demand levels. Genentech will be able to achieve its Campus-wide TDM goal of 50% TDM trip reductions for Campus arrivals by increasing its current TDM program capacity commensurate with new employee growth, and by increasing its overall non-single occupant mode share split by an additional approximately 10 percent. Additionally, Genentech expects to continue its flexible work arrangement initiatives. Assuming that these initiatives maintain the current average of 13 percent of the Genentech workforce choosing a flexible work option, this would further reduce the number of AM peak hour Campus arrivals, resulting in a total trip reduction rate of approximately 57 percent - far exceeding the 47 percent trip reduction rate needed to achieve the Trip Cap. Genentech is able to attain these drive-alone trip reductions in part because of the scale of the Genentech Campus and employment base, the substantial capital investments already made in buses, ferries and shuttles, and the commitment to on-going financial assistance to off-set the transit/alternative travel mode costs of its employees. Not all developments within the East of 101 Area will have the resources and capabilities of Genentech to be able to achieve such a highly efficient TDM program on an independent basis. The City of South San Francisco could assist in helping to achieve higher TDM trip reduction rates across the entire East of 101 Area by reconsidering its investment strategy in East of 101 transportation improvements. Rather than investing its accrued and future cumulative development Transportation Impact Fees solely on intersection and roadway improvements that increase vehicle capacity, the City may consider alternative investments of these fees. Alternative investments might include projects and programs that make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities, improve alternate travel modes, and enhance the transit systems serving the East of 101 Area, thereby reducing the total vehicle trips generated and commensurate VMT. Such investments could include measures to make TDM more efficient, available and desirable for the East of 101 employers and employees, consistent with the recommendations of the City’s recent Mobility 20/20 Report, including but not limited to: • Capital investments in buses and shuttle vans to provide “last-mile service” between regional transit stations (i.e., the relocated Caltrain station and the South San Francisco BART station) and employment centers in East of 101 • Designs and improvements at the relocated Caltrain station to improve circulation efficiency for TDM shuttles and buses that pick-up and drop-off employees at the station • Establishing Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes on East Grand Avenue and potentially on Oyster Point Boulevard 9 South San Francisco, General Plan Transportation Element Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-10 • BRT improvements may include dedicated bus or transit lanes with signal priority, queue jumps, and median or curb improvements at bus stop locations • Increasing the frequency and origin/destination of ferry service at the Oyster Point ferry landing • Increasing bicycle and pedestrian use by filling gaps in the existing bike and pedestrian network and increasing bike and pedestrian routes, especially along abandoned rail alignments within the East of 101 area, and • Establishment of a special Transit Management Agency (TMA) and/or a Community Facilities District (CFD), whereby employers in the East of 101 area could pool their resources and TDM needs, thereby creating efficiencies of scale similar to those achieved by Genentech. Changes and Corrections to the Draft EIR – LOS Analysis Changes to Local Intersection Level of Service/Queuing (Existing plus Project) Page 2-48: Executive Summary Transp 10 Transp 8: The Project would generate more than 100 peak hour trips onto the Congestion Management Program roadway network, contributing to cumulative traffic levels that would conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies that establish measures for effective levels of service on the freeway at 7 freeway segments (northbound US-101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard; southbound US-101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound US-101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue; southbound US-101 between Oyster Point Boulevard and Grand Avenue; northbound US-101 between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue; southbound US-101 between Grand Avenue and Produce Avenue; and northbound US-101, south of Produce Avenue). Page 17-55: Resulting Level of Significance Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (#12): Although the improvements identified in Regulatory Requirement Mitigation Measure Transp-1B would reduce vehicle delay and LOS to a less than significant level, these improvements cannot reduce the length of the southbound left turn queue to which the Project contributes. Further changes to Grand Avenue or Airport Boulevard to add vehicle capacity would be inconsistent with the Pedestrian Priority Zone identified in the South San Francisco Station Area Specific Plan, and queuing impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (SU) Page 17-81: Resulting Level of Significance Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (#19): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained roadway right-of-way. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (#20): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection, as any further roadway capacity improvements would lengthen crosswalk distances and further exacerbate conflicts with bicyclists along Airport Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard. Chapter 3: Revisions to the Draft EIR Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 3-11 South Airport Boulevard/Utah Avenue (#22): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection to an acceptable level of service in the PM, but would not improve operations to an acceptable level of service in the AM peak hour. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained roadway right-of-way. I-380 Westbound Ramp/South Airport Boulevard (#26): The identified mitigation measure would decrease delay at this intersection to an acceptable level of service, but would not decrease queue lengths on the southbound right turn movement. There are no additional feasible mitigations at this intersection due to constrained right-of-way and downstream queuing on the I-380 Westbound ramp. Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR Page 4-1 4 EIR Preparers and References EIR Preparers Lead Agency City of South San Francisco Department of Economic & Community Development, Planning Division 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA - 94080 Alex Greenwood, Director Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner City Peer Review Consultants Raney Planning & Management Nick Pappani, Vice President Crane Transportation Group Mark Crane, Principal EIR Preparers Lamphier-Gregory (Primary Report Preparers) 1944 Embarcadero Oakland, CA - 94606 510-535-6690 Scott Gregory, President Rebecca Auld, Senior Planner Sharon Wright, Planner Fehr & Peers (Traffic and Transportation) 332 Pine Street, 4th Floor San Francisco, CA - 94104-3222 Daniel Jacobson, Associate H. T. Harvey & Associates (Biological Resources) 983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA – 95032 Ginger Bolen, Associate Wildlife Ecologist Élan Alford, Ph.D., Plant Ecologist EIR Preparers and References Page 4-2 Genentech Master Plan Update, Final EIR JRDV Urban, International (Aesthetics, Urban Design) The Cathedral Building, 1615 Broadway, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Edward McFarlan, Principal Daniel Dolan, Associate Architect Nelson\Nygaard (TDM and Parking) 116 New Montgomery Street, #500 San Francisco, CA - 94105 Magnus Barber, Associate Ramboll (Air Quality and GHG) 201 California Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA – 94111 Douglas Daugherty, Director David Kim, Senior Manager RGD Acoustics, Inc. (Noise and Acoustics) 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle #354 Larkspur, CA - 94939 Harold S. Goldberg, P.E., LEED Green Associate, Principal Wilsey Ham (Civil Engineering) 3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA – 94403 Jeff Peterson, P.E., Principal Final EIR – Additional References California, State of, Caltrans District 4, Bike Plan Web Map, accessed at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=91f1bb4eb7ff418092977b 762b459d01 California Office of Planning and Research (OPR), Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts In CEQA, December 2018 San Mateo County Flood Control District, Colma Creek Flood Control Zone South San Francisco, City of, South San Francisco Storm Drain System MS4 Map, accessed at: https://www.ssf.net/departments/public-works/water-quality-control-plant/environmental- compliance