Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGenentech Master EIR 03-28-2007Env,Wrnunmt9acion~e~tt Ce~l~~ CASE-vD:~OS-d`1~: F\R..Y~S-ooc~ DATi= C„-:',^,ULATcD: ~ OC. Z$, C~Gt DATE RECOMMENDED: 9~b 1S1'LO0 l-( DATE APPRpVED: ~'aY-c-~. 2 $, Z ~1 ~_ August 23, 2006 Prepared for Prepared by EIP ,,~~~~~:~.~,~s CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENENTECH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT EXPANSION/CORPORATE FACILITIES MASTER PLAN UPDATE Draft Master Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2005072165 Prepared for City of South San Francisco 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Prepared by EIP Associates 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 August 23, 2006 Contents CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Executive Summarp .............................................................................1-1 1.2 Project Description .........................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................1-3 City of South San Francisco Policies ............................................................................1-3 Genentech's Project Objectives ....................................................................................1-3 Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlav District) Objectives ................................................................1-5 1.4 Necessary Actions by the City of South San Francisco .............................................1-5 1.5 Areas of Controversy/lssues to Be Resolved .............................................................1-6 1.6 Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMp) .......................................................................1-6 1.7 Alternatives .......................................................................................................................1-7 CI-IAI''I`ER 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background .......................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Purpose of the MEIR ......................................................................................................2-2 2.3 Type of EIR ......................................................................................................................2-2 2.4 MEIR Review Process ....................................................................................................2-3 2.5 Intended uses of the MEIR ............................................................................................2-4 2.6 Organization of the MEIR .............................................................................................2-6 2.7 List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................2-7 CHAP'T`ER 3 Project Description .................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...3-1 3.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................ ...3-1 3.2.1 Regional Location .......................................................................................... ...3-1 3.2.2 Project Location ............................................................................................ ...3-1 3.3 Project Objectives ......................................................................................................... ...3-5 3.3.1 City of South San Francisco Policies .......................................................... ...3-5 3.3.2 Genentech's Project Objectives .................................................................. ...3-6 3.4 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... ...3-8 3.4.1 Site History ..................................................................................................... ...3-8 3.4.2 Existing Land Use Regulations ................................................................... ...3-8 3.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses ................................................................................ 3-10 3.4.4 1995 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan ................................... 3-10 3.5 Project Characteristics .................................................................................................. 3-11 3.5.1 MEIR Studv Area .......................................................................................... 3-11 3.5.2 Description of the 2006 Facilities Master Plan Update ........................... 3-12 3.5.3 Description of Campus Subareas ................................................................ 3-14 3.6 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................. 3-16 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis ............................................................. . 4-1 . ........................ .. 4.0 Introduction to Anal`~sis ............................................................................................... ..4-1 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Contents 4.0.1 Scope of the Environmental Impact Anal}psis ............................................. 4-1 4.0.2 Format of the Environmental Analvsis ................................................... ..... 4-2 4.1 Biologi cal Resources .................................................................................................. ..4.1-1 4.1.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.1-1 4.1.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. .. 4.1-9 4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.1-12 4.1.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.1-17 4.2 Flood and Inundation Hazards ................................................................................ .. 4.2-1 4.2.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.2-1 4.2.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. .. 4.2-5 4.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ .. 4.2-7 4.2.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.2-10 4.3 Air Qu ality .................................................................................................................. .. 4.3-1 4.3.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.3-1 4.3.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 4.3-12 4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.3-15 4.3.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.3-24 4.4 Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................. .. 4.4-1 4.4.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.4-1 4.4.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 4.4-10 4.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ............................................................ 4.4-12 4.4.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.4-24 4.5 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................... .. 4.5-1 4.5.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.5-1 4.5.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 4.5-10 4.5.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.5-18 4.5.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.5-23 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................... .. 4.6-1 4.6.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.6-2 4.6.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 4.6-14 4.6.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.6-18 4.6.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.6-30 4.7 Transportation and Circulation ................................................................................ ..4.7-1 4.7.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.7-1 4.7.2 Regulator} Framework .............................................................................. 4.7-18 4.7.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.7-20 4.7.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.7-51 4.8 Land U se and Planning ............................................................................................. .. 4.8-1 4.8.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.8-1 4.8.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. 4.8-11 4.8.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.8-15 4.8.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.8-30 4.9 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... .. 4.9-1 4.9.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................... .. 4.9-1 4.9.2 Regulatory Framework .............................................................................. .. 4.9-6 4.9.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation ................................................................ 4.9-16 4.9.4 References .................................................................................................... 4.9-24 iv Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Contents 4.10 Cultural. Resources ..................................................................................................... 4.10-1 4.10.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. .. 4.10-1 4.10.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................ .. 4.10-6 4.10.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................. .. 4.10-8 4.10.4 References ................................................................................................. 4.10-12 4.11 Population, Employment, and Housing ............................................................... .. 4.11-1 4.11.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. .. 4.11-1 4.11.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................ ..4.11-4 4.11.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................. .. 4.11-5 4.11.4 References ................................................................................................. .. 4.11-8 4.12 Public Services .......................................................................................................... .. 4.12-1 4.12.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. .. 4.12-1 4.12.2 Regulatory Framework ............................................................................ .. 4.12-4 4.12.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................. .. 4.12-8 4.12.4 References ................................................................................................. 4.12-11 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................. .. 4.13-1 4.13.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................. .. 4.13-1 4.13.2 Regulator' Framework ............................................................................ 4.13-10 4.13.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation .............................................................. 4.13-24 4.13.4 References ................................................................................................. 4.13-37 CI-IAPTER 5 Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Significant Environmental Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented ................................................................................5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects ........................................................ ...5-2 5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................... ...5-2 5.3.1 Remove an Impediment to Growth/Precedent-Setting Action ................5-3 5.3.2 Urbanization of Land in a Remote Location ...............................................5-4 5.3.3 Economic Expansion or Growth ..................................................................5-4 5.4 Mitigation Measures Proposed to Minimize Significant Effects of the Proposed Project .............................................................................................................5-5 5.5 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................5-5 5.6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project ......................................................................... 5-32 CHAPTER 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project .................................................................... .. 6-1 6.1 Alternatives ..................................................................................................................... ..6-1 6.2 Description of Alternatives to the Project ...................................................................6-1 6.3 Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible ................................................................................6-3 6.4 Analysis of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..................................................... ..6-4 6.4.1 Alternative 1-No Project: Continuation of 1995 Master Plan Alternative ....................................................................................................... ..6-4 6.4.2 Alternative 2-Reduced Development ....................................................... ..6-5 6.4.3 Environmentall~~ Superior Alternative ........................................................ 6-11 6.4.4 Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................... 6-13 CHAI''I'ER 7 Report Preparers ..................................................................................................... 7-1 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR v Contents Appendices (on CD-ROM, inside back cover) Appendix A Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters Appendix B Biological Resources-Special-Status Species Table Appendix C Air Quality Data Appendix D Noise and Vibration Data Appendix E Traffic Data and TDM Ordinance Appendix F Utilities-Water Supply Assessment Fgures Figure 3-1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................. ....... 3-2 Figure 3-2 Existing Campus Buildings .............................................................................................. ....... 3-3 Figure 3-3 Local Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................ ....... 3-4 Figure 4.1-1 Opportunity Sites .............................................................................................................. ....4.1-3 Figure 4.1-2 Coastal Salt Marsh ............................................................................................................. .... 4.1-6 Figure 4.2-1 FEMA Q3 Floodplain ...................................................................................................... .... 4.2-3 Figure 4.4-1 Noise Monitoring Locations ........................................................................................... .... 4.4-7 Figure 4.5-1 Regional Geology and Faults ........................................................................................... .... 4.5-2 Figure 4.5-2 Local Geology and Stratigraphy ...................................................................................... .... 4.5-4 Figure 4.5-3 Bay Area Earthquake Probability .................................................................................... .... 4.5-7 Figure 4.5-4 Slope .................................................................................................................................... .. 4.5-11 Figure 4.5-5 East of 101 Area Plan Figure 17 ..................................................................................... .. 4.5-15 Figure 4.5-6 East of 101 Area Plan Figure 15 ..................................................................................... .. 4.5-16 Figure 4.5-7 General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands ................................................. ..4.5-17 Figure 4.7-1 Study Intersection and On-Ramp Locations ................................................................ .... 4.7-3 Figure 4.7-2 Study Mainline Locations ................................................................................................. .... 4.7-5 Figure 4.7-3 MEIR Stud}' Area Transit Routes ................................................................................... .. 4.7-13 Figure 4.7-4 Trip Distribution Percentages ......................................................................................... .. 4.7-25 Figure 4.7-5 Primary Access Routes ..................................................................................................... ..4.7-27 Figure 4.7-6A Mitigated Intersection Diagrams ..................................................................................... .. 4.7-34 Figure 4.7-6B Mitigated Intersection Diagrams ..................................................................................... .. 4.7-35 Figure 4.8-1 General Plan Land Use Designations ............................................................................ .... 4.8-3 Figure 4.8-2 East of 101 Area Plan ....................................................................................................... .... 4.8-5 Figure 4.8-3 Existing and Proposed Zoning ....................................................................................... ....4.8-7 Figure 4.9-1 Viewpoint 1 ........................................................................................................................ .... 4.9-7 Figure 4.9-2 Viewpoints 2 ...................................................................................................................... .... 4.9-9 Figure 4.9-3 Viewpoint 3 ........................................................................................................................ ..4.9-11 Figure 4.12-1 Water System ..................................................................................................................... .. 4.12-5 Figure 4.12-2 Fire Hazard Management Units ...................................................................................... ..4.12-7 Figure 4.13-1 Natural Gas ........................................................................................................................ 4.13-11 Figure 4.13-2 Genentech Greenhouse Gas Summary ......................................................................... 4.13-13 Figure 5-1 2015 Net Growth and Transportation Analysis Zone Boundaries ........................... ....... 5-7 vi Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Contents Tables Table 1-1 Existing and Proposed Master Plan Areas (sf) .....................................................................1-2 Table 1-2 Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................................................... ......1-9 Table 2-1 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................... ......2-7 Table 3-1 Existing and Proposed Genentech Land Uses ............................................................... ... 3-12 Table 3-2 Genentech Project Land Uses (s~ .................................................................................... ... 3-14 Table 4.3-1 2004 Estimated Average Daily Emissions ...................................................................... .. 4.3-8 Table 4.3-2 Summary of Ambient Air Quality at San Francisco-Arkansas Street Station ............ .. 4.3-9 Table 4.3-3 Existing Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ................................................. 4.3-10 Table 4.3-4 Genentech Transportation Demand Management Implementation Strategies......... 4.3-11 Table 4.3-5 Project Daily Operational Stationar~~ and Mobile Source Emissions .......................... 4.3-22 Table 4.3-6 Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations ...................................................................... 4.3-23 Table 4.4-1 Representative Environmental Noise Levels .................................................................... 4.4-2 Table 4.4-2 Vibration Criteria for Specialized Research Equipment ............................................... .. 4.4-4 Table 4.4-3 Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration ............................. .. 4.4-5 Table 4.4-4 Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected Locations .................................................. .. 4.4-6 Table 4.4-5 Existing Roadway Noise Levels off Site .......................................................................... .. 4.4-9 Table 4.4-6 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas ................................................................. 4.4-11 Table 4.4-7 Citt= of South San Francisco Noise Level Standard ....................................................... 4.4-11 Table 4.4-8 Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels .................................................................. 4.4-15 Table 4.4-9 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ................................................. 4.4-18 Table 4.4-10 Traffic Noise Impacts for Proposed Project Buildout in Year 2015 .......................... 4.4-21 Table 4.5-1 Potential Activity= on Major Active Bay Area Faults ...................................................... .. 4.5-5 Table 4.5-2 Significant Earthquake Scenarios ..................................................................................... .. 4.5-6 Table 4.6-1 Historical Topographic Map Information ...................................................................... .. 4.6-4 Table 4.6-2 Historical Aerial Photograph Information ...................................................................... .. 4.6-5 Table 4.6-3 2005 Hazardous Materials Summary at Genentech by Campus .................................. 4.6-12 Table 4.7-1 Intersection Level of Sen=ice Definitions ........................................................................ .. 4.7-9 Table 4.7-2 Intersection Operating Conditions-Existing Conditions (December 2005) ........... 4.7-10 Table 4.7-3 US 101 Segment Operating Conditions-Existing Conditions (December 2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 4.7-10 Table 4.7-4 US 101 On-Ramp Operating Conditions-Existing Conditions (December 2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 4.7-11 Table 4.7-5 US 101 Off-Ramp Operating ConditionsExisting Conditions (December 2005) ..................................................................................................................................... 4.7-12 Table 4.7-6 Transit Service-South San Francisco ............................................................................ 4.7-15 Table 4.7-7 ALLIANCE Shuttle Service-South San Francisco ..................................................... 4.7-17 Table 4.7-8 Genentech Parking Demand-Existing Conditions (December 2005) ..................... 4.7-18 Table 4.7-9 Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions ............................... 4.7-20 Table 4.7-10 Genentech Mode Split (Current Employees) ................................................................. 4.7-21 Table 4.7-11 Genentech Trip Generation Rates ................................................................................... 4.7-22 Table 4.7-12 New Genentech Project Land Uses ................................................................................. 4.7-22 Table 4.7-13 Genentech Net-New Vehicle Trips Generated .............................................................. 4.7-23 Table 4.7-14 Genentech Trip Distribution Pattern .............................................................................. 4.7-24 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR vii Contents Table 4.7-15 Intersection Operating Conditions-2015 Future Without Project and 2015 Future Plus Project Conditions ......................................................................................... 4.7-31 Table 4.7-16 Mitigation Summary-2015 Future Plus Project Conditions ....................................... 4.7-42 Table 4.7-17 Mitigation Responsibility-Year 2015 Conditions ........................................................ 4.7-43 Table 4.7-18 US 101 Segment Conditions-2015 Future Without Project and 2015 Future Plus Project Conditions ...................................................................................................... 4.7-44 Table 4.7-19 US 101 On-Ramp Conditions-2015 Future Without Project and 2015 Future Plus Project Conditions ...................................................................................................... 4.7-46 Table 4.7-20 US 101 Off-Ramp Conditions-2015 Future Without Project and 2015 Future Plus Project Conditions ...................................................................................................... 4.7-47 Table 4.7-21 Genentech Parking Demand-Year 2015 Future Plus Project Conditions ............... 4.7-49 Table 4.8-1 Genentech's Transportation Demand Management Program (Current and Proposed) ............................................................................................................................. 4.8-25 Table 4.11-1 Current and Future Population, Employment and Housing South San Francisco and San Mateo County ..................................................................................... 4.11-1 Table 4.11-2 Population Projections: South San Francisco and Neighboring Communities 2005 to 2015 ........................................................................................................................ 4.11-2 Table 4.11-3 Projected Employees at Buildout ..................................................................................... 4.11-6 Table 4.13-1 Project Demand by Building Use (mgd) .......................................................................... 4.13-2 Table 4.13-2 WQCP 2003 Violations ...................................................................................................... 4.13-4 Table 5-1 Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions (square footage) ...................................................................................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-2 Project Contribution to Cumulative Traffic Noise in Year 2015 ................................... 5-15 Table 5-3 _ CWSC Supply and Demand Comparison for Normal, Dry, and Multiple Dry Years ....................................................................................................................................... .. 5-28 Table 6-1 Proposed Master Plan and Project Alternatives: Comparison of Buildout Areas.......... 6-2 Table 6-2 Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project ...................................................... 6-13 viii Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR CHAPTER 1 Executive Summary 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This summary is intended to highlight the major areas of importance in the environmental analysis for the proposed project as required by Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines. The summar<~ includes a brief description of the project, the project objectives, necessary actions, areas of controversy/issues to be resolved, the purpose of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), and a summary of alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, this chapter provides a table summarizing: (1) potential environmental impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed project; (2) the level of significance of the environmental impacts prior to implementation of any applicable mitigation measures; (3) the recommended mitigation measures and/or project requirements that avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts; and (4) the level of significance after mitigation measures are implemented (refer to Table 1-2 [Summary of Environmental Effects and Project Requirements/Mitigation Measures] at the end of this chapter). 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Master Environmental Impact Report Study Area (HEIR Study Area) of approximately 220 acres has been identified, of which 160 acres would eventually comprise the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District). At buildout, Genentech expects to almost double its 2006 size (from 2.8 million sf to roughly 6 million s~ of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities buildings, and parking structures. This HEIR analyses the 220-acre HEIR Study Area. Table 3-1 shows the existing and proposed uses within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The proposed project is located in the East of 101 Area, a planning sub area of the Cit<~ of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan), and is also controlled by the East of 101 Area Plan. Genentech also occupies other properties within the East of 101 Area that will not be incorporated into the Genentech R&D Overlay District. These other properties include Gateway (Gateway Campus), which is approximately 106 acres, and Britannia East Grand (South Campus), which is approximately 26 acres and is currently under construction. The Gateway Campus includes roughly 2,400 employees within three existing office buildings and two parking structures. These other properties are subject to other entitlements such as Specific Plans, Redevelopment Plans, Development Agreements, and Owner Participation Agreements. Additionally, Genentech currently owns the Bay West Cove property, which encompasses approximately 47 acres. The Bay West Cove propertt~ has an adopted specific plan guiding the future development within the area, and is not part of the proposed project. The approved buildout for the Bay West Cove property includes four separate planning areas. Planning area 1 would permit the following uses: c~enentecn corporate Facilities Master EIR 1-1 Chapter 1 Execut/ve Summary 60,000 sf of office and research and development; 20,000 sf of retail/restaurant; and 350 hotel rooms or 200,000 sf of office. Planning areas 2 and 3 would permit 564,000 sf of office and research and development, 10,000 sf retail/restaurant, and childcare for 80-100 children. Planning area 4 would permit 350 hotel rooms. The MEIR and the 2006 Facilities Master Plan Update (2006 FMPU) focus on areas within the Genentech R&D Overlay District which are divided into the Lower, Upper, Mid, and West Campus neighborhoods. The Gateway Campus, Bay West Cove, and South Campus are addressed as they relate to transportation and connectivity issues, but are not part of the proposed project. ~-1~t~enenOsd-RBiD(3~~er1ey0tebbt Ao-~oeedGenendeahl~O~e+leYdsbict Met~en~e Land Area (acres) 124 160 36 Office 1,008,801 2,629,395 1,620,594 Laboratory 970,173 2,002,482 1,032,309 Manufacturing 779,892 1,041,668 261,776 Amenity 69,500 322,000 252,000 Total Building Area 2,828,366 5,995,545 3,167,179 Description of the 2006 Facilities Master Plan Update The 2006 FMPU is the long-range plan for the growth and development of the South San Francisco Genentech Campus which will be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with Section 20.39.040(b)(4) "Genentech Research and Development Overlay District Regulations" of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) as part of the application for reclassification of the Genentech properties to the Genentech R&D Overlay District (Ord. 1163 ~ 2 (part), 1995). For planning purposes, the 2006 FMPU divides the Genentech Campus into four neighborhoods: Lower Campus, Mid Campus, Upper Campus, and West Campus. The 2006 FMPU growth strategy aims for expansion and redevelopment throughout the Genentech Campus, concentrating on more intense administrative and office development in the Upper Campus and West Campus. Research and development will continue to expand in the Mid and Lower Campuses. The Lower Campus will also support product development and related functions. In addition the amenities will continue to be distributed throughout the Genentech Campus. The expected growth of the Genentech Campus to 6 million sf of building space on 160 acres will result in an overall Genentech R&D Overlay District FAR of 0.69. Within the Genentech Campus, development intensity will vary in each neighborhood in response to available land. Maximum FARs of each neighborhood will not exceed 2.0 with a maximum overall FAR of 1.0 in the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Building typology will further dictate the development intensities throughout the Genentech Campus. The 2006 FMPU is organized into five chapters and covers concepts regarding overall land use and development intensity, urban design issues of massing, scale and views; utilities; transportation and parking. 1-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 1 Executive Summary 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Genentech Campus supports a wide variety of functions: offices, labs, research and manufacturing, and distribution facilities. With growth and substantial increase in employment, an overall structure for the Genentech Campus-hierarchy, roles for sub-areas within the Genentech Campus, clear paths of arrival, and circulation-is necessary. The 1995 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) provided an integrated framework for the Genentech Campus. The 2006 FMPU will serve as a guide to the physical development of the Genentech Campus to the year 2016 (or until a new Facilities Master Plan is approved). The 2006 FMPU describes preferred land uses and projects future space needs to accommodate projected growth. It accommodates the City's goals, Genentech goals, General Plan updates, and other revisions, which were modified or altered after the 1995 Master Plan. City of South San Francisco Policies Land uses in the East of 101 Area have rapidly transformed from light industrial/warehouse to biotechnology research, development and manufacturing. To guide this change, the City adopted the East of 101 Area Plan in 1994. Further, the South San Francisco General Plan Update, adopted in 1999, created the Business and Technology Park land use classification and included an intention to promote the East of 101 Area as a premier biotechnology, and research and development sector. The General Plan Amendment, adopted in 2001, revised land use build out projections and created the Transportation Improvement Plan for the East of 101 Area. The policies contained within these documents provide the City's project objectives. The SSFMC designates most of the East of 101 Area with two zoning classifications: Planned Industrial, and for a portion of the area, Genentech R&D Overlay District. The City's policies, as described in the General Plan, are listed below: ^ Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses. ^ Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses. ^ Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. ^ Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size. ^ Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support commercial establishments such as dry cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses. Genentech's Project Objectives Genentech, founded in 1976, has its corporate headquarters and research and development center located in South San Francisco. Due to its rapid growth in its first nvo decades, Genentech formulated the "Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan" in 1995-an integrated framework for the development of Genentech-owned properties into a corporate campus. The 1995 Master Plan has passed its ten-year planning horizon. In 2005, Genentech applied to expand the Genentech R&D Overlay ~ Cit~• of South San Francisco General Plan, 1999. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 1.g Chapter 1 Executive Summary District, and thereby initiated an update of the 1995 Master Plan. Among Genentech's objectives are to address long range planning by coordinating infrastructure needs with the City and to respond to Genentech's immediate and long-term business plans. The objectives of the 2006 FMPU are designed to be consistent and compatible with the City's General Plan policies, ensuring that future growth and development within the project area avoids potential conflicts with the City's objectives of promoting the East of 101 Area as a premier biotechnology and research and development sector. Genentech projects significant growth in its biopharmaceutical research and development and manufacturing business over the next decade. That will result in the need for substantial additional building space to accommodate that growth. Many biopharmaceutical companies have similar functional needs and facility requirements, and Genentech's are typical. At its core, Genentech is science-driven. The source of its long-term strength is the close collaboration of its scientists with one another, the immediate availability of strong business services to support that scientific work, and the presence in the nearby community of world-class scientific institutions. Accordingly, Genentech has indicated that it has several functional objectives, in meeting its long-term growth needs: ^ First, allow Genentech to keep its key scientific personnel in proximity, so that they may continue to work together in support of its research, development and production goals ^ Second, to keep certain central aspects of its business, both scientific and administrative, together physically for efficiency and maximum support ^ Third, to assure Genentech's proximity to world-class scientific and academic institutions ^ Fourth, to foster a sense of community among its employees, creating interconnectiviry and ease of access The 2006 FMPU provides the physical expression of land uses, space needs, and planning principles that will support Genentech's functional objectives. The proposed expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District would allow implementation of the 2006 FMPU. The Genentech R&D Overlay District encompasses approximately 160 acres, which is an increase from the 72 acres adopted in the 1995 Master Plan'. The proposed project intends to respond to these changed conditions and Genentech's needs and growth, creating an overall framework for Genentech Campus development through the year 2016. It also addresses other Genentech locations outside the Genentech R&D Overlay District within South San Francisco as they relate to transportation and parking. Consistent with City General Plan policies, the 2006 FMPU will fulfill five broad objectives that also serve as project objectives: 1. Articulate vision and policies that will serve as general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other Genentech Campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals. 2. Foster development of a Genentech Campus befitting its setting on the Cin~'s eastern bayshore, that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront. - Annual Report, Genentech, lul} 2005. 1-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 1 Executive Summary 3. Promote alternatives to automobile transportation to further the Citt~'s transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings. 4. Establish the basis for the zoning provisions to be contained in an amended Genentech R&D Overlay District. 5. Provide design guidelines to be enacted after adoption of the 2006 FMPU that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the 2006 FMPU area. The 2006 FMPU emphasizes policies that will achieve the purposes described above. Due to the long- range nature of the 2006 FMPU, flexibility during implementation is crucial, and thus, it does not establish the precise location, size or design of the individual buildings that will follow in the course of the next ten years, except as described in Section 3.5.3 below. Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District) Objectives The Genentech R&D Overlay District prescribes planning and design principles for facilit<~-wide development in accordance with the 1995 Master Plan. The Genentech R&D Overlay District, as well as the 2006 FMPU, were established to achieve the following outcomes: (a) Establish afacility-wide architectural character, a system of open space elements and a pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan linking buildings and uses together in a flexible, logical and orderly manner for the Genentech facilitt~ (b) Increase the flexibility of the City's land use regulations and the speed of its review procedures to reflect the quickly changing needs of a research and development focused corporation (c) Establish facility-wide development standards and design guidelines consistent with the Citt~'s General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan (d) Define a baseline of existing conditions for each lot reclassified to the Genentech R&D Overlay District 1.4 NECESSARY ACTIONS BY THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The Cin~ is the lead agency with the authority to carry out or approve the proposed project. Consistent with Section 20.39.040(b)(3), "R&D Overlay District Regulations," of the SSFMC, applications for reclassification to an R&D Overlay District shall be accompanied by documentation that establishes the condition of each individual lot to be reclassified in a form acceptable to the City's Chief Planner. The 2006 FMPU is reviewed by the Planning Commission, which must find that the 2006 FMPU is consistent with the CitS~'s General Plan and any applicable area plan, and fulfills the purposes of the R&D Overlay District as set forth in Section 20.39.020, "R&D Overlay District Regulations" of the SSFMC. The associated facility design guidelines are subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may approve the facility design guidelines if it finds that such guidelines are consistent with Section 20.39.020, "R&D Overlay District Regulations," and the criteria set forth at Section 20.39.040(b)(4)(D), "R&D Overlay District Regulations." It is likely that the approval of the Genentech R&D Overlay District will require the following: Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 1-5 Chapter 1 Executive Summary ^ Reclassification and zoning map change of the parcels in the Planned Industrial zone into the Genentech R&D Overlay District ^ Zoning teat changes to SSFMC Chapters 20.39 and 20.40 ^ Adoption of the TDM Plan ^ All future developments will be subject to a separate permit approval and CEQA review as established in SSFMC Chapter 20.39 At present time, and as a separate action from the proposed project, the East of 101 Area Plan will need to be updated to become internally consistent with the General Plan. This action is not a part of the 2006 FMPU. In addition to the City, there are also federal, regional, and state responsible agencies that have discretionary authority over specific aspects of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to, the following: ^ Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing more than 1 acre and permit for dewatering during construction, and approval of operational stormwater treatment ^ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)-Ensures compliance with all traffic related standards relative to state highways ^ Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-BAAQMD ensures that all applicable federal and state air qualit}' standards are achieved and maintained ^ San Mateo County Flood Control District-Design approval for on-site flood control. ^ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Jurisdiction includes activities within 100-foot shoreline band as well as permit authority for development adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Trail ^ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-Height limits and noise contours relative to the operation of the San Francisco International Airport A comprehensive description of the proposed project, as well as an identification of the federal, state, and regional responsible agencies that have discretionary authority over specific aspects of the proposed project, are provided in Chapter 3 (Project Description) of this MEIR. 1.5 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED This MEIR addresses environmental issues that are known or were raised by agencies or interested parties during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) public review period for the proposed project. Five comment letters were received in response to the NOP public review period. These five NOP comment letters are provided in Appendix A along with the Initial Study/Notice of Preparation. 1.6 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (MMP) CEQA requires that a public agency adopt an MMP for mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the proposed project to reduce or avoid significant effects on the environment. The MMP will be 1-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 1 Executive Summary included as part of the Final MEIR for the proposed project and will be designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during project implementation, as required by Pfrblic Resources Code Section 21081.6. This MEIR discusses feasible mitigation measures (MMs) that may be implemented to reduce significant environmental impacts. In addition, applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations that are considered part of the project description, as well as project features that are identified in the project's Master Plan, and, therefore, are also part of the project description, are identified as Project Requirements (I'Rs) in the impact analysis and will be included in the MMP to ensure compliance. The MMP for the proposed project, which includes both Mitigation Measures and Project Requirements, would obligate the City to monitor implementation of the MMs and PRs. The MMP would be reviewed by the City in conjunction with its consideration of the proposed project and certification of the Final MEIR. The Draft MEIR uses the following terms to describe the level of significance of impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis: ^ Significant and Unavoidable Impact (SU)-Impact that exceeds the defined threshold(s) of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to ales-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures ^ Potentially Significant Impact (PS)-impact that exceeds the defined threshold(s) of significance and can be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures ^ Less-Than-Significant Impact (LTS)-Impact that does not exceed the defined threshold(s) of significance ^ No Impact (NI)-No effect on the defined threshold(s) of significance A "significant effect" is defined by Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. 1.7 ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives were analyzed that would avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant effects of the project. These alternatives include the following: ^ Alternative 1: No Project-Continuation of 1995 Master Plan-The Continuation of the 1995 Master Plan alternative would continue development of the Genentech Campus under the terms of the 1995 Master Plan. Under Alternative 1, the existing campus would continue on its current 124-acre site and the building area would be limited to current project entitlements (which are all under construction or approved). See Table 6.1 for details of this alternative development under the proposed land use categories of office, laboratory, manufacturing, and amenity. ^ Alternative 2: Reduced Development-Under this alternative, the total campus buildout area would be 160 acres and the projected building square footage would be 4.63 million sf, and an Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR g_7 Chapter 1 Executive Summary associated employee population of 11,025. See Table 6.1 for this alternative development under the proposed land use categories of office, laboratory, manufacturing, and amenity. The City considered during the planning process the feasibility of alternatives to the proposed project that would involve development of similarly-scaled facilities, but located outside of South San Francisco and the Bav Area. These offsite alternatives were found to be infeasible because they do not achieve the operational needs, project requirements, project objectives, or long term goals of Genentech. A detailed analysis of the alternatives is provided in Chapter 6 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the MEIR. 1-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Z J H ~ J J c N N N cE N O O o h 0 y ca ~ Q "d N ~ in TL N ~ N ~ O C in O Z O~ d> O O~ 0 0 ~~ ~ O ~ o~ _ U O C (B - ..C N O L> d N N +-~ ~~ , ~ 3 C C Q) "a (O y C _ L O N ~ o O N Y N 3 .~ a ~ C Q ~ d ~ ~ L O O ~ O O ~ 0 O ~+ Z O (6 ~ .~ ~ ~~ O -._. N Q m - O ~ ° rn c ~n Z ~ ° ' ~ ~ a io ° > ~ c u i co o ° ~ -v c a> ca -° ~ ° • w ° ~ .~ ~aL v ° o ~a~ Q _Q ~ ~ ,~ ~ g cu c ° ~ L M- N L~ N i O Q .--. ~ L QL (E .r ~ 01 . ~ E a~ a ._ L ° O ~Q o ~ °~a a m O~ °j,C d N~ ~ O C O .C > ~~ C ~= Q~ to ~~ O L O N moL~. .~ ao o c ~ a O~ '-~-° id v°i cam"' - _ ~. m ca ~ 3 ~ ~ N O - .? a m ~ ~ . (O > O ~ N ~ O` -C ~p ~? a to -`O C ~ o _ O ~ M r M ~ _ r r C N ~ .a 3 N L ~ > Q ~ ~ '~ ~ O LL 'Q _N - O ~ O ~ d ~ ~ ~ (UE LO - ~ N ~ N a ~ ~ 4. ~ a . =o c - ~ ~ a a ~ oc c ~ ° m L ° ca ' i m a~ v s o v i ~ `^° C C O U~ L L° O O a C c M ey -~ ~ ~ o - a a' ° o i .o o a m ~ ~ v~ cn Q -a a.' aai .~ N ' a> ~ ~ v -~ c ~' ~ a~i °c' m v ~~ a, ~ ~ ~ ~ a o ~ a ~ ~ x ~ o ~ »~ c ~ `~ a °~ Z • ~2 (~ o~ U N a N _ C UO -?i > i Cn Cn Z N a a a ~_~ ~ ~ 3'~ my ~~ ~~.rn ~.~-N L o:° > v ~_-° • ~ c ~' ° " ~ >, ~ aai m cn ~ a i ~ O -° ~ 3 d E ~ i o c ~° a d - U E n 3 ,~• -_ c ° C v o U- 3 U E ~ v .° _ O C 'v ° m ° c ~ ~ ~ ~ m j (S3 N N N Q~ L Q N - N Q N ~ a = ~ f6 .C r--. 4= C A N .fl L ~ C ~ p) .~ .~ ~ N (B U C U (a d N C ~ ~ .~_' o N ~ L N N fC0 O O to ~ ~ Q .O 3 ~ ~ •p ~ ~ •~' Q' h ~ a N O O ca a ,.L„ ~ ~ ~ V (Q d > C ~ ~ fC0 (6 ~ ~ -O ~ O O O O .~ ~~ p O V :"" p 00 p CO _ ~ C ~~ C Q~ 7 N C~ d '. ` ~ ~ L : G U U N C ~ ~ .~ N ~,._-- U ~ C C N y '~ ~ ~ O O O -U Q ~ ?~ y .O .- a ~ ti ° in _N Q Z 3 co 0 ~ cv a ° _° c E ~ ~ c o ° N • ~ ° in `~-- c o v ~ a c a •cu ~, .L ., f° ~ c .~ •~ ~ ~ C 3 a~ v V °" ~ ~ ~ ° o U °" E ~ ~ ~ cv U ~ ~ ~ (oj ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` O O y ~_ N O O L 3 ~ ~ c M .~ ~ ~ 'O ~ -~ ~ L y n L ~ ' E N r v i ~ O N O ~ O L H O r ~D -O ~~ O r (6 C L . - ~- C fn O O ..+ o ca ~ O ~ a o C 0 ~ ?i O N cv O N E "L"' N Q (Oj (O U lU6 d ~ `O ~ (6 U ~, N V E ~ ~ ~ U V E ~ ~ ~ > ~ N Q N N ~ Q- Q N '~ ~ p .~a Q- QL C Q~ Q C. Q-~_ O~ O N _ ~L.r ~ o .~ ~ ~ ~ y 2 E ~ ~ .~ v°i ~ .~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ 2 ~ N . . . W U W J V O O 00 {W± W W ~' LL +~+ p~ U L C Z Z J J • .~ s ~ • M r ~ ~ ~ a~ a ~ ~ -~ c -~ ~ ~ `~ a N . ~ ~ ~ - c o ~ ~ O io ~ v ~ m a~ :~ ~ Z cn Z ~ ~ 8 Z ~ a N F" ,~ - -o " -Q, m -o rn a~ m ~ ~ ~, m Q ~ ~ o -a a -a ~ -a m ° -° C ~ ~ o -~ ~ ~ a> a m L 3 n.~ ~- 3 ~ ~ 'm ° ~ a ~~ a ~~ ° m m Q -o ._ ~ ° ~ a~ ~ E a .-. _ cn E ~ ~ o ~ ii m u' R •~ ~ N c a ° v o vi ~ ° 'o O ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o °' c - S ~~--~ C V N U ° (a C .~--. ~' ~ Q L -L.r E ~ ~ ~ (p E O_ O L N~ d U ~ ~ ~ c N ~ A N N O-.N (B O ~ Q N ti ; r ~~--. C ~ ~~~~ d - ° ~~ N O ~ c ~ a ~ C C C w -~ ti 3 ~ ~ ° m O O C 0 . a~ ° 3 m cv u°i ~ ~ . COC. O N .O-. Q C ~ Q 7 ".' ~ N O -O .~ '~ ~~ ~ ~ N U~ O O N~ ~ C U~ m N ~ G ~ ~ . . N C N i ~ U W L .~ ILL t V d C C z W ~ ~ J _ Z 0 oao a~ N M O _ o to ~ U~ ~ O X ~ O 7- N O (6 ~ tt ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a O u~ ~ ~ C > ~ O a ~ (p .- Q ~ N ?~ ~ O ~ N ~ O O to C N a (a N~ C N C ~ ~ c~ o o U~ ~ H O C E ~ O ~ ~~ O ~ U~ 00 ' N ~ d a ~ O O O N O ~ N .U v i O ~ (d ~ ~ o ~ a ~ O ~ O M _~ O Q C ° .D a ~ Q N v i ~ ~ co ~ Q ~ • N om- - ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ j a ~p N p ~ ~ a O~ N ~ ~ Q E - v o 3~ o ~ E o w v ~~ ti n ~ ~ >, a ~~ a cn o L ~ o c - ~ ~' ~ " o . ~ c o o Q ~ a i v i . " l U D C IB ~ O a ~ ~ O ~ M a N c L 0 ~n ~ N ~ d v~ O+ N O ~ ~ aW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ T ~ T o c m ~ n - O N ~ +~--' a Q1 ~ O L N a •p d O ~ N 'C ca ~ N a c ~ -c ~ - ~ o ~ N N ~ ~ 0 3 0_ ~ ~ Q .o - _Q • -~ N L N i ~ -~ o a ~ a ~ ~ X~ y' ~° ~ a > N m ~ N ~ - ° fn O (6 L a c n c ~ ~ c v' a °~ o c m a ~ o cu ~ ... _ ~ ca _° ~ .r c voi c _ _ ~ ~~~ ~ N ' L a~ O O E 3 (6 O N p ' ~ N N C O U • N in C to ~ ~ ~ ~ d o~~ `. ~ -o a N C s 0 u~ ~ >. a Q ~ N ~ 7 O ~ TU Q' o ~ ~ ~ ~~ U p~ . - >` U a C S N a N a U~ • O~~~ O~ a m O N N O ~ N O •C ~ U ~ to +.' [B N ~ ~ L O ~ ~ . y d d N ~ E ~ ~ ~ _ ~ C ~ ~ U > ~ O - N (O ~ ~ ~ ~ C6 N ~ O ~ O U O a p~ C o- o (B a N L ~ L N.~ w a~ ~, O E ~ o w, C N ' c a m o rn N i cu c ca ~ '-' ~ ~. ~ a~ c ~ o a> v ~ c rn o- ° ~' -`-' ~ cca o ~ ~ E °~ rn a"i ~ E in ai ~ aS a~ ° o ~ ~' _ c a o- ~~ ~ o °- c x o -X v ~~ ~ a~ °- ~n N O- ~> O~ E n. N C ca C U N~~ ~ d~ N~ co ~ r i N m st -o a a ~ cu o Q ,..~ ~ ~ ~- E C ., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o U _ O ~ _ ~ Z ~ d Z U C ~ a O O .~ (V6 t~ ~ O ~ C UO U O (B Q :- 'D Q ~ ~ 0 '0 (fl N O ~ ~ . N 0 a N ~~ N N C a a C N O O U d ~ U ~ ~ N _ N ~~--• (p p 0 ~_ Q ~ ( Q ~ C E N ~ . ~ p ~ ~ ~ Cn 3 O- C ..C a O N c ~ N ~ U o ~ O (6 ~ ~ ~ O O (E _~ O C N~~ (E O ~ C U C E O tN/7 O ~ ° ~~ c co ..T (a m= ~ . - ~a ,~ U o o Q ~ ~ aci ~ a~ ~ s E 3 o ~_ 3 ~ ~ ~ .... E O_ 3 y O .'C_.. L Q. U ~ C S _ ~ V) OO ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ C a O O O ~ ~ ~ U d'O ~ O U O O C O O a o -op ~ ~ •+ R a C d~~ C cD m a d o ~ °02 E ~' E 32~ Z N D a~ o ~ ~ ~ z N G ~c Z °- 4 iv O -~ ~ -~ LL O Z Z U ~ d N 'p N Q t N O d~ O a Q .N ..~.~ O U O ~ Q c m ,~ O 0 io •~ c c ~ _c a~ . d ~ ~ dL ~ U ~ ~ ~ O r °- 3 ~ O a V C ~ ~ O ~ ~ 3 m W.± N t0 V LL ~p Ra V t C !'~ J J J • .i • • • • 'a d -o ~ "O ~ -~ -~ •s . . . ~ 0 ~ 0 c 0 m a~ is ~ is a~ •E E E 0 0 0 z z z • J J J ~ B U -d T N N U (d _m ~ N~ p U .a U C E N (Q m O~ c - ~ O p O U m O N O O Q.- C d t ~6 d d C~~ G a -(C •~ O N O~ •~ N O O •C ~ N "~ ~ d U O ~ a' ~ "~ a ~ - Q ? O "~ ~ n N m O 0 0~ a- p c ~ .o O` p C C~ U O- N O H p' N O h d N •~ j -0i'- ~' 3 ~ O ~ ~ c O ~ ~ ~ ~' ~' ~ .~ O ~' -. 3 o ~ ~ ~ ~ U Y o ~ o -c ~ Q O y o ` -`6 a~ ~ c • c m O ~ ~ c in ~ o O ~ 'O c c~ a~ m O N 4: ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ = : o iv ` ~ ~ c m a U ~ ~ a • o ~ ~ (6 ~ y o O O C ~ ~ ~ ~ (B fQ ~ ~ ~ C O ~ C D1 ~ N E~ C O -d O ~ Q_ U ~ ~ .'C_.. C2 0 0 V ° -C ~ a 0 O) E ~ ~ ~ ~n E °- ~ ~ a E a'.C-...L--' ~ ca N O O ~ M N~~ '~ ~~ N~ N E N cOi C p "a N~ G) p to N Ott ~ U ~ ' C ++ O_~ N O ~+ ~"~ U~ Q' i _ ~ X NU.O N ~ (a 0 d o m Q 7 C 7 C - 7 N ~ O O t - ~ O ~ " p 0 O O ~ OU U O C U N . U U O O . . . J J '~ d ~ N .~ -~ ~ ~ . . ~ 0 . ~ 0 . ~ ~ ~ a~ .~ .~ 0 0 z z J J -~•3 ~ m a~b~ 0 "O m ti O y C "O y O C t 7~ -C d ~ O I- O "•' ~ •O ~ N ~ O ~' d O O N "O ~ U d. cUE O ~ u~ ~ • , N ~ ~ ~ ca N c ~ ~ o c N O~-~ =i C o - -3 Q ~ -a> n ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ c ~ o . c c m O p n.Qti ~ ~ ~ •c~~U = N " ~ c a~ ~ om V O O N > O C O L "' ~ o- N L C •.. 0 ~ ~ ~' O .••' Q '0 ~ ~ ~ •.'C_.. (LS '••1 C ~ C m~ M .~ ~ 3 ~ ~ C~ I- O (C ~ N N 07 -ty "~ (6 ~ +O -C U i M E~ N p ~6 "O O N C Q m ~ C O 3 U~ V E C O C~ ~ ..! U O E "O U C1 ~p Q~ U U Q- Q i N ~ ~p U O N ~' '0 ~ ~ "O d C _ .~ U C U i~ ~ cu d m m .~ OU } H J a c~ a L C d C d '~ N ~ '~ N o -a -° 3 m •~ o a~ tea{ ~ ~O U 'O O ~ •> to Q ~ m O O -O h Q U •~? '•' U •D - 'p N N ~ O t C to CO d- (NE ~ N ~ O N ~ L p O) O c - (6 ~ to 'a d. O ~ N .- c ?. U O -~ ~ N C ~ O N O N .N-~ O N i b -p in N ~ 00 cN6 N ~ ~ NO ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O N p N~ ~ C ~ Q. O m m ~ "~ C O A N N _C ~«- C- ~ '~ O O` O m O U in E L F C O OU h ~ N ` N _~ N C ~ ~ (6 ~ ~6 O C O O .0~-. - f6 -OO C O .«. C O) ~ C D7 ~ ..~-. 0 U~ N O N N C > N fB ~E C -D1 C N ~ ~ ~ N~ U U `~ >~ d N~ O~ O O "O N ~' 7 p_ O O N O O O) n N ~ n 0 i N ~ Q O (n C N .L--~ U (p ~ C U N N L ~ C6 p ~ ~ N~ U C ` ~ X ~ CO (B C C~ X O N~ ~ a~ ~ v~ cn m o m o o L~ >. 3 0 3 o a~ o T ~ - c`~o o ~ -c ~ n c E ~ ~ o` U ~ E o ~ ~ ~ .n ~ T "O ~ O N •p L LO U~ ~ ~„~ C N O ..C C U d ~ ~ >, ~ ~ ~ Y (n ~~ 0 0 LO C C D O U p -(B ~ _~ n U d O p ~ ` ~ _~ ~~ p O N -(O N ~, > O fn >, U C n p -moo v v cp - ?; L a o ca ~~ c -a m~~~ n o n N (L .~ ~ Y N ~ N N C >+ ~ C N ~ N O) 7 (O CO C -d U O _ cL _ > ~ o o U ~ v> ,~ c v> L ~' a~ -o ~ ca -o ~ o a~ m -o -~ •~ °~ `~ -° aL°i •~ ~ Q ~ c ~ -° ~ aNi ~ cca ~ m o m ~ uni c o a> v o t `_~ ~ a`> ~ s ac~i ~ -°ai uLpi ° N ~ " ~ -~ ~ N c c ~ Q n~ (O ~ i~ Q ~. N >. >. > Q~ ~~ N~ X L C O ~ N O C o ~n -_ `o -_ n ~ ~ -a ~ `~ m > t c c -p x c 3 =o _= c U ~ d n to d. W N W ~ N Cn N I--- o> ~ N~ -~ ~L C O L C O O ~ o C7 cn ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ a 8 ~ U C Q1 0 O~ L (n O -O U -O N ~ ~ N '~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ai o N~ a a> W C ~ »-. O - Q c~ ~ cn ~ 2 i6 E_ ~p d ~ O C ~ _~ N ~ C T O U ~ .L--~ •~-• -` O ~ ~ ~ C ~ Ca _ c` c n~ ~ ~ g °~ a~ ?' is --° E a~ ~ cB ~ c aci ~ a~ o .. ~ ~ ~ eV0 c-~ me ~ 3 aciv.a~ LL M O _U .~.. ~ ~ ~ CO (6 [Nib M _ (~ U 3 O O O T C r- O N V C N (a N N R~ •> Q U N C~~ U C Q- O »-. O ~ ~ ~ d O ~ W -x~ W ~~~lll N J J .4 • .i 1 4 • -. ai M ' -~ ~ Q) C O D- ~~ (Q . ~ . ~ . ~ C C N _O O ~ _ (~ Q~ ~ C C c C O O O Z Z Z ~ J J LT ~ -O rT. ~ f0 CO N U d7 p O L a-- O f0 tq C A N N ~ O O (6 Q1 C .~ in to (6 C ~ _ N I- ~ L ~ 0 `~ E ? O "O C U Q N N X 7 C L i C W tC G> U ca ~ c` cn O ~ 3~ d p - 0 0 Q N -a ~~ C N O m~~ U _ O O ~ ~ N L O O O U p O N C O ~ U O N C U >+ ~ O C- Q O_ U ~~ L~ _ Q ~ N ~ U L >+ H O C U •- C L N U •N ~ Cd O~ y °' ~' ~ c N .o c ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p a~ ~ ~ C iv U ~ ~ -Q o p ~~ Q N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O- a c c "d C y " o y ~ . ~ ~ N N O U v p i a~ i L N ~~ ~ ~ Q fV ~~ C O 7 ~ N~ O C ' U O (4 _'d U C6 >. "L-' "L'.' ~ ~ M M N V M~ -~ C , p .~ C T N U o ~ ti ~ a~ ~ o ~ o ui U 'a ?' O o U - ~ _ ~ ++ :O _ H ~ N > c 'c6 C O d O cB ~ cn C .~ p N c~E '~ U N (E ~ U~~~~ fA O~~ R ~ '~ p O~ f0 ~ U C~ U C .O.. y tO 0 C V ~~ U N Q N L . O O~~~~ O O E E N O -~ Q U a C (O O O v L C Q U 0 ~ O O~ d d ~~ '00 Q O J 7 a -._. ~ '- W ~!1 W eel ~ ~ ~ J ~ J O ~ m U ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ C ~ p o ~ p ~ .L -~ U Q O ~ ' U ~ O Q p a s -O ~ ~ ~ ~ >+ ~~ O 'a N ~~ ~ O L oo '~ o a ~ a ~ a> a ~ ~ ° U ~ >, cn ~ Q •° o- c ~ ~ ~ -> P ~~ is v o m c ~^ _~ a ~ ~ W N~ L L a`~ ' y ~ ~ ° ° N ~ >, ~ ° ~ ~ c m (6 ~ O ~ C ~ O~ U L N - ¢ C p ~ O U C L N N U (E N (6 ~ ~ a is ~ a a ` ~ 7 U ~ C+O L L _ U -~ .N U m U N U~ O~ Q C L "O O O ~ Q > L ~ C O C E C t/J O O w' --. - O U i p ~ p O ~ C N 4J :- ~ ' U N ~ O y' ~ _ ~ N U N ~ N Q U N p C a C (6 fq O ~ _ N ~ U7 V7 U Q C C ~~ N C O- (O (~ (B C L ~ C O - a U L f ~ ~ N C N N O O - U O _ <"> d ~ -O ~ O ~ N ~ ~ m N N O ~ ~ p p' ~ C a C ~ C ~ ~ T~ 0 0 O~ C L ~_ ~ VJ N is .O N C U .L-~ ~' C N a> 3 o X N m~ L> c a O a C c o ~ O ~ a . ~ ~ .Q ~ a f ~~ t o Q m -- O C R ~ .~- N ~ O C Q' (a C~ ° p N U .-. o ~ C O _ N ~ o m a ~ ~ a~ O O cn N to _.^' N u~ m N L ~ a~ • - in _ .,__ (~ C ~ m Q m L p ~ 07 (O U - C fB > Q~ ~ ~ L` ~ ~ N N f4 O L OU ~ - ~ - -p ~ _ U y >i . -. N N O U ~ (E ~ ' N C ~ O 7 (` ~ ~+ ~ C p C ~~~ U iJ O C ~ O N O a ~'~' ~ ~ ( 6 Q ~ NO -~ U7 L _~'.>~-. ~ O N ~ ~ C O C C U ~ o >. ~ -~ co 3 L n~ °~ °p c° ti a° ° ° ~ ~ ° Q f° c` ~ ~ Q v o~ Q <° a> ~ U O C 6 a~ m o v~ ~ ~ N L U c p Q O ° L ~ ~ rn ~ p i cO N ~ p N O f ~ ~ O c N O~~ ~ p j h c N ~ N U L_ C O ~6 O t i) ~ O N ` a ~ -Q cn ~ ~ a o° C ~ :~ -o O c c m rn ° -o ~ cn ~ N n _ O o " Q s - in o °- 3 a i u i c mcu_ `-' a Qa~c N ~ OU ~ ~ .~ 0 C ~ ~ ~ L ~ Y ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ N N 0 H ~ ~ L O a n .~ . ( 6 N Q~ :d C O N _ C _N O ~ L O O O O ~ ~ 7 '. _~ ~ a ' E E~ O + 'a ~ --~ O ~ N . e g g U U a ~ ~ i ~ O ~> N U c6 L _ 3 ~ _U c ~ ~ ° c O a .._. ~ ~ (9 .a ~ 0 v ~ U ._ " ~~ O d. m _rn . N h B O O am- ~ y (a W~ (B fJ) E C ~ .C ~ - j Q sP Y U O E X 0 0 L CO CO O O N ~ ~ U O U a oo co ~ U v ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ _ ~ ~n 3 ~°n" U ~ ~. ~ a Z a ~ J L fA N to ~ L O O O Q C C C m ~' ~ N ~ L d O ~ t •~ ~ w . O a U ~ O N ~ ~ (6 ~ o~H ~~~ ~ a`~ ~a ~~ ~ fl-~'~-~ fB to ~ d ~> O N X N ~ .o L a o . m a O m N aai v~ s O f4 N c0 c~ ~~ ~ a> ~ rn a~ Q U U C ;° ~ ~ c p 3~ p Q c - _ ~ ~ cv ~ ~ 3 ~ o c_ v c .~ a~ ° ~ ~ ~ L c`°aa~ o >~~ N O o a~ ~ ~ va~ia y o~~ ~ > u~ ~ ~.. °LL. N p C U N p L C O •~ 3 a' c m n v°i a o° o c o 3 0 `~' ~ tq v °i `~ o a~ af°i L' ~ o a~ v o ~ ~ L m ~ m- u.. n~ - ° ~ ~ - . . m c ° c ~ L o Q ~ = L~ a o o ~ O fA Q~ ~° A ~ C/) (D C 3 0 U N~ p U tf~ ~ N N ° ~ ~ a o 3 3~ o~ N Q" °~ ~ O O o a U~~ p0 U a C M ~ N~ .->,~ ~ ~ -E X ~ ~ U y ~ ~ 0U a0 p ~ C ~ U ~ ~ . V ~ ~ Q N O Q y U ~ y~ Q y O p t~ V a a N ~ ° U ~ L Q. ~ y ""' ~ ~ ~U ~ m ~ a~~ °cnH- ~ ~ 3 c~ 3 W O Z d' W eo V 1~1 ~Q IQC U N C J J J N y J t4 N ~ N s ~ > N -"..' N ~ c a~ ." - _> ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ cn m o ~ ~ ~ C to -° (Up C U C O N ~ O V U O ~ 'O N Q C (II O Q _ ~ C "~ .C] .~~. ~ ~ > fA C ~ ~ D7 C N • C -> ` ~ "° ° , _ C /A " ~ ~ C ~ C N ~ to - O O 1 m t d a m ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ - c '~ c ~ -o - _ a? `o ~ ° 3 ~ > ~ s ~ ti U U 0 F p m C C O E O ~ U "O C ~ • O d O U •--~ n 0 ? f O ~ Q 6 p r .`.: - ~ N O - ~ ~ U N ~ >' p~j ~ U O • - O - > N n n " >- j ~ ~ , O N" ~ (6 d N N (") N C Q ~ ~ ~ d Cp N ~ (J C C (O _- fd ~ ~ U N "O .~ U C O O N V~ '° > (6 ~ ~ ~ _ C O i O -O Q V~ • O O d -~ C O •~ ~ C ( `6 ~ ~ O ~ R C C ~ Q N (II ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ N U „~ O ~ _~ ~ h 4 v n (U6 d ~ O N ~' C O N O - ~ -~ N ~ E -~ C N ."' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y _ -~ ~~~ C~ v C °-°- E .~ E ~ O O O N ~ O C Q O O O w Z ~ U 3~~ ~ n a> m Z Z Z ~~ 8 J d J a N J ~ ~ v`ni ~ _ ~n ~ ~ > p > cu m v> ~ rn ~ o ° ti ~ ~ c _N a~ ~ ~_ ~ a~ c ~ O ~O O ~ 3=~... _ ~' ~- ~ U .N Q N ~ a> •~ n O ~ a> ~ ~ ~ -~ .-. N L ~ - U 3 ~ C v (C6 n ° u~ ~b y ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ O- U m N O O" O ~ F- ~ U d U ~ C ~ C~ - ~ U O O y ~ O 0 7 "..' O~ U U N U O O U ~ V O ~ O N C - Q -UO ~ ~ .~--. .D j N N C ~- ~ ~ O ~- ~ N U ¢ ~ O N -~ C ~ Z h ~ Q1 ti ..-~ ~ O O O U ~~ ~> U W O O ~ ~ t O C ~ ~ ~ CO O~ ~ ~ U O Q -] ~ V) O~ -~" ~ 0 0 U C .~ N d 7 O ~ O~ O ~ n - ' N C O O ~ U N U h "~ U N • O yL.., ~ to C ~ = d -~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O = "O C ~ O O .C ~ N • is ~ O ~ ~ ? ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ % ~ ~ a>i ~ % ~ ~ v> ~ .n = ~ v ~ o O ~ o ~ m ~ ~ co ~ > c 3 in c -o ~ ~ -n ~ o co o m a~ x n n m a> y ~ O - a> v c a~ c cu ,o~ n c cn ~ -rn_ =m ~ O `~ O in . . c o ~ 0 3 O m v> -o ~ ~ d ~ _ n~~ ~ U T B N o - m o ~ N C > o ~ m ~O N~ U n n ~. Q ~ Q ~ M ~ - a~ ,~ _~ -O c 6 O N '~ o o a~ -~ v U d fII v rn ._ a> o y -O ~ N et a> rn -o ~ p~ N 1~ it v°i o X E p O N G ~ Q O to O N~ C ~ O~ O C ~ O U C~ O ?i ~ O- (a (6 N ~ _ (O v v uoi n> ,~? U7 ~ ~ _p) ~ ° o _°c :~ n a~i ~ `n w C O ~ ~ v -o -°c "' w Q1 U o -a -a m "~ m v w O -- w ° a `o rn m Q 7 Q~-•' C Q n`~ ~ 7 n -O C C~ O 0~ Q 7 C~ C ._~ d C. N~> -N 7 ?i O O ~ ~ ~ n 07 CO N ~ (O .~-~ ~ ~ O QI ..'C--. ~ ?i ?i t6 OU ~ .~ ~ .L-.. d O C ~ W N N V R~ V E E ti d a W U '~ z z z ,{ :~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a> .~ s .~ ~ .~ ~ i a i a~ a i L ~ - _~ _~ C O C O - ~ O • Q~ ~ Q~ ~ ~ CC G O O O z Z Z ~ ~ Z Z Z U .C ~ U N N~ OJ N O ~ N ~ ~~ 'LS U ~ (p C ' N •O N L .~ • Q O O C C y N Q to F- d ~ d X O > -p U ~ .E ~ N _ U O 0 C 0 •~ ~ • O O O ~ d~ Z ~ C O Q U A C to ~ U O O O Q- L O "d ~~ ~ O N E --~ d - ~ . Q-c - O ~ X 0 0 O S ~ ~ °~ ~ O d ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m •m ' ~ f9 O- Q1 c ~ Y ~ ~ ~ "~ 0 • O T O~ U - fB Q U~ U - p O~> 3 ' ' C p iE c Q m O O p y •O ~_ ~_ ~ Q d O `O N . -~ O a N •~ O Q~ O d~ N (6 ~ > y ~ d '~0 ~ ~ L ~ O O ~ -~ ~ m 7 . -~ O C Q~ L ~~ O -+--~ _ 00 O N N ~--' H O) O ~ ~ O~ U d; ~ O ~ C _ ~ i O O ~ p > -~ • ~ C O (6 ~ O O Z ~ ~ N~ O U ~ C G C y ~~ O N w Off"' O ~ -p O~ (6 O. O U ~ O ~ y V Q p j O ~ N X C "O C. d 0~~ O O ?i (E ~i .C ~ Q ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ti W N W V ~m i Q~ V L N C L7 W P'~ 41 a ~ ~ ~ J J J ~~~ c~ o ~~ p N ~ E m m e ~ ~ ~ L (a ~' c o -o ~ c- ~ O O O ~ a (6 O c N~ C • m ~ m a i ~ N - o " ~ O v ° i ~ ~ ° ~ ~' u' .L ~ o ~ ~ "in O s a c a O O U~ O L O~ N O N .N. 0 0 ~ _ W 'O N N O) `~- N N Q O O ~ ' ~ ~ O O d~ d C~ C (6 O ~ (6 (d p ( c6 ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ p a' O ~ v' p Q1 d ~ L d u ~ ~ ~ ° ~ a> cn i ~~ O U O U O N~ c •iv .c _~ O `~ f6 c 3 ~ (d N o O (d "~ Q c.v o ,a> v~ n ~ c ~ ~ ~ io ~ 4J O~ U o ca c O m _~ o a C . a> C O' U~ O O •~ ~ ~ ca a'a U L> O rn N ~~ ~ O ~~ O N c 0 v N O d c i6 U 'c c O N L ~ '~ v~ j ' tLi> O in N O O .~ L - to C 7 Q 0 - O U ~ (~ O N E iq ~ U '~ O (O O O O 'O U L1J d m ° ~ ~ c ~ m ~ w > N X v ~ iu a i c? c °' o ~ te ° i ~ a o ~ a ~ . a - •~ ~, c O d>= L U L L "O N~ co a> ~ U V~~ i a~ E a~ ~ O~~ in L o a L ~ _ C - ~ N . -~ Lf7 "O •~ O L ~~ .C y N L (B d O 0~ L N> C - O' ~ U Q (O X ~ L L~ 3 (C O 0 O D N_ d C C .~L--' f6 ~~ O , N O O C L C .L ~ d L p d O~ C N ~ O .O. d C 'N N (n - C ~ ~ ~ O C N O ,. O C W L O Q1 O ' ~~ y 01 ~ O . N O U _ ~ O (6 Q1 •--~ >, " " L O m N 0 0 ~ .CO ~ C 4= " t~ C ~ f 6 y "O L O O (6 ~ ._~ C ~ OU ~L--~ ~ "L" .m ~ O d (E O O) C -O (O N 7 (Q ~ ~ f6 ~ C ~ ~~ j~ to f4 _~ X "O N O •~ j "O L O -a L O C N~ N O I L U Q~ O N N D ~ to _~_ (4 O- N p y N .~ L ~O ~ N d U ( O O ~ cC O "- 0 0 O ~ "O ~ ` O ~ O_ 3 ~ Q~ C O ~ _ U ~ O ."~ (6 C ) ~ N N O U ' C p V J U ~ d ~ • N ~ • .. 0 ~ ~ a> c c Z ~ ~ a ~ aci ~ u~i o ~ (A o °~ ti ~ O -~ ~ a c m c ~ ca °- -cu O L ~ 6 O W ~ ~ ~ ~, Q U ~ U c ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ > ~ co - cn Q' Q ~6 ~ ~ ~ (6 ~~ N C O> ~ L~ L QL ~ O~~ ~ ~ O ~ N L N N U t!") O N ~ ~ -- Y7 ~ Q. "' O U I[7 O ~ [n l[! ~ _ - Y J U L 4~9 ~ ~ N C N O O ~~ C Q O O a -o a~ -o ~n c a U ca ° ~ a~ ~~ O N a - a~ E ~ (6 O a in a O Z ~~ C ~ O a. n ca a. U H H H J J J U O~ -U - U D C O- (6 d to O .N-~ V N O E .~ N w 'L"' ~ "O O N C (6 a~ ~'~ ~ a ~~ o m~ °x-'y o f E • O C y ~~ 'O - 7 p Q~ C~ =0 O O~ U _~ C N N N U= C- ~ N ~ C ~~ "- O L Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C d ~ ~ 'O N ~ ~ N ~ .N-I N C~ ~ ~~ N O N_ ~ ~ -C ~ ~ ~ ~ L U ~ O ` N O (V O c o O N Y O m E '_' ~ C N_ o - O O O a •N X 0 3 j ~ O ~ O ~ N ~ O ~ N ~ ~ - C C -O C N cOa ~ ' ~ O 3 0 C 0 ' ~ ' . O- ~ Q) N t h d~ O N (B ~ .LO-~ L U~~ L U m N "d (p ~ y L y~ O N 0 N •~ ~~ M` d C ."C_. (a Y ~ O O C C O Q .~ ~ ~ ~ (6 ~ ~ ~ 1['~ d ~ C T O L .O N C C N E N ~ 'p O = ` ~ ~ O Q- N ~ ° ~ °' 3 ~ ~ n a>- ~ ~ a a`~ ~ ~ a m ° d °' - J Z Q O J 0 W w W _~ V Q~ V d C a=1 '~ v~ ~ J z • .~~ 1 • -. • • • N .~ _~ N N _~ y ~ C O • C O - ~ ~ .~ O O Z Z J Z U C~ m O O .C 'O /n U y ~O Q ~ ~ ~ N .m N O .0., ~ - n m ~ m ~~ N N (n U N C ° L O .L.. ate- m ~ ~ N L ~m o ~ '~ ~~ ~~3 - c u N C ~ N O U -O ma ~ C ~ ~ O m O 'C ~'U ^~ O ~ C N c 3 O m O a 3 ~ o ~ v ~ O ~ ~ O O U m U~ n O O U o > aci c ~ N E , 3 m n ~ ~ N C -O ~ O ~ > m E vii i c ~ ~ a~ m c u d : v ~ °~ c to n.~ ~ ~ m '~ m °~ ~ ~ o -a '~1' C> Q C O ~ O m 0 ~ "O C ~ +-C" ~ d to N Q- ~ n Y ~ ~. m Y O ~ ~ N J J J J 'Q W Q ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ G' _ ~ _ ~ `~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~? ~ Z O _ O O Q ~ ~ ~ ~ _ _ . Q ~ ~ Z Z Z 2 N N N J J J N L .L.. O> vii ..-~ N UL , O O C !~ `p N 0 N N - Q> p d .U -~ no .. O C O .~ C O ~ ~ a m ' -~ U ~ ~ L ~ m o m ~ N ~ ' ~ ~ m e C N ~ U m .~ n a~ m H N O ~ 4 ~ O N ~ ~ ~ O C fl" 'D ~ O- ~ ~ y L > Q n O O N m N U ~ N Q) O~ m LO ~ m m c Oj C 'E L m ~n L UJ U L O C U . -. L ~ ~ m --' N O C N m f A~ O U Q _O C~~ N mL O C O C A m~ O L m O m C C~ C "" c m ~ ~ ° ~ L ~ c ~-a m ~ c m c~ c~ c= c c in . , v c c~ c N 0 0 0 3 Q S O N '- N O ~ 'N U ,m co L 0 Q O M -~ N~ ` a~ m E rn . --~ n m ~~ h o m oc ~ ° ~ ~ a> ~ ~ -° ° ~ ~ c m m '~ ~ x cv - is 'o c ~ O~ C~ U ~ o N Q .~ O ' ~ m M~ C~ m tD Q 7~ y IJ ~ O ~O d to C C ~ m tp U O O "a ~ C n ~~ G ~ O~ .O p N c et O' j C -O d ~.. >, is v~ .~ c c m m a~ N c m m ~ ~ ~ ~ o n ~ ~ iv c- Q- ~ m ~ L ~ C a i c U ~i C ~ L m"C~. ~ ~ O ~ O ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p ~ rn {W.~ W cW C V ~i ~Q pa U L C N C~ C W H W U J Z J Z O O C~ y O L~ C C L C O~ (6 (II ""' N 4_ O > O- = ~ -a ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Vi ~ - ?~ U ~ O N _C (6 (O E ~ ~ ~ O CO . -~ '~ ~ CO E O n C ~ ~ ~ U `~ ~ C '~ 7 C Y _N to cu L GJ __ C O ~ O Q L N " U ~ O N C6 3 O] ~L ' ~ O ~' C fn --' " y N 4J C ~ O D) ~ 'D ~ 'O O ~ ~O O ~ ~ U p > O ~ f6 "O • (6 n 7 C ~--~ to O O -~ N ~ N O L O C C C O "O O C N L (a ~ O ~ >, ~ C C ~ C~ N .? L N ~ -O O (B ~ p O ~ L . ~ ~ U O C6 - C ~ -' C U n 'D ~ N U 16 > ~' ~ i _ C fA (9 V~ U O O~ O 0~ O m~ •~ ~ N ~ .C] U ~ ~ n N ~ ~ fA "O .~ 1 N ~° °' -- ~ ~ ~ ~ o E - a~ ° co °' o O~ 'p N n~ d '~ C d~ C U d N + ~ ~ ~ C6 d N N~ C h- L Y ` ~ N E ~ Y O ~ ~ ~ C ~ (B C 'C `n ~ 3 a ~ o c ~ `' ~' m ~ ~ ~ ~ i . -a in ~ ~ uni ~ ~ n ~ -L c4 c ~ o _ U ~~ 3 ~ ~ 0 _ U U .~ U~ -O fn a O O N U C N~ cCE C C ~ O 6 O C D) t - - N _ - a~ . • -p fl- ~ ~ o aci ~ o ~Q ca o a ~ Q • U ~ O O ~ (d Ca C ~ U ~ N N U7 ' U ~ > N U O N D L C i O n ~ ~ ~ O G> C (6 C ~ '~ (B 3 ' C 6 C d N C ~_ d 7 7 L E U ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ m o - c ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ O Q f6 ~ OU O ~ - O ~ O N O ~ - ~ ~ ~ U ~ E N ~ "C "O "~ p U ~ C O ~ ' C e- ' C ~ . (O p >, (O . ~ ~ L ~ (O y ~ ~ N O ~ O (6 ~ C 0 >' ~ d (C tG C m ~ m ~ ~ - . • O ~ ~ N N N (O ~ C~ .~ O X O .L.., C7 "O E cn E O C~ U N O.L.-. O Z N Cn O Z ~ N • ~ 8 J Z J Z U O ~ p to ~ T C L 0 U .d-. O `O ~ C - O C_ "O O "O O U C .-' ~ °~~ ~~ 0 v 3 ~ O ~ C ( ~ ° cv a ~? ~~ L N O O S a o 3 . n w is d - o cn ~ . °' c~~~ ~ m o n o a °i °a ° ~ ~ c o N ~ ~ ° 3 Q ~ ~ ~ n o a`~ 3 0 o a> O- Q a 0 0 a ~~ O o=~~ ~ .~ (n (B ° m N CO nY ~ ~ O O U ~ O n U d ~ -p O ~ O ~ L `~ ` ~~ ~ 3 U N -~ L S O d C o E~ .L--~ O~ C U> ca O O~ U O ~ L_ C n N U~ C C ui O U _O 3 O L N O C ( O U ~ CO ~ 'p ( O -~ C .~ fa m (B Q O - ~ ~ O ~ = ~ O L ~ O U ~ N ~ L ~ ~ to ~C _ _ N~~ ~~ ~ O O Q C h N O C~~ ~ n n O ~ (6 j, O ~ N ( O ~ O .O n C to ~ 00 U ?i O C d h ~ ~ d~ Q -O N~ O - L .~ ~ O C C n .. 'O ~ O L " L i p E~~ y~ y H .N (6 N ~ . - ~ 7 N d1 L.L ~ C C O ~ ~ a> -a ~ .~ ~ ~n ~ E " ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ca -0 3 ~ ~O L m ~ c p ~' ~ ~ aUi ~ ~ N N d v ~ ~ ~ o ~ Q1 ~ ~ v o c ca ~ ~ = t0 ~ ~ v 3 o Q . - c - ea ~ ° :° rn m E ° m c `~ R m ca ~ ~ N c ~ N ~ o . , ea ~ m ~ o _ ~ ~ o v ~ o c R cn _~ ~ o o ~ o E ~i ~ U~ .. c V c a L L O F- ~ o ~i U U d~ h ~ o c ~ t6 n i L W ~A ~y N ~_ V LWL +~+ R~ V V C d C N O N rl Z J Z c .N N a`ni ~ ~ L m Cp U _ O ~~ (B N -~ Q' O w ~ U d ~ OO ~ ~ Q (6 a n C w O N~ U O U C ~ N ~ d ~ ~ ~ OU c c •O ~"~ N O (n _ (6 C (p - ~ C O~ O a U~ • fa O N U _ ~ - ~ ~ m d ~ _ U N N L U E .~ N T- C L 3 d~ ~ ~ y ° - u~ c6 c ' ~ N ~ ~ C Q~ ~ ~ U U O _ L O U ~ (d ~ N > ~O U ? 1 - . a nca ~o(.~ >,a ~ -~a v> ~ ~ a~ o ~ U C N ~ ~ ~ U N C Q N~~ N N O S ' O N 0 3 (6 ~ U d L~ no 3 y >,a> c ~ m ~ N O O O U~ ~ ~ ' • y ~ (n (6 p ~ ~ C (O O ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ j C O - O O (O O U > U • 7> C O O ~ "O fl- " m U 'p O U to -- m ' XL--' s ~ O C (6 ~• ~ •--~ N N O O U O O N L U 'O N O N .C ~ N .~ ~ O O s .C U °J (6 C n U c9 O ~ .C n 0) N~ ~ N Vl . C p C c ~ N O O- ~ •- O (B ...~ O O U c U H C ~ IB ~ ~ ` ,C ~ ~ . ~O N C7 n N 'O ~ U C C O C _O m ~ N O O O N` O ~, t0 L d O a ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ ~ l ~ U t6 L __ ~ 'p L - O y -~ p ~ O c O O Z ~ ~ ~ o ~ "~ ~ 3 Cn ~ Z • ~ A Z J Z ~~ U ~' 0 0~ O O O ~ N ~~ 'p U N O om' c o 3 C Y L "a-~~ O~ n T ~ N a d Q O O O ~ N C 3 ~ O ~ O '- U 4 --. U O O _ V~~ .~ O O ~ c~ N L ~ H c n ~ ~ - O ~ C6 O - ~ ~ O Q O d ~ -. c0 ~ .L - N ~ ~ ~ "O O~ ~ a d . j y O ~ ~ ~ N t7 N •-• D) • ~ ~ -~_ ~ O N ~ n ~ cn ~ n ~ > U Q w ~ ~ C c~ n C~~ d O O n U 0 ~ `O (Q O O _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - n .? n N ~ cn ~ ~ - m Lin L L _ O" -(6 C (6 C O _ ~ O N~ ~ cn 00 O ~~ °' m E c Q~.E ~ T _ a~. CO >, ~ [n >i U - - ~D O O O N ~• C iF -C .L . w~ O~ c0 ~ n O O ~ -> °~ ~ ~ m-° °~ ~ '~- c o m ~- N Q ~ ~- O~ N - ~ N v i o Q Q N O _ _ N fA J J a~ C N n ~ N ~ +L- L ~ - O L ~ -3 ~ C p O >` to _ ~ -a Ca c0 Q O C O Q O O 'O (a ~ L ~ j ~ p) C C C O ~ 7 N O m O ~ in c ~ cE -p O ~ N -~ Z L "~ w d (6 'd in 7 ~ ~ ~ 7 O > ~ ~ C O C > O `-° N C o ° ~ m ~ ~ ~ vOi L L ~ ~ 7 ~ - ~ .~ 'a (p O c ~ >i O ~ .L... O "D O O 'D O ~ O "O U (p N f6 ~ U O m n m ~ ~ ~ Q ~ c ~ o O ~ c co >, a`> ~ N (q d C C T O w ~ Q ~ O O . ~ I O ~-' N L 7+ w~ C O Q O7 O) O 7 Q O ~ C -C ~ N N ~ C N (E 'X ~ ~ E W rn ~ L ~ F- ~ m ~ ~ ~ ^ ^ ~ ^ a a N C to N -O rL-+ ~ -O .L--I ' N _' d G N .O .L--r O O O (O > o a, a~nm ~ n c E ._~ U i ~~ oa rnt a n C Y ~ N~ m ~ -a Q ~ T~ ~ ~ N a - ~ Q O ~ u, o >' ~ o - a0 0 ~ - o a ~ ~ C O ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ a a~~ _ ~ - N to N L 3 -_ O N O N i ~ O N ~ -- ~~ ~ CO ~ m - ~ N ~ C C O~ ..--. ~ 0 0 O O C C~ -O U 4= U ~ O > ~ ~ ~ (Cf U C O Lj ~ ` U LL C O C ~ Q y (II w~ C V7 ~~ m O L 'd . ~ ti cB n~ 3 ~ ~ 0 3 ~.5~ ~gv~ ~.S ~ -~ c r ...~ Q L~~ y I~ C ~ ~ N N ~ ~~ 1~ U~L ~ ~.C.. ~ d N~~ O O 'et d~~ O~ N~ ~ > n > > ... ~ > a~ cv ~ U ~ ~ 0 O' Q O ~ 0 0 0 ~ 3md2 E-E O O I L ,O~ " E 3m a~.~~ ~ U ~_ V O Z Q Z a 0 d N Z ~_ W C~ G LL Q~ V @3 W ei d ~. U E N F- J C C m 0 ~ 0 ~ .n o ~ ° a~ c C a) O ~ m c Q O 3 ~ -Q O O N tU6 L 0 L (6 a Cl O_ N Q1 ~ o m a`~ c ~ U O C N C ~ L (6 N t N N s Z ~ U7 L O) O1 p N L N p O ~° L __ ~ Q ~ ~ a ~ C7 ~ = o ° o ~ ~ ~ u, ~ ~ E a ~ i o c ~ ~ CO O a L C ~ -~ O c -O a c c p a C LO ~ (n O O --~ . O C C L O .f] A O ~ O ~ N M N N C d~ ~ L O ~ L L ~ H ~ . H H a ~ ^ ^ ^ N a .o a ~ a •~ ~ v a 4? a '~ E v0i ~, ~ m -p v> d ~ ~ NL-•' _ p)._ c~ O ~ C C CL ~ __~ C ~ t C a ~ ~ m ~. O c m L • o a> ~ a O ~ -U L O O O ~ ~ O 3 ~ _ ~ L.L ~ O O ~ c c 3 a~~- ~ cv n p ~ ti ~ E•C_ ? N~:~ M ~ ~ L ~ ~ y v aLNi ~ ~ ~ o c N ~ R a a~ c- a~ v0i w ~ 3000 a 2 E N H J t _O m a -0 C ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o L N o ~ ~ a~ L 7 D1 L "~ L -. L O -~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t Q. Cl Q ~ ~ L N ~ Q~ c N o 0 ~ C C ~ (B O N ~ (6 ~ L Q1 L _ 3 L L ~ Z ~ ~ " ~ ~ C O d ' a > ~ a ~ a i 0 ~ E ~ ~ c ~ N a C .r O ~ ~ ~ ' m > N N C a a C ~i aj ~ 7 ~ 01 C O , - L ~ O N T O 7 (6 ,, °' i °' o °' E ~ H ~ FL- E FL- ~L ^ ^ ^ N a U N 7 N ~ fp O •a O ~ ~ ~ O L N fa ~ Q L.L_ 3 N t7 aai > a0i = ~ ~ v~ •c Q c o C1 ~ U •~ U O ~ ~ N (E (6 ~ ~ Q_ ~ '~ ~ ~ -_ ~ -N O p Q1 (C6 ~ N CO +••' 'C 4= ~ U "~ C ~ C N 'p O ~.a ~ ~ w o N L QO y o 0 3 J C O L C 3 O ~.-..E-n c~"uS ti ~ ~ • v N ~° o c v c V ~ > ~ ~ ~ U_ R ~ O N ~ ~ o. ~ ~ .N a c H J a L O7 C O O ~ rn a c a ~ m o O L' 3 -a ~ c v, ~ o ~ O O U N ~ (9 Q ` Y i O i ~ ~, N U m ~ ~ N E ~ a~ a ~ ~ .C.. C C a ~ `-° o c p ~ N 'C (~ ~ L ~ L ~ ~ O ~ O U N O j N ~ _ a O Q "C N CO N a C6 - O C ~ L ~ ~ O ~ O ~ L > O`' O Q ° 7 ~ o U7 a .L... a c ~ ~ c m ~ ~ > cu C7 ~ ~ Q o c c -o ~ L ~ m °- > y a C ~ ~ ` (O U N O N c C ~ O .••' w. 7 ~ O a N N ~ O O CO C L ~ ~ ~ ~ L _ ~ ~ N x O L U O Q O O N 'C ~ ~ ~ C > C O Q a ~ - N ° Ca Q ~ •N ~n ti •N ~ ~ ~ ~ a c N C a O O O~ •X rL ^ ^ ^ ^ N CL U ~ ~ C to O O U O •o n a Q'~ C1 Q .LO-~ ~ -~ U -- ~ d m ~ ~ ~ ~ O •c ~ a O C a c~ ~= ~ d O C~ C 3 •~ N a U _ O ~ N (6 .L.-~ ~ C O N ~ G O W C L O O (p ~ ~ ~ 'O C N O m O ~ o iv w cap n c -av N ~ ti ~ E cL a~ w .--~ N ~ ~ Cl t7 u~ ti ~~ ~-~~ ~ 0 0 w R "d O Y N N U a' o o ~ o ~ a ~ 3m n= E.~ N N ei N ~ J N H J N -p c ~ ~ m O - m L ~ ~ .X U O -O N Q1 ' m C d O . m C ~0 _ _ ~ C . - N O O C m _ O O m -a ~ ~ D7 w O N Z „~_, L ~ ~ m C U 3 'C ~ N ~ L "0 0 , ~ c ~ m > m c . i d L m rn O ~ N O~ m O ( C6 C C m ~ O O _ to L`-. ~ O ~ ~ O N - 1 ~ rn ai ~o ~ c ~ a _ ~ ~ o li co o cu ~ ~ c` m -p s ~ ~ m -a a m o a ~ i m ~ a~ .o m ~ ~ o w ~ ~ o ~_~~ ~ p- - ~ • ^ N o o co c ~ ~ -o ~ c c ~ ~ ~ -o ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ > o o ~ cv ~ -~ > ~ O c o -~ m ~ c c Q c c m~ °-~ °' t o m . ~ o o o ~ Q m ~ t ~ d Q ^ ~ O N 0 ~~„ N O O ~ (E N ul ~ O 0 Q ~ ~ C ~ ~ -S > U ~ C -C O~ (6 C ~ C Q m C > ~ .. O -p Ur LL ~ _ m O -Q ~ O O m C C~ C N ` d ~ m C ~ ~ O O m w O ~ C C ~ C ~-. ~ s - ~ `~ c ~ C7 v W N N O s O -~ ~ 3 m ~ W ~` ~ C p m ' c `~ c in a~ ~v c c ~ ' -i . ~ ` in ~ a~ .~ - co c X n ~ a~ m ~ m p - m ~ o ~ ~ ~ N ~ m a c _p m ~_ m~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ rn n A ~ a> o H ti 3~ Z Z ~ c ~ ~ ~ in ~ a ~ U O- ~ j 3 0 D ~ N~~~ N _ _ O W Y C C ° N m rn `~ O W ~ m `- ~ m Q _ ~ m - ~ mp Qm rn~ - Q o . ° m~ m °~ ~ a O~ ~ d GO ~ L E E~~ C L d y C~ O C ~ .O) d C O - ~ . g~ a _rn p C mo o' o w ~? ^ _ ° ~ o c °~-' -o ~ o ~ umi 3 ~ ti ~ o o h m c• m cp ~ p m c o w c ~ ,--, ~ ~ .~ '~o ~ m Q- i ~ ~ ~ E ~' vi H a~ :° v i ~ c rn a~ a~m~~' ~ N li p c o n ~ N EO `°~ v'~ o$ g m ~.~ E o 0 per. QJ m C O /A U m > o d Q S~ C U -C D O m C W Q "D O ~~ ~ -C C Y> m n O N ~ tD ~"~ ~ ti N m C ~ m y ^-' ~ O ~ N d O~ ~ _ -O C ~ ~ (O ~ N N ti (n .~ O Q = Cam 4J U ti ~ -a C N -p ~ V U --. ~~ N~ O R d U~ d ~ ~ C ~ o~ -~ 3¢.S 3-~~ ~ - E ~ m _ 3 Q m ._ E M N e-I }W± W W W LL R~ V (t(,~ d C d W ~' H N W U J J J 3 O T-O L L (A N O C U ~ N E E O d o Q O ~ ~ ~ W - ~~ Q O ~~ Q O d N ~ " C L L ~ a ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ 7 C O C _~ A C C 0 0 7 N ~ "O N p y ~ ` ~ O y ~ (B N ~ .D O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N L - _ C ~~ N O C ~ C ' O ~ • C O d ~ O ' ~ ~ 00 O N d O O O c0 _ y ~ O C N ~ C .fl- L. L ~ ~ N ~ ` O (6 C '~ ~ CO O .~ c ~~ ~ _~~~ O W '~ ~ o ~ ~ t c ~ U "O ~ "O ^ 'd C L N N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ -• "O ~ C N j N O m (6 ~ ~ j ~ ~ O N ~ (L6 ~ ~ p -O ~ ~ ~ L1J O ~ C ip ~ N 2i - N O d ~ ~ p -C "O '~D ~ ~ w ~ 0 0 C y C N 0 ~ f4 C O •~ > fB ~ O C L~ ~ E O (d O L (a - _ C ` O~ N O O L • ~ .o c ~ .o ? ~ ~ ~ ~ g °-~ o ~ ~ o ~ -~a co ~ > ° ~ a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ cu ~ i ~ -a `° ~ -a - c Q o ~ c a~ cv ~ o m$ c °: a ~ co ~ o ~ ~ a L CO ~ O ~ d O ~' L~ ~ L Q m "p ~ `~ N N ~ d m "O Ca f>6 L ~ N N ~ ~ Q ~ .-~ ~ ~ . 0 0 Q ~ O p ~ O m C ~ ~ ~ ~ O m ~ (6 C Q C -a s • ~> C ~~os-o . ~ "O _~-~ ~ d~ ca ~`"o° O d N ~a~~c~ ° ~ m v ~ ~ n ~ ~ o N c ~ > -v a~ -a o ~ io Q ~ y ~ ~ o m (~ m L C~ C (7 'p L~ d Q ~ L O U Q~ C O Q O C ~ O fn .C ~~ 7 ~ N O Op Q O ~~ L (` "O C C L O~ O L W C6 N L> .O-~ W L~ N~ ~ N ~ O O O .L--~ O "d O ~ O tN6 ~ `~ O -~ C _~_ O Q .~ O N L U- ~ ~ ~ ?i O C N~ m C C ' !A N y 0~ N~ O C C C C O N OO N O ~ f6 00 ~ >i ~ '~ ~ ~ C> ~ N ~ 'O ~ N "O "O ti d 'O > ~ Q1 ~ ~' L C ~ N ~ O O C N ~ ~ ~ N ~ _ _ O _ . ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ L ~ Z Q Q C7 (n H ~ m O Z --~ Z . ~ ~ ~ ~ • rL ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ • 7~ J 9 a a n. c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~Lo. o m ~ ~ ~ ~ o -o ca n~ a ~ ~ cu ~ - ~ c -o ~ m -a o ~ "= o Q p o a in rn °' ~ m ~ -- o -o ~ c a ~ o o~ v_ v ~ - a c -° O 3 0 ~ o c . - - ~ n ~ ~ E ~ Now -~N m o a oiv °~~.:..°w c m c~ c~.~•° ~ ~ co ~ O W ~ ° ~ o a-~i ~ ~ m o c ~ -~°-~' aci 3 c '.' O ._ -a -- ~ O O f6 N • n~ m ...~ C O ~ ~ O L :g .~ C U N O ~ O "~ N O ~ a0 ~ ~ _ Y O O (~6 ~ ~ O N O O W ~ ~ ~ ~ C C N C~~ C O> d N N~ _ _ ~ Cn ~ O • O U .C to O~~ ~ " O L.L O N O ~ O ~ 0 C Q ~~ O U J ~6 LL c N ~ ~ a ~ 3 ~ ( 6 ~ m o n c ~ > O O N c a~ 3 • W ~ °- ~ O ~ 7 .~ N ~ ~ a i m 2 ~ ~ o L - ~ ~ ~ a> . a~ n `-' O ~ c O ~~ ~ J 3~ _ N > . --~ N Q O U CO N ~~ m~ N ~ C n a~ ~ 3 m fl- c c~ •- ~ ~ E ti m ~~, ~ m c n ° ~ -o- °~o ~ ~ ~~ 3 o N m L E ~' r. ~ L . - O ~-_ ~ ~ o c E o ~ = v -o ~ a ~ ~ ~ in o -a o ~ c 4= -o v v ~ n ai vii v c. ~ m -o a •°' ~ cco °- o > °~ m aci o > Q •o n. ~ o a`~i n ~ 3 Q m.~ E~~ ~ 3Q.c m:~ 3 ~ ~ n.Q a= E.~ .~ U w A, a >. a '~ 0 :a C v O C. O C a~ a~ ~. ~7 Q~ V N C C '~ N J ~ N ~ J • .i 1 ai -n cv -m -= o• o - - ~~ ~ N - - . In O ~ d C O ~_ L N O) _ (n _- ~ Z Z ~ Z • ~ J a ~ B J C ~ (II O O L 'O N O ~ ~ -O U O U~~ C O -O N "--' O to N U O . --. ~ N ~ O U (B (6 O C O Q ~ c _L m Q~ N O C o c` c .-0 "L"' O~ 3 O O C v a ~ Y~ ,~ O .N ~- C O (a O ~ ~ O ~ Q -- ~ L y Q U N ~ C > Y d N d .L.. Q (` O) C ...~ -C (B O "a N ~ d~ O O~ Q~~ N L C N 4- -C 3 ~ m~ cn mm° Q~ ~.N.~ m m ~ o~ ' - -S m o o~ ~~~ a w c~ ' N ~ - O r o ~ vi c o d a~ ~ ° ' -~ c ~° o .~ c ~~ a °i ~ o c o a~ aL _ v c o c c a-ai ~ cam' ~°. ~Tuw? rn-o ~~-oa O m cis `ni ~ ~ d O .«O-. O Q > L T -~ CO ~~ j tp O O N~ N U N N a E tv +--~ O O -- C O O ~~ cn d N N ~. N •C C C O C N y y E V E~ O L .O "O d~~ Q f0 O ~ O~ d (B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ .~ c m -N c ~ - .--. cn -~ ti N C ~ "~ ~ ~ -O ~ _O ~ a •~ ~ _d N L ~ O L H C Q)-- A N N -C ~ d' O C a ?i O Q O O O p m~ X 0 0 >i N C _ ~ .C C N N E Q 0 ~o ~ C~ -~ d~ ~ Q~ O U N Z ~ Z Z z 5 a 0 Z Q W Z Q J .~ -~ .fA fn O O -~ -~ .~ Z Z Z I~ p d U C "O ~~ ~ fn C O ~ -O O ~ ._ .~ ~ ~ c0 ~ a a co ~... ~ O m O N N -0 N O ~ p ~ O_ N O 3 -~ C C O> N O 'O O ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ 7 p ~ ~ .~ a-°i -_ ° m o o Q a~ ~' o -cn a Q -~ -~ m o m ~ ~ Q ~ O N 'p - ~ rL--. Cam... O` N NO 7 ,vl p 0 d~ O_ O OQa C O C O ~ -oo Q t .n 3 m ~ o- aci ~ 0 OO "O p d C 0 (O ~ (B ~ C O U C -~ -tn ~- (q O Q L_ C N U C (p U >' O O d'a .~ d O 0- ~ ~ ~ O a ti O ~ . {W± W LL ~Q pa U t N C .x~ W N V Z .3 d .N C O .~ .~ 0 z 1~~= U ~ ~ C n O O 0 ~ C C m ~ ~_ ~~ p C C O -~ (6 ~ ~ n. _a"i N •o O C ~ n O Z O ~ O d m U O ~ ~ n. m -~ a~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ • pp n ~ m m p• ~ C ~ .~ r.. m O O. -C C C ?i O ~ J Z J J J O 'c c ~. ~ ~ m m n ~ C 3 rnt ~ (..> O ~ ~ 3 N N ~O m ~ O m~ U N~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ N "p - C_ N <"> ~ ~ N O m p ~ p m N ~ ~ _ C C = .U N N m (Q C ~ O O E •p N O .fl m E 3 C ~ ~- m m a~ L m U > a~ -a ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ -m ~ - a w ~ ~ -~ a-o ° > n cn m o ~ ~ n ~ E a c °- m o m a~ o ~ U~C7-p m a~ m a i "o ~ a~i ~ L c m O i N N v i `" m ~ U d~ . a~ O C m a> ~ ..- •~ 3 ~ m n ° ~ c ~ ~ ~ m n O .~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ > p j, c m E m m C O -p ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ O N p p "O "O -O 3 ~. m ~ 7 ~ ~ d d ~ ~ ~ > O d~ m. ~ _O > 7 ~ 7 ~ 7 ~ N _T 7 E. ~„~ C N d ~ Q N m N "p C c to fn fn O C O ~' O N ~ ~ .~ O X ~ C ~ C O C O ~ N m" ~ lL Q~ p ~ d 0 - 7 ~ ~ ~ U •~ -~ ~ ~ O) C ~i ~~ d ~ O O O ~~ O N a ° a o ~n z z z m .~ J Z J J a ~ ° m m a> ° - a> ° N a~ ~ m ~ m m a~ ~ a~ m •O O O d a> •O U~ C O O y 0 O y u O O •~ d E n U Q.~ d d '+ _~ ~ p~ d V~ m 0 d V~ m d O ~~ C N U O~ N . N 0 0~~ O O~ _d m fn L p O U V O W N U Q O •~'~ N d C T LO ~ O n j O p O` > •~ ~ fVE Q om- .~ Q O ~ -N n 7 to O ~ ~ n p T n O U y v -(6 d to .~--~ U p C m ~-a y a~ ~II o~ E ~s m.~ ~.E . a~ c m o ~ n - - .--~ U m 0 ~ C C • 7 C ~ ~ p (O ~ N m ~ m• N m O~ C O~ C ~ ~ . O N m~ O ~ O C Q C "•' ?~ O W C m C ~ ~ 0 0 0 4- •~ ~ O ~ U j ~ O gym O .p. T C06 (6 "p' ~ '~ ,~ ~ C C N C . -. m cca ~ i ~ ~ ~ m ~ - ~ co a ~ a, , ~ ~ >, n - ~ >, . m ~ ~ m o ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ m ~ E~ ti m .S - ~; m c~~ c i • a~ vL m m m ~ ~ ... m ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ c rn • U > = ~ E > ~ - E m = ~ v, ~ `" ~ d ~ y n •- cn ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ U a ~ M m 0 .~ a a~ ~ m ~ c o .--~ ~ ~ ~ __ C y > O -, .~ Os 'd O Of m ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ U r C O N ~ .+ C ~ ~ N w ~ 10 'd 'C •~ m !C ~'C N . R~_ ea~_ to ~~~ ~ N~ m C. 7 p~~ E 3 Y O. 7 p V m E 3 ~ d o m y ~ ~ Q- ~= C O ~ Q- 7 •y O n a. n ~ ~ ° ~ ~ ~ N °in ~ 3 3 o- d. >> n. c N U W S H N W Q ~ ~ -~ ~ J N N O N~ a C C C_ to ~ UO ~ N O ~ N L -~ N (B ~ (~ n C ~ w N ~~ 6 O C ~ ~ O~ N > ( C >..- uj CO ~ O N ~ to O O -~ U~ Y N 7 N C d O N N ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ m o ~ N U ~ ~ N a N ~ 0 a ~ ~ to _ ~' a Q N~ Q o O Q U • 1 O . . L C ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a X O C ~ p C C Y Q- ~O C O~ _ O E O O N~ O Y O to Q O~ Q1 O C~ y O O N~ U C 1 Q O ~~ N ~ ~C c0 n E O ~" N O I6 C.~ O a~ . L ~ o • N c 0 L s w • a o ~ ~ o .-. m • ~ v~ o ~ c ~ oa a v> ~ . r-~ O- ~ U O N~ O~ ~+ (p ~ O O d ~ 'D N °~ ~ v> a~i ~ °~ io o s a Q c Q o n o Q o ~ o i •- ~ ~ ~ N 7 N I Q N` C ~ • ~ O O ~ to L C O O C ~ U Q) ~ a - -> ~ N O O (B ~ O vj - O C ~ a a O Q "C d L "C L ~ (V ` ~ Q m~ O U ` 0 Qo v O- p) E m f6 y ~ y coa --~ N L a d ~~ -Q• A N C U Q (a6 ~ 1. N ~~ O Q- (E C f6 ~ U ~ ~ (6 ~ C C ~ _ O ~ ~ C O 4 (O (6 C ~a o n -ca-oa ~ ~ c x ~ in ~ - ~ Qo .N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ m O CV N ~ ~ 0~ a O =C ~/7 cU .G v ~ N ~ N a ~ N~ Q- N N C U ?r O C 0 ~ m U ~~ ~` 07 01 Y~ i O U U a ~ ~ _ ~ Y ~ a ~ N ~ Q fB ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~L ~ .C N ~ d to ~ UO ~' ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ 9 d d ~J N A C U O E co .0 tv O ' U C a cn N s U O~ ~ ~ w O Q U ~ ""' ~ Q '.~--. ~ '- N -a V) O- ~ N N U d _ O »J ~ 0 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~L... ~ c4 c 6 L ~ ~ c C N -C p ~ ~ L ~ ~ •~ O ~ L ~ ~ O Q _ C S O p O O m O~ y CO ~ t6 ~ a ~ C ~ ~ d ~ O ~ ~ vii ~ E 3~ c o a a E~ aai O 'p ._ ~ E 3 ti ~ N v7 U E ~ ~ ~~ U O Qc~ ~ N N ~ - ~ ~' Q C ~ o N ~ ~ m ~ E ~ ~ U>~ C N O ~ •~--~ Q C C J. ~ '~7 L L ~ ~ • !O "•" O~ ~ ' ~..•. N ~ 3~a ~ ~ ~ _ -p 07 O N O ~ N~ N~ 'eF N a N N O ?i (p ~ -a ~ m ~ •v f° (E ~ -o -a ~ ~ m v ' °-o m °-a i N ~ c c ~-~ ~- N H J a N .~ D- .N C O .~ Q1 .~ O Z H J ~ -N U ~ C - ~ Q ~ ~ U Q to UJ Q~ L ~ N m •o N o m C ~ U ~ O O ;~ d is .••' ~ .n C 'D ~ N O a~ a ~ 3 0-•U U C "~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~._ 0' O C fA ~ C Ca ~ y U ~ • O N v ~, i o.-o > E n ~ ~ ti N W ~A CW C i'' LL R~ V c N c C7 2 C U, LL ~ ~ J J J T N d (6 U N d N d (O ~ C O L "a O fa O N U L , O td O N 'fl N N 'O ~T, O N C C C .~ C = U Q -~ U p C n y ,. O- -C ~~ L~ Z p - T - w d O N ~ -j (6 p O N ~ O L O L a N O N U C O (6 p ~ N O C U O O to C fA ~ i -p N (O i ~ " O L U Z N~ Z ~ O .~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ` U ~ L N O (a 4= C O C6 to .~ U O ~ i "0 E (~ fd fl.. N ~ L ~ ~ d ~ N T " ~ LL i U ~ l17 -p ~ ~ E C ~ 7 ~ ~ d `~ T 6 Ca ~ C6 O N N ~ ~ C O ~ ~ ~ C ~ f6 Q ~ ~ j Q ~ ~ (6 ~L.. Cn .L-- Y • ~ ~ rn ~ co -v a`~ C ~ ~ m a> o o is ~ 4? ~ U~ -C U U C~ •O d O O Q N -~ ~ (B L- C ~ ~ '~ ~ O ~ N .~ O O "O ~ Z, i ~ U O O > ~ O - ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ C T O C U c ~ t n ~ ca 0 U ~ N O 'O C ' ~¢ O V~ ( 6 N L~ t N U O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q a CO T cv O i ~3 C (6 U~ C U 1 U ai ~~ ~ ~ Q1 a ca v ~ ~ ~. p cu a~ ,~ EL ~ ~ t ig a .~ o ~ ~ •C O N 00 ~_ E ~ N C L O U (~ N O ~ N Q ~ N 'p y- •(6 p p 1 >` _ L N QO O O ~ -O O '~' 'O ~ O - O N 0 O O O ~ ~ U N C -~ 7 f6 "O -j ~ ~ ~ L f 6 j U C > U l.L O~ •U d G N U S O N L O •~ •~ ~ (a Q 0 ~ C T O t "O (Q Q~ 6 y O ( ~ C ~ in L 'O L O ~ C O d ~ O Q O C ~ O Q > ~ p . „ d ~ m i C ._- O t" ~ U ~L••~ f4 ~ -O - c 6 • ~ O L p ~ 0 O (6 C ~ d ~ .O i f6 ~ U -' ~p -tA O U (6 O ~ (B C O L m~~ M U (V N V "-' ~+ "'"' N C ~ • p p L d Q ..~ U ~ O N~ O ~ ~' d aj U Q N O O Q ~ L d N _p N ~ - > (6 O ~ E ~ "p0 ~ N ~ c ~ ~ O a rn -O O ' L OU ~ .L.- O O~ U Ch .--~ y _ O N~ Q U i N O S U ~ Q O Q d C~ Q p7 p -p O p N O Y O O n C~ N C N N .--~ O 0 O U Y p 4= U d ca O cE NL-. L ~ N ~ p U 3 O O O Q O U • C p j N c p p~ c Q ~ ~ N N N O O~ O ~ c6 '~ O O O ~ C -O (6 N N Q O C -~ L O (O O O E N ~' j U O ~ ` ~ _ L d ~ (B Q1 _ _ O> O V ~ N O M p ~ ~ L _7 ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ 3 ~ O ~ O O ~ O (II O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ X ~ N ~ ~ - rL v v ~ L C N i a r- U cn U .L -~ N ._ L O .~ p ~ t0 ~ _ L C • (II -C (d PL ~ ~ ~ (6 ~ N ~ - ~ ~ C F- E N C Z ~ c0 to U Q' .-~ • ~ 8 d J N ~ M N U L C B ~ ~~ N in N O C d _~ r O C ~~ N O (6 O O "O C O > 0 O C C O 'O O i Q 7 .O a ~ ~ -a o -a ~ cu o ~ ~ o_ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ N °- ~ ~ Q ~ z"-_ 3 ~ io ~ o ~ u~ o ~ _ - L ~ 'OO ~ O ~ ~ U f6 `~ _ L ~ fd U t6 ~ ~ `~ O ~ ~ c C ~ ~ 0 N d O ~ ~ .--~ 7 Cn ~ ~ U ~ ~ O O ~ NO O- co cn 0 QO O ~ o~ OQ•N--~ c C iO 0.m-. ~ ~ U ~O fO C OCJL - .~ y H ~ N~ vl p O~ C U E p ~ ~ ~ O O~ fA to ~ j N p 0 p~ ~ C •~ ~ O ~ • ~ ~ C 'p OU Q Q~ p O ~~~ p O 0 0~ O N ~ O N U N _E_ ~ _ O pp to '~ ~ O ~ 0 ~ L d Q ~ Q H > E ~ N ?. O~ C 0 0 Q 7~ ~~ d U O U O v d • N c0 ~ N N W ~ U O N - -p -C (O U~ CC O f6 .~ L CV ~ N~ N (6 i U O ~ M N O M d C Q1 q O Cn O ~' Q O -Q (6 pMp 2 N N G C -~ O H O 'C •fN ~ O "O ~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ O E ~ ~ ~ "L"' '0 ~ T U ~ ~ U c~ O C C6 ,O N ~.+ O~ ~ U w O. U p R r.+ C _ ~ N N t~ O C~ ~ O B ~ R a~ ~" ° ~ U O ( 6 ` D _ N j - 7 c o "° ~ mo o ~ o °~ U cn 'r E 3 ~ n ~ E ~ . ~ ~ ~n ~ - o Q._ ca ca a._ ~ n ~ ._ w ~ _ J Z Z N N L .~ 6 .~ a ,~ N ~ N _ O . ~ O . ~ O _ ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ Z Z Z N ~ J Z Z _O ~~ G ~ 'O O N _O O O N O C N .'C.., ~ 0 0 s " U` CL.-. O ~ Q N ~~ U h Q O ~ O O~ U Q O .C ~ . d -- V N a~~ 0 to ~ C CB U ~ i O !n N 7 y O N C C N L • +--~ ~ O ~ L ~.. C L ~.., N ~ ~ o ~ o~ O o~ U F- c~ H o T Q U O U ~'-~ _ ~ ~ ~ N ~ O QXj L N - - N O dj O~~ N C ~° ~ ~ s : ° ~ ~ - cn -~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ • c ~ v . aci m ~ ~ rn a~i ~ ~ E~ O y ~ Q~ N N ' E Q C N ~ f~ .L--~ ._ N tn ~ ~ N N Q ._ O ~ ~ T.C U O • +: ~ C . ~ +..: i~ ~ ~U C Q C p ~ ( 6 r 'O r ~ d N C O y L~ M 7 0 _ ~ ~ ~ D) ~..' ~ O r r 7 O ~~~ ~ C N +-~ U o E ~ C d C ~ E ~ O~ O G 3 cv E m ~ U m 0~ ~ .r V U -O U -O ~ i.7 U O U N O- d Q_ C Q'' ~ N- CO - O O C' R N Q (6 ~ Q • 7 O ~ n a~ '~ Q ~ ~ n~ ~ 3 ~ O Q i n n °' 3 Z O D Z Q Z 0 F J d 0 0. ~ ~ J J N .~ ~ ,~ ~ i aL i aL y U O . O _ ~ ~ .~ Z Z ~ fn J J ~~ C O (6 ~ ~ N "a "' C O O (6 ~ O w. tq ~. N -_ U >. E N ~ ~ U >. ~ ~ U ~ - " O O ~ ~ ~ N ~ A _ .~ ~ _ E N O -U O ~ ~ C C d N (n ( ' ~ C Q (6 ~ a O N ~ O O ~ "~ C O O D U Q U O O N N y O C y O U O O O ' `'-- ~ 3 o ap ~- ~ 3 v p v i,cn ~ ~ fl- ~ ~ N ..C O F- U ~ ~ ~ N .~ fl C O U c~. - ~ O~ _ (p to ~ .v n O a ~ O ` aNi ~ a~ - ~~ CO U~ U ~ N~ C U -~ U Q~' U E N~ a O O ai-.o E Z N a x L 0 to ~ '. d O y `~- O U O -X U p s 0- N i ``~- 0 0 0 0~ f~E CC6 U L L O C~~ U U I -- e- O N~ N 0 C N U N ~ ~ N O 7 N ~ 0 0~ ~ (6 + -~ . r ~ O ~ ~ d h . r ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ V IB ~ .~ (O O ~ V (B d ~ fC d 'O ~ ~ ~ -. .. ~ ~ a ~ c ~ a i o E o n i ~ ~ C a~ -. E o W U W N v J m d a~ N ~_ ~{1..±~ W C~ LNN ~1 LL Q~ V i N N y W P'~ Q~ W U ~- J N "O -O .C N C ca c ~ C ~ O ~ O ~ ~ ~ O) - ~ ~ - ~ 0 ~ Z ~ ° O ~ ~ ~ ~ C.7 ~ ~ - O p C O ~ ~ O .~. L V1 U ~ ~ N ~ 'O U O fl' C cv ~ a? ~ ca S 3 W - ~ vi a~ E . 3 - ~ a c ~ f6 (6 O U ~ O ~ (Q `~ ~ N V) V1 "O "O C (B ~ O N E E a ~ ~ O rn n y ~ C ~ U . O c ~ i . a 0= N '~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O C f6 C~ f6 C ~ "O ~ Q_ ~ T C O - Q1 i -O '~ O C N C ~ O (B -Q ~ ~ ~ ~ O N - _~ N U ~ N T ~ ~ O N C _ V) C C d C ~ V) C d N ~ fa U _ w C ~ O d C N y D7 •-=• ~ ~ N d (6 (6 'p ~ ,~ i ~ "O U ~ m D7 U O C~ V) C~ ~ ~ `. U O N a - i "o -a Z `~ a~ p) Z c O O ~ ~ ~ p o~ o v i Q C C U - ~ 'Q ~ Q N ~ C - C O) (O ~ ( U N 6 d v ~ 3 a ~ N ~ ,i (6 ~ ~ 'Q D1 o A ~ --o ~ ~ ~ ~_~ 0 M O ~ y `~ ~6 ~ c ~E N ~ N T cL - ~ ~6 ~ M - r- c6 ~ a~ ~ U ~ a U ~ ~ ~~ ~ O ~L C W N W V W 0 Z a N W N J H N d N ~ ~~ ~ a ~ (6 ~ ~ ~ "O ~ d 'd Q O_ ` ~ O O L ~ ~ ~ d ~ "." .p. (B N ~ ~ Q C O ~ ~ y N o ~ ° ~ `~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ L .~ c '- ~_ p N c. E ~° 3 io N ~ N -~ C h N O N O = (9 ~ C C C O M "O _ ~ ~ N r ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~ •+ N N L ~ N V U Q1 U N ~ a-~nno ~ Q ~ Q~ ~~ ~.~ a=1 IM ~~= d. d O N C U) O N 'O O= ~ d L N L N 'a C ~ -~ O C E .~ N ~ ~--- O O C O N c to N O O N ~ C .- N O C~ ~ L Cn Cn U (4 ~ y L O 7 fB ~ U U ~ U ~ ~ C C ~ 'O ~N.. ~ -Q N O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L Q.N "O C (B L- C C O U O- C Ca fn 0 0•°- o -° ~ E~° m ~ c N. ~ o o N c > °- n c ~ ~ j ~ N ca ~ c°u E ~ n ~ ~ ~ c _o ~ co C w- N C Co - Q N N Cn -O C~ ,O C - f6 O L C` N~ N O N lJJ N~ ~ N O N~ L O ~> _ N O ~ in N C v~ O d O N E O C U C C- N N L.L ~ Z d.N O _ "O .C ~ O U ~- ~ U O E C tq N ~° . C L C ~ N~ O O N ~~ .QOM ~~ N~ o ~ coo °'D V'p"a"o o ~ o m~ v a`~ ~ c` Lvoi L7 c~ii ~ v ~ ~ .~ ~ "y N •°- p cco ~ a``ni ~ ~ •o ~~ N m m I m o -° ~~~ w s .N o m 3 N ~ c Q- c N co ~ Q m Q' m ~ E ~. ma c. ~' w~ o~ N co a 'L_' Q7 N 3 y m~~ -~ p ~~ ~ N C 3~~ p ~ "O N j Q1 N ~ O O N~ C N~ N p ~ N~ •N (o C~ N O O U N O N N Q ~, C ^~ N "~ ~ ~. p CO O N L O (CII y ~~ N -O O C R N _ U c ~ (o ~ C 'O .~ U C~ O O ~~ U ~ O` ~6 L O~ L C ~°~ ~ m °o c a m o ,--, ~ ~ m v p (n ~ c cn cn a a N ~ ci, N o -o ° c.i - O L o r- ~ co N o ~ ~ a~N ~a N rn~. io ~ N.E o c ~ c c Q~ -p -a m N~ N ~ B E N _> a p >' -o co cII ~ ~ ~o °~ ai ~ a~ ~ c> cn ~ c m in .a- c a v N -N ~ _c ~ v> o v a c .Q c c~~ L Q y rn Z o -~ ~ o ~ ~ .E ~ a~ o o "ca o- co - a> o a> ~ a> O _ N~ C C N to U U •a O LL (B U C L A O_L.., ~ o ~ -o ~ ~ •v°-i ~ 3 _c c •a' ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ E cco vi ~ L -aTi ~ c o~ o°~ L~ c a o~ ~~ m N ~° o N~ 0 3 m •~ c ~ o ~ o `aLN., ~ ai ~ -~ aQi ~ d ~ c-°n m ~ o m ~ ~ a ~ ~ o a`~ •~ N ° c vi n -~ N ~ F- ~O o - - > > vNi ~ ~ E :~. C 'Np C .N-I m fo L N .C ~ N O O .Q O N L N O U Y Q"O Q U O ~ Y d 'O ~- N ~ O~ ~ O D U N (~ O O~ r o c o cco N cco ~_ ti 'cc-o ~ `a ~ -o ~ ~_ c cca _m co c "a 3 ° aL°i sr - W ~ ~ Cn 3 .~ -`p m voi Q uNi ~ U •y O d ~ ~~ ~ 'U ~ O N - N C •p U a n ~ ^ ^ ^ G. ~ W m F- °a ~ a d N ~ N B J .~ a_°i c°~ ,~° a~'i uNi N ~ ~' > N O N V~N7 ~~ O d L Q ~ N~ O C ~ O~~ N •~ O c ~ N L ('.) U O C .--~ ~ U C U N O N ~ ~ N O .N ~ C ~ O C C >. N O~~ Q O U O (6 O U Q •y v-- "O O N N '~ > O C ~- E L N Q C O C a N~ 0 0 N~ M~ •C Q O C '~ ~ O - ~ N ~ 'O i C M ~ N > L ~O Q fo [n ~ C O - v v m E •~ o> R N C (o O O" N V (Uo O (B ~ ~ .N. Q ~ Q Q "O fn (o L ~ .~ N J .~ a .~ C O .~ rn .~ O Z H J O fn O L Q'X N 3 N O N ` ~ ~ ~ N N ~ 0 ~ ~ ?~ O NFL- .~ N ~ ~ y O fo ~ ~ m ~ U "d w C >' O .C O ~ ~ a~ h ~~ Qj ~ d N ~ N (o ~ 2] N O L ~ '~ ~ Q N r+ .p O O E ~ O N O ?i C C ~ ~ ~ _M ~ ~ N O ~ ~ O O_ C ~ ~ ~ ~ _ N O U O V U (o E -O U Q •0 -~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q"a in ?i .~ M a-I W cW C Q~ V L N C W H U J C "O O N U ~~ ~ -- iA N C L U p O C O L a aS d O .C Cn tB L C N O d (B ~ n ~ O ~_ C O (a .O n O O n C > L -~ -Op ~ N L '~ O N ` U C N O '~ O n n O (C ~ N ~ (B N O _~ ~ n iu ~ m a E L ~ ~ m (B ~ N ~ O M O O r N ~ ~ L ~ °- •--~ O O ~~a Q' W ~ O i t6 a O N O) N O L-' C ~ N (E O C N C C O Q ~ O O ~ ~ 'O ~ O O U i ~ ~ ~ ~ n " - ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (B (6 O L N tC (6 Q N ~L-+ N N " C (n 07 ~ O .O-. L L N "~ ~ ~ N W " B O L1J N N ~ d ~ ~ 'O N U C C N O N C 'L"' O N N N C ~ (Q _ O - . ~ to ~ N O ~ ~ (9 O O` (Q N ~ 7 N N ~ N ~ O O O C L ~ N ~- C cn (d 0- C6 U ~ U ~«- ~ O C .a • C C N ~ N O .~ ~ N u~ v~ ~ U L O p n ~ ~ ~ o (O a ~ ~ ~ N L ~ N L O N - C m ~ . 3 n~ m ca _ ..-. > L ~ N o _> uS C d .~ Q N . U _(6 m ~ N= C y A C -O y ~ C 7 O N~ O O 7 O H O d a O ~ O ~ (6 Q O C p C O n n ~ > ~ N O (U ~ a L n O ~ ~ ~ ~ _ O _ ~ .~ ~ n~ nm~'•= O .~ ~ N c C p O N 0 '~ ~ .~ O i O Q U~~ N ~ i (6 N ~ N .0-~ O 'L3 ~ C ~ ~ O N ~ O ~ O ~ p 'O L m c6 E C C O~ N O O O _0 a ~ ~ .--. "d a•- O "" N ?~ ~ N N ~ _ V U (C6 ~ .N j ~~ R y ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~-~ L O O ~ O ~ nw~ a2~ 3 _ ~ O O _C L O N to (6 p C ~'~ N -O O N "~ ~ C O ~ N L ~ U ~ ~ ~ m _~ _ o a"Ui N o C U .N.. U C t6 O ~ C ~ C ~ O (q ~ U .p. f4 N N .0-~ _ C ~ U U C ~ ~ U ~ L (6 C ~ O -_ OV Q. _n C (II C (4 O N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N n O C 'O N O Q1 ~ ~ ~O f6 .~ ~ O O ~ o d O m - ..L.., ~ .0-~ U Q1 Y N N •~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ °'a > ~$a ~ to C N O ~ N O O U D7L L ~" b n L O !n O ~ N ~ ~ d N C ~ ~ ~ ~ (4 .L-~ V O~ a N d C _m ~ O ~~ ~ N n U ~ -O "O ~ _O C U ~` O _C N 7 i m O U 'C ~ Q N ~ ~ -C L 0 ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ 'O N ~ (a .... N O) N U~ C O C N ~ ~ ~ O a.Q rn C N ~„ E~ a E X 0 0 O D Q D1 0 0 T C L "d C ~ ~ N E B Uj C N~~ O- C o ~ •~ ~ O m C N '~ • V cC L .C ~ .LO-. ~ fl- (n ~ C ~ ~7 ~ (O 3 f6-~ ~ O D7n~ ~ n>, ~ O L ~ C .LO-~ ~ U ~ (C j p C (9 ~~ .L-. O N C C O Q "O" O C m O 0 O 'N O (` Q M O C C~ O C G7 _N N L ~ V- O >, N O O K U n f0 C U C C~ Q d ~~ L (p (O O n ~ N Cn C N L E O N •C N 0 0 0 O_ U C N (4 ~ >' ~ ~ U ~ ~ 01 (O C O (C "O _O C C .~ O_ Cn C ('d6 .C ~ ~ ~ n (6 "O n p (CE S O ~~ ~~ V E U ~_ ~ Q n~ U 'O ~ O ~ V ~_ f6 ~ N '~ N ~ U to _N ~O E vNi d~~ N O "O C C~ N N L 'C N p N O y (6 (B ~ C V7 ~ L ~~ 7 N (d U (V ~ V N ~ (C6 O L ~ O ~ (O ~ a "O ' V d N ~ O (6 .~ ~~ -oo ~ n~ o -~ o- E v O 7 O m '~ ~ N~~ O~~~ ~ d C 7 U f6 •N C _ _ n ~ '- ~ ~ ~ d O O (O (O N E .N ~C O L (6 L nL L L O L L F- O to N H U F- E U O E C ~ 'O f6 ~ (O to N C6 ~ C 3 ~ 'OC N n Y O ~ •N __ to N ~ N C ~ N m m °~ ~ -oa ~ ~ O N U_ ~ ~ ~ C ~--. O Q ~ 7 •C ~ 'm (9 U O- "O L ~ U ~ C ~ C N C O O N N ~ O (6 •O Z Q1 O C .0-~ > n •N N ~ ~ O C ~ .LO-~ U ~ ° ° ~ O C > N U C O O d O d (6 n~.._. m O O C 'O (` 7 d (n N C p ~ '.' U o-N o 0 t .` rn c F- ~'N C ~ O fn Y ~ ~~-. N O C6 O ~ ~ 'C .C] n ~ ~ ~p O_ ~ O- O rL O Q tLl~ "O L 7 7 O (n 16 ~ N N C (9 O n ~ U N L ~ °_ (E N C f6 m U ~ O N N C ,~ ~ O ~ N N "p" O_ (6 O O n n O C .~ O cfl N L ~ N ~ (6 c o U O' .Q f0 f6 ~ U C O ~ O ~ n N 0 0 L H C :1 ~C N ~ M ~' r N ~ U O ~ N M a=1 ~ ~ J ~ J ~ J ~ J N - ~ Ca '-' 'd N L ?~ p ~~-.. O O O ?~ ~ ~ C (B O 1 O d C O _ -O O N C B d~ r` N >' d N l C _ U p c~ C~~ ~ d p W~ ~" ~ U~ N N O a ~ ~ w~g ~° ° m ~ `~° Z c ~ aQ ~ ~ N -o cn ° c ~ `° E Ta o -a E ~ m cu •o O ~ ~ t~ ~ O N C . U ~ ~ ~ C C 3 ~ C- N (B - C N Q O ~ N ` O Q~ (a L -~= U ~ O _ U t~ 'a ~ ~ O y ~ N L Q- ~ p (A (6 ~ ~ ~ -Op Q (O ~ U~ O N Q 67 ~~ N O ~ Q ~ L 'p O Q) U O Q O C O' ~ _ _O E 0 .. .. O ~ ~ (Q ~ U Q ~ N ~ ~ L o Q.T~ ° -~~~ ~ ~~ s ~ U ~ O~ Q~ O O Q O O ~ C N ~ - - ~ ~ • _E C Q m a m~~ ~~ ~~~ E C - d _ O m~ O Cn U -_ ~ d Q ~ Q~ C ~`O •C N U ~ ~ ?i V ~ U ~ ~ V L .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O • L O ~ Q ~ • 3 "6 N d (B O "O ~ '~ O Q "O ~ ~ O -C C ~ ~ p i.= ~~ C -O C O C ~ ~ ~ t _~ -Lpj uj O - O) ~ O C c,- ~ O~ p -~ N = O N - W -c i ~ ~ ~ :~ D- a ~ ~ C s -- ~ ~ N ~ O F L U O ~ ~ c p ~ (6 Q 'Q C ( E - O ~ N lC (n N ~ j C C ~ M h ~ E~ Q • ( _ p~ •U M (Q R N M~~ _ ~ ~ C ~ M C ~~ m C M~ a (O ~ Q N ~ Q O ~ m _ m ~ -O ~ ~ ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ d N ~ O Y ~ ~ • ~ ~ - p p ~'~ p N C ~ ~ ~ ~~ r2 in Oc~ ~•~+_~ ~ N ~ • N -a ~ ~ ~ L.L ~ Cn ~ ~ ~ 'a OU ~L--. ~ O Z Cn Z • ~ ~ ~ J J J ~ O ~ N ~ 'B ~ ~ "' ~ 'O ti (V 'a O d O d-- U S N cr O O C C O Q~ > O .O•~ O~ 3 ~ nw O~ Q nv co n c c o O~ to ~ O Q ~~ j O -U U ~ C Q p~~ -O N O ~ U X , d O N O p O a > (6 f6 ~ O Q Q -~: U N U - O Q Q ~ ~ _ O O O~ _ O N p O N E ~ 'p O t c t N U E ~„ - - -~ ~ _ . .•~ _~_ ^~ O G) ~ a O Q ~ O d .~ L L . Q~ O~ C cn C N _ to C N ~ ~ •7 ~- ~ U ~ --I ~ . V ~ C E O O ~ ~ 0 ~ C N ~ d O p t - ~ ~ w ~ O .~--. -'--' .~'-- N •--~ C ~ ~ ~ C N- "- O ~ ~' N O C p p ~--~ ~ •--~ ~ n Q p ~ ~ ~ ~~ -~ O p V U ~ N O~ ~~~ O~ N N U U (B Q O ~ ."C•. C M ~ ?' ~ Q ~ C L E H fl- ~ 0--- E c -O ~ ~ Ul .~ o Q ~ g > M C O ~ C~ ~ "" ~. C - C~ en a -a m a~ m c ~ N c%~ -a ~ ~ 1~ C C M -o -o ~ c OD C -v c ~ >, .., ~ ~ n o ~ ~ 3 m 3 aci ~ ~ ~ ~ m c io C ~ _ . O O> y .'~-. N (6 O_ .~.•~ ~ ~ ?i M ~ Q -p N O ~ d f N ~ Q • D.. O h O ~ ~ d -~ (6 is ~ E A ~ d Q . --~ •~ M °? W.± W cW GN N .W LL p~ c.~ N d J Z .i l Q ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ _y ~ c 0 . c 0 . ~ rn ~ rn -~ •~ 0 Z 0 Z • ~ 8 J Z N d X 'p ~ T O L N ~ .L--. Q ~ O O O O Cn O U (C L _-O C S C O' O ~ 'p ~ O O y uoi~~ ~ 3 oV t C O ~ d .~ rn ~' a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V .~ a m m -• N ~ £ m o ~ Ta ~ - c n ~ w o a~ -~ o o~ o> . ~ L m~ y O -p C U L C ° ~ C ~ m ° o <° ~ o cn 3 a Z' > °' o FL- °' 3 ~ Qf N ~ -C L O N '~ ~ N r~ ~ U ca -o a cn ~ ~ M _ ca ~n p .c a o 3 ~ ~ ~ m a? a~ v, c` -a o v uoi ~ O O C U U i v ~ 3 ~ v O Q O V cO ~O p l6 - CCC' _L--~ ~~ O G a Cn G O_.~ 3 N Cn Q w W ~N N V p~ U t C N C N C7 CHAPTER 2 Introduction This Master Environmental Impact Report (HEIR) assesses the potential environmental impacts of Genentech's application to reclassify approximately 36 acres of land owned by Genentech to the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District). Section 20.39.040(6)(4) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) prescribes regulations for reclassifying properties to a Research and Development District and establishes development standards and requirements within the district, including but not limited to the development of a facility master plan which is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable Area Plan. Consistent with Section 20.39.040(6)(4), Genentech has developed a Facilities Master Plan Update (2006 FMPU) to address the expansion of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District). Also, zoning map and zoning text changes will be required as part of the project. Collectively, these actions are referred to as the proposed project. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this HEIR (1) assesses the expected individual and cumulative impacts of expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District, as set forth in the 2006 FMPU; (2) identifies the means of avoiding or minimizing potential environmental impacts; and (3) evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative, Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible, and the Reduced Project Alternative. 2.1 BACKGROUND In 1995, the City of South San Francisco adopted the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) to provide an integrated framework for development of Genentech-owned properties at the City's eastern bayshore into a corporate campus. The Genentech R&D Overlay District, established as Chapter 20.40 of the SSFMC, was adopted concurrently with and based on the 1995 Master Plan, and specifies floor area ratio (FAR), parking and other standards, and review and approval procedures for development within the district. The 1995 Master Plan has passed its ten-year planning horizon. Genentech has asked the Cite of South San Francisco to approve expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District and the update of the 1995 Master Plan. The 1995 Master Plan establishes policies for long-range planning and design of Genentech's facilities, including strategies to integrate site planning and architecture, traffic, circulation and parking, and infrastructure. While the 1995 Master Plan does not include design of individual buildings, it does include urban design criteria that have provided the framework for building siting and design over the past decade. The purpose of the 2006 FMPU is to define an overall program that results in the creation of a cohesive and integrated Genentech Campus, reflecting Genentech needs, site conditions, land use/transportation synergies and broader citt~-wide goals and objectives. The 2006 FMPU will be consistent with the General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan and will ser~-e as a guide to the physical development of the Genentech Campus to the year 2016 (or until a new Master Plan is approved). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2-1 Chapter 2 Intnx/uctlon 2.2 PURPOSE OF THE MEIR The City has prepared this MEIR for the following purposes: ^ To satisfy the requirements of CEQA (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21178) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 4, Chapter 14, Sections 15000-15387). ^ To inform the general public, the local community, and responsible and interested public agencies of the nature of the expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District and 2006 FMPU, its possible environmental effects, possible measures to mitigate those effects, and alternatives to the proposed project. ^ To enable the City to consider environmental consequences when deciding whether to approve the expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District and the 2006 FMPU. ^ To provide a basis for preparation of future environmental documents. ^ To serve as a source document for information needed by several regulatory agencies to issue permits and approvals for the proposed expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District and 2006 FMPU or subsequent on-campus development. ^ To evaluate potential significant environmental effects of revisions to the General Plan, and related zoning maps and the expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The determination that the City of South San Francisco is the "lead agency" is made in accordance with Sections 15051 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, which define the lead agency as the public agency that has the principal responsibilit}' for carrying out or approving a project. This MEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Ciry regarding the potential environmental impacts, the level of significance of the impacts both before and after mitigation, and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts. 2.3 TYPE OF EIR The 2006 FMPU includes a land use plan that guides the physical development of the Genentech Campus. It is not an implementation plan and adoption of the 2006 FMPU does not constitute a commitment to any specific project. Rather, it describes the entire anticipated development program of approximately 6 million gsf for the Genentech Campus through 2016. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 74 (CEOA Guidelines), Section 15175(b)(1) (3), the EIR is a Master EIR (MEIR) that evaluates the effects of implementation of the entire proposed project described in Chapter 3 (Project Description). Any proposal for future development on the Genentech Campus must be approved by the City in compliance with CEQA. As future projects are proposed, the City will have to determine whether additional environmental review is required. As required by Section 15177(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, subsequent projects would be examined in light of this MEIR to determine whether the potential environmental effects of the project were adequately addressed in this MEIR, and whether any additional mitigation measures are required. If the analysis in this MEIR is determined sufficient and no additional mitigation measures are required, then no additional environmental review would be required. If however, the proposed project would have additional, significant effects that were not adequately addressed or were not examined in the MEIR, subsequent environmental documentation would be prepared, consistent with Sections 15177 through 15179.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MEIR will 2-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 2 Introduction serve as the environmental impact analysis for future Genentech development for a minimum of five years, consistent with Section 15179(a)(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. 2.4 MEIR REVIEW PROCESS A Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) was prepared and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on December 9, 2005. Distribution of the NOP established a 30-day review period for the public and agencies to identify environmental issues that should be addressed in the MEIR. During the NOP comment period two comment letters were received: one from San Mateo County regarding the Colma Creek Flood Zone, and one from the California Public Utilities Commission regarding Rail Safety. These comments were considered in preparation of Sections 4.1 (Flood Hazards) and 4.7 (Transportation), respectively. The NOP and comments on the NOP are included as Appendix A of this MEIR. A public scoping meeting was held on January 17, 2006, to solicit input from interested agencies, individuals, and organizations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15205(b)(2), the MEIR will be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies. Submittal of the MEIR to the State Clearinghouse will also commence the 45-day review period. This MEIR is being circulated for review and comment to the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations fora 45-day review period, which begins on August 23, 2006 and ends on October 6, 2006. During the review period, copies of the MEIR will be available for review at the Cite of South San Francisco Economic and Communing Development Department and at the South San Francisco Main Library during normal business hours. The following are the addresses for the City of South San Francisco Municipal Services Building and the South San Francisco Main Library: Cit<~ of South San Francisco Economic and Community Development Department 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco Main Library 840 West Orange Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080-3125 Written comments on the MEIR may be sent via U.S. mail and addressed to the following: Mike Lappen, Senior Planner Citt~ of South San Francisco Planning Division P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA 94083 Following the public hearing, which will occur on September 21, 2006, and after the close of the written public comment period on the MEIR, which will occur on October 6, 2006, responses to written and recorded comments will be prepared and published. The Final EIR, which will consist of the MEIR, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2~ Chapter 2 Intnxluctlon comments on the MEIR, written responses to those comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program (hIMP), will be forwarded to the City for its consideration. To consider approval of the proposed project, Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City to certify that: ^ The Final MEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA ^ The Final MEIR was presented to the City, and that the City reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final MEIR prior to approving the project ^ The Final MEIR reflects the Ciry's independent judgment and analysis In conjunction with their certification of the Final MEIR, the City must also adopt written findings that address each significant environmental effect identified in the Final MEIR, consistent with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must also adopt the MMP to ensure implementation of mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project to reduce or avoid significant effects during project construction and/or implementation. If feasible mitigations are not available to reduce significant environmental impacts to a less-than- significant level, those impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. If the City elects to approve the proposed project, and the proposed project would have significant unavoidable impacts, the Ciry will also be required to identify the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final MEIR and any other information in the public record. This "Statement of Overriding Considerations" would be incorporated into the Findings and would explain the specific reasons why the benefits of implementation of the proposed project override the unavoidable environmental effects that would result from project implementation. 2.5 INTENDED USES OF THE MEIR As previously discussed, this MEIR is intended to inform the public, interested organizations and agencies, and the City of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project In the event that the proposed project is approved, this MEIR will be used as the basis for subsequent environmental analysis for future development under the 2006 FMPU, as allowed by Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines. Under CEQA, other public agencies that may have discretionary authority over the project, or aspects of the project, are considered responsible agencies. The responsible agencies for the proposed project include, but are not necessarily limited to, the State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Caltrans, San Mateo County Flood Control District, San Francisco Bay- Conservation and Development Commission, and the Federal Aviation Authority. This document may be used by the responsible agencies to comply with CEQA in connection with permitting or approval authority over the project or individual projects that may be proposed during the planning horizon of the 2006 FMPU. It is likely that the approval of the Genentech R&D Overlay District will require the following: ^ Reclassification and zoning map change of the parcels in the Planned Industrial zone into the Genentech R&D Overlay District 2-4 Genentech Corporate Facilitles Master EIR Chapter 2 Intnxluctfon ^ Zoning text changes to SSFMC Chapters 20.39 and 20.40 ^ Adoption of the TDM Plan ^ All future developments will be subject to a separate permit approval and CEQA review as established in SSFMC Chapter 20.39. The City prepared this MEIR to address all state, regional, and local government approvals needed for construction and/or operation of the project, whether or not such actions are known or are explicitly listed in this MEIR. Examples of the anticipated approvals required to implement the proposed project include the following: Regional and State Agencies ^ San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board/State Water Resources Control Board > National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit (for individual construction projects of a particular size or projects that result in point source discharges) > Waste Discharge Requirements (for individual projects that ma~~ result in a discharge of waste that affects waters of the state) ^ Bay Area Air Quality Management District > Permits to Construct and/or Permits to Operate (for any new or relocated stationary sources of equipment that emit or control air contaminants) ^ Caltrans > Encroachment permits for individual projects requiring work within a state right-of--way ^ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) > Approval of activities within the BCDC 100 foot shoreline band as well as permit authority for development adjacent to the San Francisco Bay Trail. ^ San Mateo Counn~ Flood Control District > Administrator of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone City Agencies ^ Department of Economic and Community Development > Building Division: o Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy > Planning Division: o Use Permits, Minor Use Permits, Mixed Use Permits, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, Design Review, CEQA Reviews > Engineering Division: o Grading Permits, Subdivision Permits, Encroachment Permits, Transportation Impact Fees, Utilin~ Impact Fees, Plan Check ^ Police Department: > City's Security issues compliance ^ Fire Department: > Fire Code Compliance Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2.5 Chapter 2 Intnxluctlon 2.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE MEIR This MEIR is organized in two parts. The main analysis addresses the environmental impacts of the physical development of the proposed project, while the appendices provide technical documentation. The main analysis describes the existing environmental conditions within and in the vicinity of the project area, analyzes potential project-related impacts on environmental resources, identifies environmental strategies that may reduce or avoid impacts, proposes mitigation measures to reduce the magnitude of significant impacts, and evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could eliminate, reduce, or avoid significant impacts while attaining most of the basic project objectives. In addition to project-related impacts, this MEIR also provides an evaluation of cumulative impacts that could be caused by the project in combination with other future projects or projected growth that could occur in the region. In this fashion, the cumulative impact analysis considers the additive effect of future projects, both on and off the Genentech Campus, including the proposed project. As required by CCR, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines) Section 15126.2(d), this MEIR also provides an analysis ofgrowth-inducing impacts, which are defined as "environmental impacts that could result in additional growth by the proposed project by either removing an obstacle to development or by generating substantial increased growth of the local or regional econom}=." The contents of the MEIR include the following: ^ Chapter 1: Executive Summary-This section includes a brief synopsis of the proposed project and project objectives, community/agency issues, a description of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, and an overview of project alternatives. This Chapter also provides a table that summarizes potential environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed project; environmental strategies that would avoid or reduce impacts; feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts, and the level of significance of impacts both before and after mitigation. ^ Chapter 2: Introduction-This section provides the background of the proposed project, the purpose of the MEIR, the type of EIR, the EIR review process, the intended uses of the MEIR, and an overview of the format and contents of the MEIR. ^ Chapter 3: Project Description-This section provides a detailed description of the proposed project, including its location, background information, objectives, planning strategies, and physical characteristics. ^ Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures-This section contains an analysis of potential environmental impacts for each environmental issue area. Each environmental issue area contains a description of the environmental setting (or existing conditions), identifies the threshold of significance used to determine whether impacts are significant (or less than significant), recommends feasible mitigation measures to reduce significant environmental impacts, and describes cumulative impacts. The "Introduction to the Anal}=sis," at the beginning of the chapter, provides an overview of the scope and format of the environmental analysis, including a description of the baseline for analytical purposes. ^ Chapter 5: Other CEQA Considerations-This section summarizes impacts that would result from the proposed project, including significant environmental effects, significant and unavoidable environmental effects, irreversible changes to the environment, and growth-inducing impacts. 2-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 2lntroductfon ^ Chapter 6: Alternatives-This section describes alternatives to the proposed project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any of its significant effects. The analysis evaluates the environmental effects that would result from implementation of each of the alternatives, compares these effects to the effects that would result from implementation of the proposed project, and describes the relationship of each alternative to the project objectives. ^ Chapter 7: Report Preparers/Organizations and Persons Consulted-This section identifies all federal, state, or local agencies, other organizations, and/or private individuals consulted during preparation of the MEIR. 2.7 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS The following comprehensive list of abbreviations is provided to clarify references used in this MEIR. . • Aaanyrn c • • • ~ • • - • Deli~ltbr- AB Assembly Bill ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments ACP Alternate Command Post ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADR Architectural Design Review AEA Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 2011-2259) afy acre-foot per year ALS Advanced Life Support ANSI American National Standards Institute AOU American Ornithologist Union APN Assessors Parcel Number AOMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ARB Califomia Air Resources Board AST above ground storage tanks ASTM American Society for Testing of Materials BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BACT Best Available Control Technology BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency BCDC Bay Conservation and Development Commission BFI Browning-Ferris Industries bgs below ground surface BMP Best Management Practices BTU British thermal unit CAFS compressed air foam system CAL/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2.7 Chapter 2 Intnxluctlon ~n ~~ Caltrans Califomia Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CCAA Califomia Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDMG California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA Califomia Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CHL California Historic Landmarks CHP California Highway Patrol CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System CI Curie CIWMB Califomia Integrated Waste Management Board CMP Congestion Management Plan CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNPSEI California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory CO carbon monoxide Co-Gen co-generation COHb carboxyhemoglobin CPHI Califomia Points of Historic Interest CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHP California Register of Historic Places CRHR Califomia Register of Historical Resources CSC California Species of Special Concern CWA Clean Water Act CWSC California Water Service Company D&B Dyett & Bhatia dlc demandlcapacity db decibel dBA A-weighted decibel scale DDT dichloro-Biphenyl-trichloroethane DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DFG Department of Fish and Game DOT Department of Transportation DPM Diesel particulate matter 2.g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chanter 7 IntnvlnMinn ~'-~ Ddil~bn DTSC Department of Toxic Substance Control DWR Department of Water Resources EDR Environmental Data Resources EHS Environmental health and safety EIR Environmental Impact Report EMI emissions inventory data EMT Emergency medical technician EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System ESA Environmental Site Assessment FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR floor-to-area ratio FAT First Alert Team FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FID California Facility Inventory Database FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FIS Facility Index System 2006 FMPU Genentech Facility Master Plan Update FSC Federal Species of Concern FTA Federal Transit Administration FTE full time employee GCASP General Construction Activities Stormwater Permit GEN Generator GMC Growth Management Chapter GMP Groundwater Management Plan GPA(s) General Plan Amendment(s) gpd gallons per day 9em gallons per minute gsf gross square feet HzS hydrogen sulfide HCM Highway Capacity Methodology HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HDPE High-density polyethylene HFC hydrofluorocarbon HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HMMA Hazardous Materials Management Act HMS Hazardous Material System HOV high-occupancy vehicle HRA Health Risk Assessment Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2-9 Chapter 2 Intnx/uction gpp1yt11 D~e(k7Alon HRI Historical Resources Inventory HRMIS Hazardous Materials Incident Report System HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments Act HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Hz hertz ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization IRP Integrated Resources Plan ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems JOS Joint Outfall System JWPCP Joint Water Pollution Control Plant km kilometer ksf thousand square feet LACMA Los Angeles County Museum of Art Ibs pounds Ldp Day-night average noise level Leq Equivalent noise level LmaX Maximum instantaneous noise level Lm~~ Minimum instantaneous noise level LLRW low-level radioactive waste LOS level of service LQG Large Quantity Generators LSTs Localized Significance Thresholds LTS Less-Than-Significant Impact LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank M Richter Magnitude MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake MEIR Master EIR MEP Maximum Extent Practicable mgd million gallons per day MM Mitigation Measures MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity MMP Mitigation Monitoring Program MPE Maximum Probable Earthquake MRF/TS Materials Recovery Facility and Transfer Station MSL Mean Sea Level Mw Moment Magnitude NIA No monitoring performed for this standard NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NI No Impact 2-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chanter 2 Intnuiurtlnn ~4do-y--- DelilAlan NIH National Institutes of Health NOz nitrogen dioxide NOI Notice of Intent NOP Notice of Preparation NOVs Notices of Violation NOx nitrogen oxide NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places NSQD National Stormwater Quality Database NT No Threshold NWIC Northwest Information Center Os ozone OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OES Office of Emergency Services OHP Office of Historical Preservation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PA Participating Agency PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Pb lead PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric P-I Planned Industrial District PM particulate matter PM,o respirable particulate matter PMz.s fine particulate matter ppd pounds per day ppm parts by volume per million fair PR project requirement PRC Public Resources Code PS Potentially Significant Impact R&D Research and development RCP Reinforced concrete pipe RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rDNA recombinant DNA RHND Regional Housing Needs Determination RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAA Supply Assurance Allocation Sam Trans San Mateo County Transit Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2-11 Chapter 2 lntroductlon q~p DAfAbn SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SARA Title III Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know SB Senate Bill SCH State Clearinghouse SCS US Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service sf square feet SFIA San Francisco International Airport SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan SMCEHD San Mateo County Health Department-Environmental Health Division SMCFCD San Mateo County Flood Control District SOz sulfur dioxide SOa sulfate SOV Single Occupancy Vehicle SOx sulfur oxide SP Specific Plan SQG Small Quantity Generators SQMP Stormwater Quality Master Plan SRAs Source Receptor Areas SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element SSFFD South San Francisco Fire Department SSFMC South San Francisco Municipal Code STOPP San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Program SU Significant and Unavoidable Impact SWEEPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWQCB State Water Quality Control Board SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminants TBACT Best Available Control Technology for Toxics TDM Traffic Demand Management TIA Traffic Impact Analysis TMAC Tetramethylammoniumchtoride TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UBC Uniform Building Code Nglm3 Micrograms per cubic meter URBEMIS Urban Emissions USACOE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDHHS United States Department of Health and Human Services 2_~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chavter 2 lntroductfon Aaany-n DAIr~ USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey UST underground storage tank UWMP Urban Water Management Plan v/c volume-to-capacity Vd6 vibration decibels VMT vehicle miles traveled VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds WDRs waste discharge requirements WQCP Water Quality Control Plan WSA Water Supply Assessment WTA Water Transit Authority ZC Zone Change Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 2-13 CHAPTER 3 Project Description 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Cit<~ of South San Francisco (City) has prepared this Master Environmental Impact Report (HEIR) to assess the potential environmental impacts of Genentech's application to reclassify approximately 36 acres of land owned by Genentech to the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District). Consistent with Section 20.39.040(b)(4) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), Genentech has developed a Facilities Master Plan Update (2006 FMPU) to address the expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Also, zoning map and zoning text changes will be required as part of the project. Collectively, these actions are referred to as the proposed project. The HEIR will serve as the environmental impact analysis for future Genentech development for five years as permitted by the state law. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION 3.2.1 Regional Location The Project Area has been defined as a 220-acre HEIR Study Area, within which Genentech proposes to expand the Genentech R&D Overlay District to 160 acres (approximately 169 gross acres including streets and other right-of--way). The Project Area is located in the Cin~ of South San Francisco, in the East of 101 Area, along the western shoreline of central San Francisco Bay, about 1.5 miles north of San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and 10 miles south of downtown San Francisco. Figure 3-1 shows the regional location of the HEIR Study Area. South San Francisco, built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal range, is strategically located along major transportation corridors and hubs. These include US 101, Interstate-280 (I-280) and Interstate-380 (I-380), BART, Caltrain, and the Union Pacific Railroad main line (formerly known as the Southern Pacific Railroad). 3.2.2 Project Location The HEIR Study Area is located within the East of 101 Area. Genentech's existing South San Francisco Central Campus (the Campus) is bounded by the San Francisco Bay in the north and east and is connected by Oyster Point /Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Campus. Figure 3-2 is a map of the existing Campus buildings and Figure 3-3 is an aerial view of the Campus and vicinity. The Campus is built on and around the San Bruno Hill-which is the highest point in the East of 101 Area. The Campus is visible from downtown South San Francisco, and has many views overlooking the Bay and landmarks in the Bay Area. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~1 ,,,, ~_oo FIGURE 3-1 Regional Location Source: USGS, 1993 I Not to Scale I EIP ~6?. b \/~ / O 0 ~~ ~ ~` o < m ~~ ~~~~ ~ a 00 f 1, d R ~ i~~ f "''!`~ V O .-°' € N ~ ~•- S~ d J ~ ~ ~~f ~~ ~~ 1 ~`v... t ~° r """t ~~ ~ ..._... ,,. pac\`\c O~a~ i' m U ~ ~~ .,_ O o W' Z N C 7 m N V M C1 W = ~ N ~ .~ U' K ~ W t U a~ N ui i O N 0 0 .= ~; ~~ ~ ~ ~ is N ~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ : , ~~~` a ,. ~ ""s sv~ ~ ti ~~ ~ ~` "~',> ~, ,, ~~, ~sr LEGEND ~ j ~~~,~ a ~ ~ -~~ fy~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ `~~ ~ ' _ _ EIR Study Area ~ C/!s ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r~ i~ ~ "u .>••` ~ ~ ...~ ... .......... es „ or ,i x i x. ..r. FIGURE 3-3 Not to Scale Local Vicinity Map _._~ m.~ E I P 11117-00 Source: USGS, 1993 ' Chapter 3 Project Descrlptlon The Genentech Campus is within the jurisdiction of other agencies in addition to the City of South San Francisco. Along the Genentech Campus shoreline, the Bay Trail which connects the Genentech Campus to the San Francisco Bay regional park system is located within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction. In addition, the entire Genentech Campus is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limits for the SFIA. 3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Genentech Campus supports a wide variet}~ of functions: offices, labs, research and manufacturing, and distribution facilities. With growth and substantial increase in employment, an overall structure for the Genentech Campus-hierarchy, roles for sub-areas within the Genentech Campus, clear paths of arrival, and circulation-is necessary. The 1995 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) provided an integrated framework for the Genentech Campus. The 2006 FMPU will serve as a guide to the phy=sical development of the Genentech Campus to the year 2016 (or until a new Facilities Master Plan is approved). The 2006 FMPU describes preferred land uses and projects future space needs to accommodate projected growth. It accommodates the CitS~'s goals, Genentech goals, General Plan updates, and other revisions, which were modified or altered after the 1995 Master Plan. 3.3.1 City of South San Francisco Policies Land uses in the East of 101 Area have rapidly transformed from light industrial/warehouse to biotechnology research, development and manufacturing. To guide this change, the City adopted the East of 101 Area Plan in 1994. Further, the South San Francisco General Plan Update, adopted in 1999, created the Business and Technology Park land use classifications and included an intention to promote the East of 101 Area as a premier biotechnology, and research and development sector. The General Plan Amendment, adopted in 2001, revised land use build out and created the Transportation Improvement Plan for the East of 101 Area. The policies contained within these documents provide the City's project objectives. The South San Francisco Municipal Code designates most of the East of 101 Area with two zoning classifications: Planned Industrial, and for a portion of the area, Genentech R&D Overlay District. The City='s policies, as described in the General Plan are listed below: ^ Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses ^ Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses ^ Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 ^ Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size ^ Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support commercial establishments such as dry cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses ~ Cite of South San l~rancisco General Plan Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 3-5 Chapter 3 Protect Descrlptlon 3.3.2 Genentech's Project Objectives Genentech, founded in 1976, has its corporate headquarters and the research and development center located in South San Francisco. Due to its rapid growth in its first two decades, Genentech formulated a "Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan" in 1995-an integrated framework for the development of Genentech-owned properties into a corporate campus. The 1995 Master Plan has passed its 10-near planning horizon. In 2005, Genentech applied to expand the Genentech R&D Overlay District, and thereby initiated an update of the 1995 Master Plan. Among Genentech's objectives are to address long range planning by coordinating infrastructure needs with the City and to respond to Genentech's immediate and long-term business plans. The objectives of the 2006 FMPU are designed to be consistent and compatible with the City's General Plan policies, ensuring that future growth and development within the project area avoids potential conflicts with the City's objectives of promoting the East of 101 Area as a premier biotechnology and research and development sector. Genentech projects significant growth in its biopharmaceutical research and development and manufacturing business over the next decade. That will result in the need for substantial additional building space to accommodate that growth. Many biopharmaceutical companies have similar functional needs and facilin~ requirements, and Genentech's are typical. At its core, Genentech is science-driven. The source of its long-term strength is the close collaboration of its scientists with one another, the immediate availability of strong business services to support that scientific work, and the presence in the nearby community of world-class scientific institutions. Accordingly, Genentech has indicated that it has several functional objectives in meeting its long-term growth needs: ^ First, allow Genentech to keep its key scientific personnel in proximity, so that they may continue to work together in support of its research, development and production goals. ^ Second, to keep certain central aspects of its business, both scientific and administrative, together physically for efficiency and maximum support. ^ Third, to assure Genentech's proximity to world-class scientific and academic institutions. ^ Fourth, to foster a sense of community among its employees, creating interconnectiviry and ease of access. The 2006 FMPU provides the physical expression of land uses, space needs, and planning principles that will support Genentech's functional objectives. The proposed expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District would allow implementation of the 2006 FMPU. The proposed project area encompasses approximately 160 acres, which is an increase from the 72 acres approved in the 1995 Master Plan'. The proposed project intends to respond to these changed conditions and Genentech's needs and growth, creating an overall framework for Genentech Campus development through the year 2016. It also addresses other Genentech locations outside the Genentech R&D Overlay District within South San Annual Report, Genentech, July 2005 3-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 3 Protect Descrlotfon Francisco as they relate to transportation and parking. Consistent with General Plan policies, the 2006 FMPU will fulfill five broad objectives that also serve as the project objectives: 1. Articulate vision and policies that will serve as general guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other Genentech Campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals 2. Foster development of a Genentech Campus befitting its setting on the City's eastern bayshore, that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront 3. Promotes alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City's transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings 4. Establishes the basis for the zoning provisions to be contained in an amended Genentech R&D Overlay District 5. Provide design guidelines that are proposed to be enacted after adoption of the 2006 FMPU and that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the 2006 FMPU area The 2006 FMPU emphasizes policies that will achieve the purposes described above. Due to the long- range nature of the 2006 FMPU, flexibility during implementation is crucial, and thus, it does not establish the precise location, size or desilm of the individual buildings that will follow in the course of the next ten years, except as described in Section 3.5.3 below. Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District) Objectives The Genentech R&D Overlay District prescribes planning and design principles for facilin~-wide development in accordance with the 1995 Master Plan. The Genentech R&D Overlay District as well as the 2006 FMPU, was established to achieve the following outcomes: (a) Establish a facilitt~-wide architectural character, a system of open space elements and a pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan linking buildings and uses together in a flexible, logical and orderly manner for the Genentech facility (b) Increase the flexibility= of the City='s land use regulations and the speed of its review procedures to reflect the quickly changing needs of a research and development focused corporation (c) Establish facilitt~-wide development standards and design guidelines consistent with the Cin~'s General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan (d) Define a baseline of existing conditions for each lot reclassified to the Genentech R&D Overlay District. ' Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~7 Chapter 3 Protect Descrlptlon 3.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3.4.1 Site History Genentech, founded in 1976 as the first biotechnology company, is the largest employer in South San Francisco. Currently, it has approximately 6,658 employees in the South San Francisco Campus.`' A fully integrated biotechnology company, Genentech employs a wide range of functions at its Campus, which include research and development, manufacturing and distribution, marketing and administration. In 1995, the City of South San Francisco adopted the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) to provide an integrated framework for development of Genentech-owned properties into a corporate campus, at the City's eastern bayshore. The 1995 Master Plan was designed and formulated to ensure consistency with the existing South San Francisco General Plan development policies. The 1995 Master Plan ensured that Genentech's growth fits within a Cit-~r-wide development context and was adopted in the South San Francisco General Plan to minimize future impacts and conflicts or policy inconsistencies. The Genentech R&D Overlay District, as Chapter 20.40 in the SSFMC was established at the same time. The Genentech R&D Overlay District specifies Floor Area Ratio (FAR), parking and other standards, and review and approval procedures for development within the District. Currently, Genentech owns a greater area than it did in 1995 (124 acres as compared to approximately 72 acres). In addition, the general planning context has also evolved: the City adopted the General Plan Update 1999. The East of 101 Area transformed rapidly from manufacturing and warehousing into a business and biotechnology center; and the SFIA developed a new master plan, and made changes in allowable heights in the aircraft approach zones. In addition, the transportation context of this region has changed. To facilitate new pedestrian and shuttle access, South San Francisco and San Bruno have new Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations and the relocation of South San Francisco Caltrain Station is underway. Also, in 2001, the City adopted an East of 101 Area Transportation Improvement Plan and Transportation Improvement Strategy, as well as a transportation demand management (TDl~~ ordinance to ensure that roadway and transit improvements kept pace with development. 3.4.2 Existing Land Use Regulations The proposed project area is governed by multiple land use regulations, including: the CitS~ zoning code, the City of South San Francisco General Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan. These regulations are discussed below. A hierarchical scheme of City plans and ordinances determine what development is permitted in the Project Area. These include the General Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, the Planned Industrial base Zoning District, the Research and Development Overlay District, the Genentech R&D Overlay District, and the Genentech Facilities Master Plan. At present time, and as a separate action from the proposed project, the East of 101 Area Plan will need to be updated to become internally consistent with the General Plan. This action is not a part of the 2006 FMPU. The approlimate elisting and proposed employment figures are based upon square footage factors related to employment. 3-g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 3 Project Descrfptlon General Plan The General Plan designates two land classifications for the proposed project area: Business and Technology Park and Park and Recreation (Figure 4.8-1). The majority of the proposed project area is designated as Business and Technology Park, with a narrow strip of land that extends south along the coastline designated as Park and Recreation. The small Park and Recreation General Plan land use category includes the Bay Trail and coastal beach areas. The South Campus, which is not part of the proposed project but includes buildings leased by Genentech, is designated Commercial/Business and Technology, which is a separate land use classification from Business and Technology Park. The Business and Technology Park land use category is designated for campus-style development for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packaging, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline- oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. The maximum FAR is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific TDM, off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Uses permitted under the Park and Recreation land use categor}~ are parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways. East of 101 Area Plan The Land Use Concept Plan contained within the East of 101 Area Plan designates the majority of the East of 101 Area as Planned Industrial land use classification. An Open Space land use categon~ is also designated. This designation rims the project area along the coast (Figure 4.8-2). A portion of the Genentech Campus is designated Light Industrial/Coastal Commercial. However, land use policies within the General Plan supersede the East of 101 Plan land use designations. At present time, and as a separate action from the proposed project, the East of 101 Area Plan will need to be updated to become internally consistent with the General Plan. This action is not a part of the 2006 FMPU. Zoning Classifications The underlying zoning district for the project area is Planned lndustrial (P-I). Uses permitted in the P-I District include various civic uses, commercial and industrial uses such as administrative, community education, safen~, libraries, financial, eating and drinking establishments, personal services, repair services, and research and development activities, light manufacturing, and general industrial activities. A southern portion of the proposed project area is within the Downtown Central Redevelopment project boundary. The Downtown Central Redevelopment Area is an older redevelopment project boundary established in 1989, and as such has not had recent redevelopment activitt~ within the existing Genentech properties. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 3.g Chapter 3 Project Descrlptlon Additionally, Section 20.39.040(b)(4) of the SSFMC prescribes regulations for reclassifying properties to a Research and Development district and establishes development standards and requirements within the district, including but not limited to the development of a facility master plan which is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable Area Plan. Approximately 124 acres of Genentech propertt~ is currently overlaid with the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The remainder of Genentech property is within the boundaries of the Planned Industrial District. 3.4.3 Surrounding Land Uses ^ The Oyster Point Marina-The Marina is a combination of Coastal Commercial and park uses. The Oyster Point Marina has various facilities including 600 marina slips, 60 live-aboard slips, a boat launching ramp, a fuel dock, a 300-foot fishing pier, a 33-acre park with a hiking and jogging trail, picnic facilities, and a 2.5-acre sandy beach. Other amenities include bait and tackle shop, yacht sales facility, restaurant and banquet facilities, yacht club, dry land boat storage, and office space for lease. The Cite is reviewing plans to establish a ferry terminal at the Marina. The Marina is directly north of the Genentech Campus. ^ San Francisco Bay Trail-The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission's (BCDC) jurisdiction and permitting authority embrace a 100-foot shoreline band. In addition, BCDC has permit approval surrounding the San Francisco Bay Trail, a mostly contiguous trail around the San Francisco Bay. Portions of the Bay Trail outline the coast around the Genentech Campus, providing recreation as well as pedestrian and bicycle access. ^ San Francisco International Airport (SFIA)-SFIA is a major influence on land use in the East of 101 Area. The far southern portion of the East of 101 Area is under the jurisdiction of SFIA, and is designated for airport related uses under the East of 101 Area Plan. The presence of SFIA was a significant factor in determining the incompatibility of residential uses within the East of 101 Area. SFIA is approximately 1.5 miles from the Genentech Campus. ^ Caltrain Station and BART Station-East of 101 is presently served only by landside transit. There are shuttle bus links to the South San Francisco BART Station and to the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. The Oyster Marina Area, Gateway Area, and Genentech BART shuttles run between the South San Francisco BART Station on Mission Road and the East of 101 Area office buildings during commute hours. Caltrain Shuttle runs between the South San Francisco Caltrain Station on Dubuque Avenue and the East of 101 Area during commute hours. The linkage time is 20 to 30 minutes. The BART station is approximately 4 miles away. The Caltrain station is approximately 2 miles away. 3.4.4 1995 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan The 1995 Master Plan was adopted by the South San Francisco City Council in 1995 and serves many purposes. It provided a framework for Campus building on Genentech-owned properties. It was also the basis for the initial adoption of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The 1995 Master Plan primarily focuses on the properties within the Genentech R&D Overlay District in South San Francisco. The 1995 Master Plan objectives are as follows: ^ The Plan articulates vision and policies that will serve as a guide for the placement and design of individual buildings and other Genentech Campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals. 3-10 ~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 3 Project Descrlptlon ^ The Plan fosters development of a Genentech Campus befitting its setting on the City's eastern bayshore that capitalizes on views and ensures public access to the waterfront. ^ The Plan promotes alternatives to automobile transportation to further the Ciry's transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings. ^ The Plan establishes the basis for the zoning prop=isions contained in the Genentech R&D Overlay District. ^ The Plan provides design guidelines that will serve as a basis for the design review and approval for development in the Master Plan area. ' 3.5 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS 3.5.1 MEIR Study Area The MEIR Study Area of approximatel}= 220 acres has been identified, of which 160 acres would eventually comprise the Genentech R&D Overlay District. At buildout, Genentech expects to almost double its 2006 size (from 2.8 million sf to roughly 6 million sf) of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities building, and parking structures. Table 3-1 (Existing and Proposed Genentech Land Uses) shows the existing and proposed uses within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Genentech based and owned properties not analyzed in this MEIR, are included in the Study area. Sites Not Included in 2006 FMPU Genentech currently leases other properties within the East of 101 Area: Gateway (Gateway Campus), which is approximately 106 acres, and Britannia East Grand (South Campus), which is approximately 26 acres and is currently under construction. These leased properties are not included as part of the proposed project. The Gateway Campus includes roughly 2,400 employees within three existing office buildings and two parking structures. Additionally, Genentech currently owns the Bay West Cove property, which encompasses approximately 16 acres. The Bay West Cove property= has an adopted specific plan guiding the future development within the area, and is not part of the proposed project. The approved buildout for the Bay West Cove property includes four separate planning areas. Planning area 1 would permit the following uses: 60,000 sf of office and research and development; 20,000 sf of retail/restaurant; and 350 hotel rooms or 200,000 sf of office. Planning area 2 and 3 would permit 564,000 sf of office and research and development, 10,000 sf retail/restaurant, and childcare for 80-100 children. Planning area 4 would permit 350 hotel rooms. The MEIR and 2006 FMPU focus on areas within the Genentech R&D Overlay District which are divided into the Lower, Upper, Mid, and West Campus neighborhoods, ~=hile the Gateway Campus, Bay West Cove, and South Campus are addressed as they relate to transportation and connectivitti~ issues, but are not part of the proposed project. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 3-11 Chapter 3 Protect Descrlptlon Existlr~gGer~n6eohR8d)0-~e-fay t7~strlct(sf1 Roposed(~11~---elr~chftB~Ore~rtay Dist-tct{ag a'~tt~aease t~ Land Area (acres) 124 160 36 Office 1,008,801 2,629,395 1,620,594 Laboratory 970,173 2,002,482 1,032,309 Manufacturing' 779,892 1,041,668 261,776 Amenity 69,500 322,000 252,000 Total Building Area'* 2,828,366 5,995,545 3,167,179 * Includes manufacturing, distribution, antl till tinisn. ** Assumes all new Genentech land uses, non-Genentech existing uses not included 3.5.2 Description of the 2006 Facilities Master Plan Update The 2006 Facilities Master Plan Update (2006 FMPU) is the long-range plan for the growth and development of the South San Francisco Genentech Campus which will be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council in accordance with Section 20.39.040(b)(4) "Genentech Research and Development Overla}~ District Regulations" of the SSFMC as part of the application for reclassification of the Genentech properties to the Genentech R&D Overlay District (Ord. 1163 ~ 2 (part), 1995). For planning purposes, the 2006 FMPU divides the Genentech Campus into four neighborhoods: Lower Campus, Mid Campus, Upper Campus, and West Campus. The 2006 FMPU growth strategy aims for expansion and redevelopment throughout the Genentech Campus, concentrating on more intense administrative and office development in the Upper Campus and West Campus. Research and development will continue to expand in the Mid and Lower Campuses. The Lower Campus will also support product development and related functions. In addition the amenities will continue to be distributed throughout the Genentech Campus. The expected growth of the Genentech Campus to 6 million sf of building space on 160 acres will result in an overall Genentech R&D Overlay District FAR of 0.69. Within the Genentech Campus, development intensity will vary in each neighborhood in response to available land. Maximum FARs of each neighborhood will not exceed 2.0 with a maximum overall FAR of 1.0 in the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Building typology will further dictate the development intensities throughout the Genentech Campus. The 2006 FMPU is organized into five chapters and covers concepts regarding overall land use and development intensity, urban design issues of massing, scale and views; utilities; transportation and parking. Land use and Structure Concepts The 2006 FMPU focuses on five design and development concepts: 1. Foster development of distinct yet interconnecting neighborhoods, to ensure a sense of communiri~. 2. Maintain and create balance between open space and built environment. 3. Maximize use of views by careful siting and massing of buildings. 4. Create a network of pedestrian and Genentech Campus shuttle connections to facilitate movement between buildings and neighborhoods. 5. Foster neighborhood spines concept to connect employee amenities and activity centers. 3-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 3 Protect Descrlntlon Urban Design Sections within the urban design chapter of the 2006 FMPU are organized by urban design elements including connections, views, open space, central spines and building massing and scale. The goals include the following: 1. Maximize waterfront and hilltop setting of the Genentech Campus by emphasizing connectivity through circulation and view corridors. 2. Facilitate pedestrian connections and accessibilit<~ along major Genentech Campus corridors. 3. Foster vital and active pedestrian-oriented central spines within each neighborhood. 4. Build upon emblematic site elements to create a distinct Genentech Campus identit~~. 5. Ensure that development relates to preserved view corridors and human scale of the Genentech Campus. 6. Promote a flexible environment for development to achieve desired facility needs and intensities within the Genentech Campus. 7. Provide the basis for specific architectural, open space, and site design guidelines. Transportation and Parking The Transportation and Parking chapter within the 2006 FMPU outlines several initiatives to promote alternatives to automobile use, an efficient use of parking, expand transit and shuttle services, and integrate the Genentech Campus using various modes of transportation: 1. Develop a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program to minimize single-occupancy vehicles traveling to Genentech Campus. 2. Streamline Genentech Campus circulation and connectivit~~ of all neighborhoods in the East of 101 Area for shuttle bus, service and goods movement. 3. Minimize intercampus traffic by strategically locating parking areas. 4. Create a flexible parking supply infrastructure and implementation plan that responds to development and parking demand needs. 5. Accommodate multiple modes of transportation on the existing Genentech Campus street network. Ut1lItleS Genentech Campus growth will necessitate expansion of utilities. Strategies in the 2006 FMPU are structured as follows: 1. Ensure infrastructure availability to serve Genentech Campus growth and expansion needs. 2. Emphasize conservation and recycling to the extent feasible and practical. Design Guidelines The purpose of the design guidelines is to create a comprehensive set of regulations through which development will follow. Genentech has identified specific set of design concepts consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan, that permeates the design standards and that reinforce its identitt~: Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 3-13 Chapter 3 Project Descrlptlon 1. Ensure that development relates to preserved view corridors and preserve the human scale 2. Design built and open spaces with consistent building systems, site elements in order to com=ey a singular and unified corporate Genentech Campus 3. Utilize materials, colors, and composition to create a cohesive, distinctive Genentech Campus that is sensitive to the natural environment of the site 4. Focus on ease of access and visibility along roadways and major pathway s 5. Enhance employee safety and security using appropriate building sy=stems and site design 6. Provide a physical environment that supports employee creativity and innovation, and fosters productivity 3.5.3 Description of Campus Subareas The proposed Genentech Campus would encompass approximately 160 acres, located within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The Genentech Campus properties are organized into sub-area neighborhoods: Lower Campus, Mid Campus, Upper Campus and West Campus. Table 3-2 provides an overview of the proposed land uses by neighborhood, which is further discussed below under Campus Characteristics. .• IYe(~batiood 0/8ce Lab • Mer~dslr~g • Miev~s Tail Lower Campus Total 61,994 639,108 -14,613 56,000 742,489 West Campus Total 780,000 200,000 399,159 107,000 1,486,159 Mid Campus Total -25,900 344,501 0 95,000 413,601 Upper Campus Total 804,500 -151,300 122,770 -5,500 524,930 Total* 1,620,594 1,032,309 261,776 252,500 3,167,179 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 Assumes all new Genentech land uses, non-Genentech existing uses not included Campus Characteristics The proposed Project includes implementation of the 2006 FMPU, including adoption of a 36-acre expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. After implementation of the proposed Project, the future Genentech R&D Overlay= District will cover 160 acres, and the Genentech Campus will be located entirely within the R&D Overlay. Upon full implementation of the 2006 FMPU, the existing 2.8 million sf of Genentech building space within the Genentech R&D Overlay district would expand to approximately 6 million sf. The Genentech Campus is organized into four neighborhoods: Lower Campus, Mid Campus, Upper Campus, and West Campus. The composition of each neighborhood is summarized below. The summaries describe existing baseline (December 2005) uses and proposed future development and 'The dross acreage of the proposed project is 169 acres, which includes all streets and rights of wars. &14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 3 Protect Descript/on redevelopment analyzed in this MEIR. The net new square footage is set forth below; however, the summaries also describe existing building space that may be removed as part of the development and redevelopment. The projects described below are those that currently are anticipated; changes in the precise mix of project types and uses may occur in response to changing business conditions and corporate strategies adopted by Genentech. Lower Campus The Lower Campus, which was part of the 1995 Master Plan, is located on the northern edge of the MEIR Study Area adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The baseline development within the Lower Campus includes 415,000 sf of laboratory space, 650,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space, 328,000 sf of office space, and 9,000 sf of amenities. Developments in 2006 include Building 51, a 35,700 sf manufacturing building, and a 20,000 sf manufacturing expansion of Building 3. It is anticipated that up to 145,000 sf of office space, 70,000 sf of laboratory space, 310,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space, and 4,000 sf of amenity space may be redeveloped. Future developments that currently are anticipated within the Lower Campus include the following: ^ Anew laboratory and office building adjacent to Bldg 7, with 140,000 sf of laboratory space and 25,000 sf of office uses ^ Approximately 180,000 sf of additional office space ^ Approximately 570,000 sf of additional laboratory space ^ Approximately= 215,000 sf of additional manufacturing/warehouse space ^ Approximately 60,000 sf of amenities ^ Structured parking Mid Campus The Mid Campus, which was part of the 1995 Master Plan, is located south of the Lower Campus adjacent to the San Francisco Bay. The baseline development within the Mid Campus includes 159,000 sf of office space and 442,000 sf of laboratory space. It is anticipated that up to 26,000 sf of office space may be redeveloped. Future Mid Campus projects that currently are anticipated include the following: ^ Approximately 300,000 sf of laboratory space ^ Approximately 95,000 sf of amenities Upper Campus The Upper Campus, which was part of the 1995 Master Plan, is located along the top of the ridge at the center of the Project area, dropping sharply to the north and west. The baseline development within the Upper Campus includes 522,000 sf of office space, 151,000 sf of laboratory space, 123,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space, and 66,000 sf of amenities. It is anticipated that up to 120,000 sf of office space, 150,000 sf of laboratory space, 125,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space, and 25,000 sf of amenit<~ space may be redeveloped. Future Upper Campus projects that currently are anticipated include the following: ^ Building 31, an approximately 151,000 square foot office building adjacent to Buildings 32 and 33 ^ Approximately 775,000 sf of additional office space ^ Approximately 20,000 sf of amenity space Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR &15 Chapter 3 Protect Descrlptlon ^ Structured parking West Campus The West Campus, the newest addition to the Genentech Campus, is west of the Upper Campus and is bordered by East Grand Avenue, Allerton Street, and San Bruno Hill. The West Campus serves as a major point of entry to the Project. The West Campus is not currently a part of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District, but it is proposed to be added to that district as a part of the Project. The baseline development within the West Campus includes 660,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space. It is anticipated that up to 510,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space may be redeveloped. Future West Campus projects that currently are anticipated include the following: ^ Anew 52,000 sf child care facility for approximately 500 children at 444 Allerton ^ Three new office buildings totaling approximately 450,000 sf of office space ^ Anew 1,200 car parking structure ^ Approximately 330,000 sf of additional office space ^ Approximately 200,000 sf of laboratory space ^ Approximately 250,000 sf of manufacturing/warehouse space ^ Approximately 55,000 sf of additional amenities space ^ Additional structured parking Genentech also has prepared and submitted a separate application, including a proposed negative declaration, to the City for construction of Building 31, a 150,972 sf office building. This building is proposed to provide additional office space to the Upper Campus with its construction completed by 2008. The City is currently reviewing the application and negative declaration 3.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City is the lead agency with the authority to carry out or approve the proposed project. Consistent with SSFMC Section 20.39.040(b)(3), "R&D Overlay District Regulations," applications for reclassification to an R&D Overlay District shall be accompanied by documentation that establishes the condition of each individual lot to be reclassified in a form acceptable to the City's Chief Planner. The 2006 FMPU is reviewed by the Planning Commission, who must find that the 2006 FMPU is consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable area plan, and fulfills the purposes of the Genentech R&D Overlay District as set forth in SSFMC Section 20.39.020, "R&D Overlay District Regulations." The associated facility design guidelines are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may approve the facility design guidelines if it finds that such guidelines are consistent with SSFMC Section 20.39.020, "R&D Overlay District Regulations," and the criteria set forth at SSFMC Section 20.39.040(b)(4)(D), "R&D Overlay District Regulations." It is likely that the approval of the Genentech R&D Overlay District will require the following: ^ Reclassification and zoning map change of the parcels in the Planned Industrial zone into the Genentech R&D Overlay District ^ Zoning text changes to SSFMC Chapters 20.39 and 20.40 ^ Adoption of the TDM Plan ^ All future developments will be subject to a separate permit approval and CEQA review as established in SSFMC Chapter 20.39. 3-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chanter 3 Pro1er_t l~er_rfnrtnn At present time, and as a separate action from the proposed project, the East of 101 Area Plan will need to be updated to become internally consistent with the General Plan. This action is not a part of the 2006 FMPU. The Cit<~ will also certif~~ the MEIR for the proposed project. The following is a list of Cite agencies and their responsibilities in approving the proposed project. City Agencies ^ Department of Economic and Community Development > Building Division: o Building Permits, Certificate of Occupancy > Planning Division: o Use Permits, Minor Use Permits, Mixed Use Permits, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, Design Review, CEQA Reviews > Engineering Division: o Grading Permits, Subdivision Permits, Encroachment Permits, Transportation Impact Fees, Utility Impact Fees, Plan Check ^ Police Department: > City's Security issues compliance ^ Fire Department: > Fire Code Compliance In addition to the City, there are also federal, regional, and state responsible agencies that have discretionary authorit<~ over specific aspects of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to, the following: ^ Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)-Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) for construction activities disturbing more than 1 acre and permit for dewatering during construction, and approval of operational stormwater treatment ^ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)-Ensures compliance with all traffic related standards relative to state highways ^ Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-BAAQMD ensures that all applicable federal and state air quality standards are achieved and maintained ^ San Mateo County Flood Control District-Design approval for on-site flood control ^ San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission-jurisdiction includes activities within 100-foot shoreline band as well as permit authority for development adjacent to the San Francisco Bav Trail ^ Federal Aviation Administration-height limits and noise contours relative to the operation of the San Francisco lnternational Airport Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 3-17 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Analysis 4.0 INTRODUCTION TO ANALYSIS Sections 4.1 through 4.13 of Chapter 4 of this MEIR contain a discussion of the potential environmental effects that could result from implementation of the 2006 FMPU and related expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District (the entirety of which is referred to as the proposed project), including an overview of existing conditions, an analysis of the type and magnitude of individual and cumulative environmental impacts, and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid environmental impacts. 4.0.1 Scope of the Environmental Impact Analysis The 2006 FMPU is a land use plan that guides the physical development of the Genentech Campus. It is not an implementation plan. Adoption of the proposed project does not constitute a commitment to any specific project, construction schedule, or funding priorin~. Rather, it describes the entire development program of approximately 3.2 million new gsf on the campus through 2016. The MEIR will serve as the environmental impact analysis for future Genentech buildings and development consistent with the 2006 FMPU for a minimum of five years as permitted by state law. The scope of the analysis of the potential environmental effects of the proposed project is described below. In accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the potential environmental effects of the proposed project are analyzed for the following environmental issue areas: ^ Biological Resources ^ Flood and Inundation Hazards ^ Air Qualit}' ^ Noise and Vibration ^ Geology and Soils ^ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Transportation ^ Land Use and Planning ^ Aesthetics ^ Cultural Resources ^ Population, Employment and Housing ^ Public Services ^ Utilities and Service Systems Based upon the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project, impacts to agricultural resources and recreation were determined to be "Effects Not Found to Be Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 41 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Significant" according to Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines. The MEIR Study Area is largely fully developed, with no known agricultural resources and no existing or proposed residential uses. 4.0.2 Format of the Environmental Analysis The following topics will be discussed individually and in detail for each of the environmental issue areas discussed in this chapter: Existing Conditions According to Section 15125 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project to provide the "baseline condition" against which project-related impacts are compared. Normally, the baseline condition is the physical condition that exists when the NOP is published. The Revised NOP for the MEIR was published December 9, 2005. For analytical purposes, impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project are based upon conditions in December 2005. For purposes of evaluating impacts related to physical development, the baseline condition for the environmental setting includes all existing development, as well as projects that are under construction, approved, and/or for which an environmental document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, as of December 2005. Regulatory Framework The Regulatory Framework provides a summary of regulations, plans, policies, and laws that are relevant to each issue area. Project Impacts and Mitigation This section is further divided into the following subsections, as described below. Analytic Method This subsection identifies the methodology used to analyze potential environmental impacts. Thresholds of Significance Thresholds of significance are criteria used to determine whether potential environmental effects are significant. The thresholds of significance used in this analysis were taken from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and supplemented by locally recognized thresholds as appropriate (e.g., South San Francisco level of service standards). This subsection defines the type, amount, and/or extent of impact that would be considered a significant change in the environment. Some thresholds (such as air quality, traffic, and noise) are quantitative, while others, such as visual quality, are qualitative. The thresholds are 42 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.0 /ntroductlon to Analysts intended to assist the reader in understanding how and why the MEIR reaches a conclusion that an impact is significant or less than significant. The thresholds of significance are provided both in the "Thresholds of Significance" section and immediately before the relevant impact analysis for ease of correlation. Impacts and Mitigation Measures This subsection describes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and, based upon the thresholds of significance, concludes whether the environmental impacts would be considered, potentially significant, or less than significant. Each impact is summarized in an "impact statement," followed by a more detailed discussion of the potential impacts and the significance of each impact before mitigation. This subsection also includes feasible mitigation measures that could reduce the severity of the impact. In instances where the design guidelines or development policies and strategies put forth in the 2006 FMPU serve to reduce potential impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, such guidelines, policies and strategies have been incorporated into this MEIR as mitigation measures to ensure their implementation and will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) to ensure compliance. In addition to feasible mitigation measures (MMs), Genentech will also continue to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations that are considered part of the project description and are identified as Project Requirements (PRs) in the impact analysis and will be included in the MMRP to ensure compliance. Following the description of MMs and PRs, the subsection concludes with a statement regarding whether the impact, following implementation of the mitigation measure(s) would remain significant, and thus be significant and unavoidable, or would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. The analysis of environmental impacts considers both the construction and operational phases associated with implementation of the proposed project. As required by Section 15126.2(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, direct, indirect, short-term, long-term, on-Campus, and/or off-Campus impacts are addressed, as appropriate, for the environmental issue area being analyzed. As previously mentioned, the analysis of impacts is based upon one of two factors, either population or the campus built environment, depending upon the tt~e of impact. Impacts related to transportation/traffic, air quality, noise, population and housing, and public services (police protection and school capacity) are analyzed on the basis of the campus population estimates associated with the proposed project. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, utilities and service systems, and public services (fire protection) are analyzed on the basis of factors such as the proposed location of development, the proposed size (square footage) and type of development, acreage of ground disturbance, and known or expected presence of environmental resources (i.e., biological or cultural resources). The Draft MEIR uses the following terms to describe the level of significance of impacts identified during the course of the environmental analysis: Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR q 3 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls ^ Significant and Unavoidable Impact (SU)-Impact that exceeds the defined threshold(s) of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to ales-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. ^ Potentially Significant Impact (PS)-Impact that exceeds the defined threshold(s) of significance and can be eliminated or reduced to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. ^ Less-Than-Significant Impact (LTS)-Impact that does not exceed the defined threshold(s) of significance. ^ No Impact (NI)-No effect on the defined threshold(s) of significance. A "significant effect" is defined by Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines as "a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment ... [but] may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant." Each impact discussion is separately numbered and includes a brief impact statement that summarizes the subject of the analysis. This format is designed to assist the reader in quickly identifying the subject of the impact analyses and for use in Table 1-2 (Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures), which forms the basis of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. References This subsection identifies sources relied upon for each environmental topic area analyzed in this document (Sections 4.1 through 4.13). 44 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1 Blologfcal Resources 4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section describes existing biological resources at the MEIR Study Area and describes potential impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed project. An MEIR Study Area of approximately 220 acres has been identified, of which 160 acres would eventually comprise the Genentech R&D Overlay District, as described in the Project Description (see Chapter 3, page 3-7). All of the approximately 160 acres currently owned by Genentech (although not all operated as Genentech facilities) are developed. Of these, roughly 40 percent are assumed to remain as is and 60 percent are planned for redevelopment by 2016, the 2006 FMPU horizon (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). Figure 4.1-1 shows the sites on Genentech Campus, where redevelopment or new construction could potentially occur (Opportunity Sites.) Taxonomy and nomenclature generally follows American Ornithologist's Union (AOU 2003) for birds, Laudenslayer et al. (1991) for all other terrestrial vertebrates, and Jepson (Hickman 1993) and National Park Service (NPs) website for plants. Also referenced are the Colma Creek Clapper Rail Survey (EIP Associates 2002), California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), United States Fish & Wildlife Service (CJSFWS) sensitive species lists, and California Native Plant Societe (GNPs) Electronic Inventor~~. A site visit conducted by EIP biologists on November 18, 2005 assessed current site conditions. No changes in biological resources occurred between the site visit and the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) that set the baseline date. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.1.4 (References) of this section. No comment letters related to biological resources were received in response to the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.1.1 Existing Conditions Site Description The MEIR Study Area is located in the Cit<~ of South San Francisco, within what the City's General Plan designates the East of the 101 Area, along the western shoreline of Central San Francisco Bay, one mile north of San Francisco International Airport (SFIA) and 10 miles south of downtown San Francisco. South San Francisco is built upon the Ba}~ plain and the northern foothills of the Coastal Range. The MEIR Study Area is fully developed and includes surface parking lots, roads, structures and landscaped areas, interspersed with steep hillsides which contain upland ruderal grassland habitat. ~eneniecn corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Environmental Setting Habitats Habitat types within the MEIR Study Area were identified during a November 18, 2005 site visit conducted by EIP biologists. Three different habitat types were observed within the MEIR Study Area. These include developed (roads, surface parking lots, and structures), turf grass/landscaping, and upland ruderal grasslands. Coastal salt marsh, a sensitive habitat, occurs adjacent to the MEIR Study Area. All habitats observed within the MEIR Study Area are described below. Most of the MEIR Study Area is developed and is primarily composed of landscaped vegetation. Developed The developed area is completely covered with impervious surfaces such as roads, surface parking lots, and structures. Buildings may provide nesting habitat for some bird species, but in general, no biological resources occur within developed areas. Developed areas account for much land within the MEIR Study Area. Landscaped Landscaping is interspersed between roads, surface parking lots, and structures and is laid out along roads, sidewalks, and promenades. The landscape vegetation consists of grasses, shrubs, and trees. Much of the landscaped area is planted with ground cover of Bermuda grass (Cyraodora dactylon) or English ivy (Hedera heli.~). Bermuda grass is a popular lawn grass that spreads rapidly and can grow in almost any soil that is not too wet or shady. Similarly, ivy requires almost no maintenance. Various non-native tree species observed in the landscaped areas include eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), cypress (Cupressus spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), and olive (Oleo spp.). Sycamores (Platanus racemosa), native to this area, were also present but were planted as part of the landscaping. Also observed were pyrocantha (Pyrocantha augustifolia), a native plant species with berries that could provide foraging for American robin (Turclus migratorius), and other common bird species. The landscape vegetation could provide shelter, foraging opportunity and nesting sites for small birds (passerines), and rodents, such as rats, mice, voles, ground squirrels, and gophers. Upland Ruderal Grassland Areas that are not covered by roads, surface parking lots, structures, and landscaped vegetation contain upland ruderal grassland habitat. This habitat consists of mostly weedy non-native plant species. Species observed include wild radish (Raphanus spp.), fennel (Foeniculurre vulgare), and pampas grass (Cortacleria spp.), all of which are non-native. Ruderal grasslands are generally found on relatively steep slopes, most of which have been terraced, or cut and filled. This habitat is not likely to support sensitive plant or animal species, as it is considered low quality habitat because it is highly disturbed and comprised of non- native vegetation. One slope observed during the November 18, 2005 EIP field survey supports native toyon (Heteromeles arhutifolia) interspersed with ruderal (weedy) vegetation. Because these plants occur in relatively straight lines, they were most likely planted after cutting of the slope for slope stability purposes. 4.1-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR W ,~ I pi y ~.. __ ~1 --- ,,, ,- ;_- ..~ 4Y llfl~ ~~ ~L. I ~I 1,1 /~ ~ `•~ \J , ` i '~,,', ~ ` ,~ ! ~~. ~I ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ - ~. - - ~ \ 1~ ------- ------~ ~ .~~, s"fir, ~ . ~, '~ ~ ~~, ~~ ~.,. ,\ ~ / !! ~ ~ i ~\ ~l' I L~ ''~ `1 \\ \ \ / I \ ~ , ~, i .' ~ - I . ~ A L - N C a v 0 a` d ~ ~v °: v ~ ~ N 3 L 3 v a Q c O L ~ a .°: o C V C p_ v v v a v v v O l7 J (7 v a o ' a ~ no nn c c c a ~ O rn a0 y v a c H O N R O J U Q L t W ~, V V ~ ~ ~ U1 C ~ C C ~ ~ C ~ ~ C) ~N w a o ~ ~1 ~ :i N r .-Ti r w ~ ~ Q c~ ~ ~ O a h m a m U m C N L U C N Gi 0 ~n 0 0 4.1 Blologlcal Resources Sensitive Species/Habitats Information on sensitive species and habitats occurring in the vicinit<~ of the proposed project was obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) CNDDB (information dated July 1, 2005) for the U.S. Geological Survey's 7.5-minute San Francisco South, San Francisco North, Hunters Point, Montara Mountain, San Mateo, Oakland West, Oakland East, San Leandro and Redwood Point quadrangles, and USFWS generated species lists for the above quadrangles (USFWS 2005). These sources have been compiled into a single list of special-status species and their potential to occur in the MEIR Study Area (Appendix B). A combined total of 192 species are reported by the USFWS and CNDDB as potentially occurring within the above mentioned quadrangles. To determine the potential for a species to occur in the MEIR Study Area, any one of the following criteria were applied: ^ Habitat for the species has been identified within the MEIR Study Area. ^ The proposed project has potential to effect the species. ^ The species is well known to the public and resource agencies, thereby garnering attention and concern. Application of this criteria to the list of sensitive species reveals that habitat in the proposed project vicinity is not suitable for many of these species. Species that warrant further detailed discussion are limited to five animal species, three plant species, and one habitat. Salt marshes (a sensitive habitat) adjacent to the MEIR Study Area have the potential to support populations of California clapper rail (Kallus longirostris obsoletus), Alameda song sparrow (Melo.rpi~a melorlia pusillula), salt marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), salt marsh harvest mouse (Reitbrodontomys raviventris), salt marsh van ant shrew (,S'ore.~ vagrans haliocoetes), Pacific cordgrass (.Spartina foliosa), salt marsh owl's clover (Castillja amUigua ssp. Palustris), and marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus ~ycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus). Sensitive Habitats Salt Marsh Coastal salt marsh is considered a threatened habitat by the CDFG. In the MEIR Study Area, coastal salt marsh habitat occurs along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area, as shown in Figure 4.1-2. Analysis of the MEIR Study Area was conducted based on publicly available satellite images of the MEIR Study Area and a field survey conducted by EIP biologists on November 18, 2005. This marsh area consists of relatively small stands of salt grasses, and a very small patch of pickleweed (.Salicornia ssp.). Surrounding this small marsh area are steep uplands which support ruderal (weedy) habitat. Salt marshes occur along the margins of bays, lagoons, and estuaries sheltered from excessive wave action, above intertidal sand and mud flats and below upland communities not subject to tidal action. These wetlands are present in suitable locations along the entire California coast, the largest stands occurring in the San Francisco Bay. Salt marshes were once very common in San Francisco Bay. Placement of fill within the Bay has removed over 90 percent of former tidal salt marsh. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-5 4.1 Blologlcal Resources Salt marshes provide food, cover and nesting and roosting habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Endemic subspecies of birds include the endangered California and light-footed clapper rails (Rallus longirostris spp.), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturnicolus), salt marsh yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), Belding's Savannah sparrow (Passercarlus sandivichensis beldinga) and three subspecies of the song sparrow (Melo.rpi~a melodia) at San Francisco Bay. Other bird species that feed or roost in these wetlands are herons (Ardea spp.), egrets (Egretta spp.), ducks (Anatidae family), Virginia rail (Kcrllus limicola), American coot (Fulica Americana), shorebirds, swallows, and marsh wren (Cistothorus palust~zs). Characteristic mammals include species of shrews (.Sorex spp.), bats, and mice (Reithrodontornys ssp.), including the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (I~eithrodontomys raviventris) endemic at San Francisco Bay, as well as the raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lutra Canadensis), and harbor seal (Phoca vitulina). A number of species from adjacent uplands visit the wetlands to feed. Several species of lizards and snakes frequent the edge of the high marsh, whereas the Pacific tree frog (Pseudacris (Hyla) regilla) and western toad (Bufo spp.) may occur in slightly brackish marsh or after heave rains. Sensitive Animals California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) The California clapper rail is an inhabitant of tidal salt marshes of the greater San Francisco Bay, although some individuals use brackish marshes during the spring breeding season. In south and central San Francisco Bay and along the perimeter of San Pablo Bay, clapper rails typically inhabit salt marshes dominated by pickleweed and Pacific cordgrass (.Spartina foliosa) (USF'~X1S 2005). The clapper rail was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1970 and by the CDFG in 1971. The nearest known clapper rail populations are located approximately 0.5 miles away along Colma Creek between Utah Avenue and Navigable Slough, and approximately 11 miles south of the MEIR Study Area at Belmont Slough (EIP 2002). One area of coastal salt marsh was identified by EIP staff on November 18, 2005 in a field survey. This small marsh area occurs along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area. This marsh area consists of relatively small stands of salt grasses, and a very small patch of pickleweed. Surrounding this small marsh area are steep uplands supporting ruderal vegetation. No clapper rails were observed within this tidal salt marsh. The salt grass stands and pickleweed patches here are too small and fragmented to support clapper rails. Alameda Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula) The Alameda song sparrow is a federal and CDFG Species of Special Concern. The Alameda song sparrow occurs only in the marshlands of the San Francisco Bay Region (Jurek 1974). The primary range of the Alameda song sparrow extends from Coyote Creek, at the southern extremity of the Bay, northward along the west shore of South San Francisco Bay to Belmont Slough and along the east shore to San Lorenzo. Song sparrows nest in dense riparian thickets, emergent wetlands (including salt marshes), and dense thickets of other vegetation (Madrone Audubon Society 1995). The Alameda song sparrow uses tidal salt marsh habitats along the edge of the Bay and streams where tidal flow affects the vegetation. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls The relatively small coastal salt marsh located along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area is made up of small fragmented stands of cordgrass; no riparian vegetation is present. This small salt marsh is surrounded by highly disturbed, steep upland areas supporting ruderal (weedy) vegetation. The thick salt grass stands provide marginal nesting habitat for the Alameda song sparrow. Thus, this coastal salt marsh has the potential to support Alameda song sparrow. Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa) The salt marsh common yellowthroat is a federal and CDFG Species of Special Concern that inhabits fresh and saltwater marshes. It requires thick, continuous cover down to the water surface for foraging. It needs either tall grasses, tule patches, or willows for nesting. The coastal salt marsh habitat adjacent to the MEIR Study Area is relatively small and fragmented, and lacks taller vegetation like willows or riparian habitat. However, marginal foraging and nesting habitat for the salt marsh common yellowthroat is provided by the stands of salt grasses. Therefore, salt marsh common yellowthroat have the potential to occur within this coastal salt marsh. Salt Marsh Vagrant Shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes) and Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) The salt marsh vagrant shrew is a federal and CDFG Species of Special Concern. This species is found in dense, low cover, primarily pickleweed, above high tide line of tidal marshes of the South San Francisco Bav. The EIP field survey, conducted on November 18, 2005, did not result in the direct observation or evidence of this species. The CNDDB does not report occurrences of this species in the proposed project vicinity. The salt marsh harvest mouse is a federal and state endangered species and is fully protected by CDFG. This species is found only in emergent salt marsh habitats of San Francisco Bay where pickleweed is the primary vegetation. The mouse requires escape habitat above high water levels. The uplands lining this marsh do not provide this habitat because they contain vegetation which is too sparse. The MEIR Study Area does contain salt marsh habitat along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area. This marsh area consists of relatively small stands of salt grasses, and a very small patch of pickleweed. This salt marsh is probably too small and fragmented to provide suitable habitat for either of these species. Surrounding this small marsh area are steep uplands consisting of ruderal vegetation. These uplands do not satisfy the flood escape requirements of the salt marsh harvest mouse. Because the habitat is not suitable and because it was not observed during the site inspection in November 2005, this species is presumed absent from the MEIR Study Area. Sensitive Plants No sensitive plant species are documented within the MEIR Study Area. The upland ruderal grassland habitat is located on steep hillsides that have been terraced or cut and filled. Almost all native soil has been removed from these areas or buried beneath fill. In addition, many sensitive plant species reported 4.1-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1 Bfologlcal Resources to occur within the region are associated with serpentine soils, which are absent from the MEIR Study Area (Appendix B). However, sensitive plant species have the potential to occur in the coastal salt marsh adjacent to the MEIR Study= Area. Pacific cordgrass (.Spartina foliosa), salt marsh owl's clover (Castill ja amGigara ssp. palustris), and marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus) all occur in coastal salt marsh habitat. These species could be found in salt marsh areas adjacent to the MEIR Study Area. Critical Habitat Information provided by USFWS indicates that critical habitat has been designated for several species (Appendix B). All the listings of critical habitat were reviewed and the MEIR Stud}~ Area does not contain lands designated as critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species. 4.1.2 Regulatory Framework Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (NIBTA) makes it unlawful to "take" (hill, harm, harass, etc) any migratory= bird listed in 50 CFR 10, including their nests, eggs, or products. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, and mane others. There are over 800 species listed in the MBTA including common species observed within the MEIR Study Area such as the American robin, white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), American coot (Ftalica Americana), lesser goldfinch (Carrluelis psaltria), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), surf scoter (Melanitta perrpicillata), willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), yellow-rumped warbler (Denrlroica corosaata), and mallard (Antis platyrhyncos). Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 Section 3 of the Federal Ena'angered .Species Act (FESA) defines an endangered species as any species or subspecies of fish, wildlife, or plants "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range." A threatened species is defined as any= species or subspecies "likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout al] or a significant portion of its range." Designated endangered and threatened species, as listed through publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, are fully protected from a "take" without an incidental take permit administered by the USFWS under Section 10 of the FESA. Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (50 CFR 17.3). The term "harm" in the definition of "take" in the Act means an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term "harass" in the definition of "take" means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Proposed endangered or threatened species are those for which a proposed regulation, but not a final rule, has been published in the Federal Register. Section 7 of the FESA requires that federal agencies ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. This obligation requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS on any actions (issuing permits including Section 404 permits, issuing licenses, providing federal funding) that may affect listed species to ensure that reasonable and prudent measures will be undertaken to mitigate impacts on listed species. Consultation with USFWS can be either formal or informal depending on the likelihood of the action to affect listed species or critical habitat. Once a formal consultation is initiated, USFWS will issue a Biological Opinion (either a "jeopardy" or a "no jeopardy" opinion) indicating whether the proposed agency action will or will not jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or modification of its critical habitat. A permit cannot be issued for a project with a "jeopardy" opinion unless the project is redesigned to lessen impacts. In the absence of any federal involvement, as in aprivately-funded project on private land with no federal permit, only Section 10(a) of the FESA can empower the USFWS to authorize incidental take of a listed species provided a habitat conservation plan (HCP) is developed. To qualify for a formal Section 10(a) permit, strict conditions must be met including a lengthy procedure involving discussions with USFWS and local agencies, preparation of a HCP, and a detailed Section 10(a) permit application. State California Endangered Species Act The California Enclan~ered .Species Act (CESA) declares that deserving plant or animal species will be given protection by the state because they are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the state. The CESA established state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance endangered species and their habitats. Under state law, plant and animal species may be formally designated rare, threatened, or endangered by official listing by the California Fish and Game Commission. Listed species are generally given greater attention during the land use planning process by local governments, public agencies, and landowners than are species that have not been listed. The CESA authorizes that "Private entities may take plant or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under the federal ESA and CESA, pursuant to a federal incidental take permit issued in accordance with Section 10 of the federal ESA, if the CDFG certifies that the incidental take statement or incidental take permit is consistent with CESA (Fish & Game Code ~ 2080.1(a)). California Environmental Quality Act Treatment of Listed Plant and Animal Species Both the federal and state Endangered Species Acts protect only those species formally listed as threatened or endangered (or rare in the case of the state list). Section 15380 of CEQA Guidelines, 4.1-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1 Blologlcal Resources however, independenth~ defines "endangered" species of plants, fish or wildlife as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy and "rare" species as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens. Therefore, a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially affect a rare or endangered species or the habitat of the species. The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction despite legal status or lack thereof. State of California-Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800 of the Fish and Game Code These sections of the Fish and Game Code prohibit the "take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs." Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered a "take." The McAteer-Petris Act (California Government Code 66600-66682) The McAteer-Petris Act created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in 1965. BCDC's mission was the preservation of San Francisco Bay from indiscriminate filling. BCDC's first task was compilation of a comprehensive study of the Bay and determining how future development of the Bay should occur. This effort resulted in the San Francisco Bay Plan in 1968. In 1969 the findings and policies of the Bay Plan were incorporated into the McAtee~=Petris Act which was amended making BCDC a permanent state agency. The Bay Plan continues to evolve and remains the guiding document for BCDC's actions. Section 66610 of the McAteer-PetrisAct establishes the boundaries of San Francisco Bay in relation to BCDC's jurisdiction. Essentially, all areas below the mean high tide line and an area within a shoreline band that extends landward for 100 feet from the mean high tide line are subject to their jurisdiction. Section 66632 of the McAteer-Petris Act establishes the permitting process for projects which would place fill in, on, or over any part of BCDC's jurisdiction as defined in Section 66610. A portion of the MEIR Study Area is within the shoreline band and therefore is subject to BCDC's jurisdiction. Local Tree Preservation Ordinance According to Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), pruning or removal of a protected tree requires a permit. A "protected tree" is defined as anv tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade; a tree or stand of trees so designated based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical sigmificance; or a stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. "Pruning" means the removal of more than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more than one third of the root system, while "trimming" means the removal of less than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or less than one third of the root system. Trimming of a protected tree is allowed without a permit. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls 4.1.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method The existing biological resources within the MEIR Study Area, as discussed previously in the setting, were compared to the thresholds of sigmificance presented below. The first four of the criteria indicate that a significant impact could occur when a "substantial effect" occurs. To evaluate the potential for the proposed project to impact biological resources, it is necessary to define the term substantial. The following definitions were used: Thresholds of significance #1-Substantial effect on species A substantial effect here would be a "take" of a state or federally listed species, even a single individual. For those species that are not officially listed, complete removal of the habitat they utilize within the MEIR Study Area is considered a substantial reduction if there is not an abundance of similar habitat immediately adjacent to the area lost. Direct loss of eggs or un-fledged chicks of these species is also considered a substantial adverse effect. Thresholds of significance #2-Substantial effect on habitats For sensitive habitats (coastal salt marsh), reductions of over 25 percent of similar habitat within the vicinin~ of the proposed project would be considered a substantial reduction. Threshold of significance #3-Substantial effect on wetlands Because both the state and federal regulatory agencies have no net loss policies any reduction in wetland areas is considered a substantial adverse effect. Threshold of significance #4-Substantial effect on migratory pathways Fragmentation of existing habitats or creation of barriers between two undeveloped areas where the barrier blocks more than half the corridor is considered a substantial interference to migratory movements of wildlife. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ^ Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ^ Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean IYlater Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means ^ Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident of migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites 4.1-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1 Blologlcel Resources ^ Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ^ Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Impact 4.1-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not substantially affect the California clapper rail, salt marsh vagrant shrew, or salt marsh harvest mouse. There would be no impact associated with this effect. A small salt marsh area was identified that occurs along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area. This is a relatively small marsh area with fragmented stands of salt grass and very small, scattered patches of pickleweed, with ruderal grassland uplands. California clapper rails, salt marsh vagrant shrew, and salt marsh harvest mouse are dependent on high quality salt marsh habitats, especially those with dense stands of pickleweed. This quality of habitat does not exist in or adjacent to the MEIR Study Area. There would be no impact associated with this effect. Impact 4.1-2 Construction activities associated with the proposed project could substantially affect the salt marsh common yellowthroat and Alameda song sparrow. This is considered a significant impact. However, with implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.1-1, this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Marginal foraging and nesting habitat for the salt marsh common yellowthroat and marginal nesting habitat for the Alameda song sparrow is provided by the stands of salt grasses scattered throughout the coastal salt marsh area adjacert to the MEIR Study Area. Therefore, these species do have the potential to occur here. Pile-driving required for construction activities associated with the proposed project on land adjacent to the coastal salt marsh would generate noise levels that could disrupt nesting attempts. Disruption of nesting could lead to locally reduced populations of these sensitive species and is therefore considered a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1-1 would reduce impacts to salt marsh common yellowthroat and Alameda song sparrow to ales-than-significant level. M117 4.1-7 On land adjacent to the coastal salt marsh, pile-driving associated ra~ith construction activities shall avoid the February ~ through August 31 bird nesting periarl (Hunter 1999) to the extent possible. If no pile-drzrnng is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys are required If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period, a survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-13 Chapter 4 EnvJronmental Anatysls qualified wildlife biologist rzo earlier than 14 days prior to pile-driving. The area surveyed shall include all areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the area where pile-driving is to occur or as otherwise deterfnineel by the biologist. ,Survey results shall be valid for 21 days folloaving the surrey date. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries, pile-driving shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has rleterrrlined that the young have fle~lgerl (left the nest, the nest is vacated, anal there is no evidence of second nesting attempts. Impact 4.1-3 Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could substantially affect sensitive plant species. This is considered a significant impact. However, implementation of the requirements, PR 4.13-1(a) and PR 4.13-1(b), it would ensure this impact would remain less than significant. The coastal salt marsh located along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area is considered a threatened habitat by the CDFG. This marsh area has the potential to support sensitive plant and animal species. Sedimentation of this habitat would change the plant species that could survive, change the flooding pattern, and allow access to the marsh by terrestrial predators. All of these elements would decrease the habitat value of the salt marsh. As discussed in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems), demolition of existing buildings would expose soils to erosive forces. Deposition of sediment resulting from adjacent construction activities could impact this sensitive habitat. A complete discussion of soil erosion impacts is presented in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems). Also provided are project requirements to decrease soil erosion to less- than-significant levels. Incorporation of these project requirements would ensure sedimentation-related impacts to the coastal salt marsh are less than significant. Threshold Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Impact 4.1-4 Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could lead to soil erosion that, if allowed to enter adjacent coastal salt marsh habitat, would impact this sensitive resource. This is considered a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified project requirements, PR 4.13-1(a) and PR 4.13-1(b), it would ensure this impact would remain less than significant. The coastal salt marsh located along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area is considered a threatened habitat by the CDFG. This marsh area has the potential to support sensitive plant and animal species. Deposition of sediment resulting from adjacent construction activity would impact this sensitive habitat. A discussion of soil erosion impacts is presented in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems). Also provided are project requirements to decrease soil erosion to less-than-significant levels. Incorporation of these project requirements would ensure impacts relating to soil erosion to the coastal salt marsh are less than significant. 4.1-14 Genentech Corporate Facllltles Master EIR 4.1 Blologlcal Resources Threshold 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.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Impact 4.1-5 Implementation of the proposed project would not have a direct impact on federally protected wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. There would be no impact associated with this effect. There are no wetlands on the MEIR Study Area. Coastal salt marsh habitat occurs adjacent to the MEIR Study Area, but would not be directly impacted. The proposed project does not include development in the Bay or on the salt marsh. There would be no direct impact to wetlands. Indirect impacts potentially resulting from soil erosion are discussed in Impact 4.1-4. Threshold Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident of migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impact 4.1-6 Implementation of the proposed project could interfere with the movement of species or established migratory corridors, or impede use of native wildlife nursery sites. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified project requirements, PR 4.13-1(a) and (b), would ensure this impact would remain less than significant. Construction and development associated with implementation of the proposed project would not occur within any critical or sensitive habitat. All the listings of critical habitat provided by USF'~x'S were reviewed and the MEIR Study Area does not contain lands designated as critical habitat for any threatened or endangered species. However, sensitive salt marsh habitat occurs and sensitive species could occur adjacent to the MEIR Study Area, and may be impacted by noise or soil erosion associated with construction activities. Noise impacts associated with construction activities to sensitive species have been addressed in Impact 4.1-2. Soil erosion impacts to sensitive habitat (i.e., migratory corridors) have been addressed in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) as discussed in Impact 4.13 and 4.1-4. Further, any impacts that could potentially impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites have been reduced to aless-than-signifzcant level, and no additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 4.1-7 Vegetation removal and ground-clearing activities could result in minor disruption of locally nesting birds. While the disturbance of active nests would be a violation of State Fish and Game Code and potentially the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, there are ample alternate nesting sites available. Because of this, this impact is considered less than significant. As discussed in the "Regulatory Setting" (Section 4.1.2), most species of birds occurring on the MEIR Study Area are protected by both state (Fish and Uame Code) and federal (Migrator~~ Btrr1 Treaty Act of 191 ~ laws. The destruction of nests or nestlings is a violation of the Fish and Game Code and potentially the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The landscaping vegetation within the MEIR area provides Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls nesting habitat. It is expected that relatively minor amounts of landscaping would be removed at any one time. Because of this, access to and use of native wildlife nursery sites will not be substantially interrupted by the proposed project. Therefore, because the project-generated affects do not exceed the established threshold, this is considered aless-than-significant impact of the proposed project. If vegetation removal were to occur during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period, it could result in potential violation of Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3513, or 3800) if it results in destruction of bird nests. It is expected that the project sponsor will comply with the applicable regulations. Threshold Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Impact 4.1-8 Implementation of the proposed project could conflict with the local Tree Preservation Ordinance. This would be a significant impact. However, with implementation of the identified mitigation measure, MM 4.1-2, this impact would be reduced to less than significant. Landscaped areas in the MEIR Study Area may contain trees defined as "protected" by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. Development activities could involve "removal" or "pruning" of protected trees. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.1-2, below, would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. MM 4.1-2 Prior to the start of construction, theproject applicant shall retain a certified arborist to conduct preconstruction surveys of trees within the MEIR .S'tudy Area, and provide a map to the applicant and the City. Each protected tree identified that hill be directly impacted ly removal or prcrning shall require a Tree Pruning Removal Permit per Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the .S'outh ,San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). This permit shall be submitted to the City and must be approved before building permits are issued Replacement trees shall be determined as set forth in S~SFMC Section 13.30.080: (a) Any protected trees that are removed shall be replaced as follolvs: (1) Replacement shall be three 24-inch box side or tllio 36-inch box minimum side landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below. However, the director maintains the right to dictate side and species of trees in new developments. (2) Any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two thiry-six-inch box minimum side landscape trees for each tree so removed as determined below. (3) Replacement of a protected tree can be waived by the director if a su~eient number of trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. (4) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, cannot be planted on the property, payment of twice the replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture .Standards shall be made to the City..Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fond to be drawn upon for public tree purchase and planting. (Ord 1271 ,~1 (dart), 2000: Orrl. 1060 ~'1 (part), 1989) 4.1-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1 Blologlcal Resources Threshold Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impact 4.1-9 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP) adopted by the Ciry of South San Francisco. There would be no impact associated with this effect. No HCP or NCCP has been adopted by the City that includes the MEIR Study Area. Because the proposed project does not conflict with any conservation plans, there is no im~iaet. 4.1.4 References American Ornithologist's Union (AOU). 2003. The American Ornithologist's Union Check-list of North American Birds, Seventh Edition. Available online at: http://www.aou.org/aou/birdlist.html. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr/pdfs/SEW.pdf, Accessed November 18, 2005. Dyett & Bhatia, Draft Genentech Central Cn~npus Ten-I ear Master Plan .South .San Francisco, November 2005. EIP Associates. 2002. Survey results for California clapper rail at the Colma Creek flood control mitigation project site. Prepared for San Mateo County Department of Public Works. Hickman, J.C. (ed). 1993. The Jepson Manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hunter, B. 1999. Regional Manager, Central Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Game, Letter to Mr. Hugh Graham, Principal Planner, Development and Review Office, County of San Jose, May 7, 1999 Regarding Santa Clara Count~~ Fairgrounds Redevelopment. Johnston, David, 2006. Regional Biologist, Central Coast Region, California Department of Fish and Game, Personal correspondence on April 20. Jurek, R.M, 1974. California Department of Fish and Game, Salt Marsh Song Sparrow Study. Laudenslayer, LAG'. F., W. E. Grenfell, Jr., and D. C. Zeiner 1991. Acheck-list of the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals of California. California Dept. Fish and Game 77:109-141. Madrone Audubon Society, 1995. Sonoma County Breeding Bird Atlas. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Species AccountCalifornia Clapper Rail (1Zalluf longirostri.r ob.roletu.c), http://Sacramento.fws.gov/es/animal_spp_acct/clapper_rail.htm, Accessed 15 November, 2005. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1-17 4.2 Flood and Inundation Hazards 4.2 FLOOD AND INUNDATION HAZARDS This section describes existing flood and inundation hazards, including creek overflow, dam and levee failure, and seismically-induced flooding, within the MEIR Study Area and describes whether implementation of the proposed project would cause a substantial change in the characteristics of local flood and inundation hazards. Surface water drainage, water quality, and other water resource issues, including flooding as a result of storm drain system deficiencies, are described in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) of this MEIR. Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San Francisco General Plan prepared by Dyett & Bhatia and adopted in October 1999, and the East of 101 Area Plan prepared by Brady and Associates and adopted in July 1994. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.2.4 (References). One comment letter related to flood and inundation hazards was received in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. The County= of San Mateo indicated that the MEIR Study= Area is outside of the Colma Creek Flood Control Zone. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions MEIR Study Area The MEIR Study Area is located along the eastern shoreline of the City overly=ing artificial fill and Bay mud. The MEIR Study Area is largely paved and occupied primarily by buildings and parking lots. At the center of the MEIR Study Area is San Bruno Hill, which features the Wind Harp Sculpture Park. San Francisco Bay forms the eastern boundary of the MEIR Study Area, while the rest of the area is surrounded by mixed industry, warehouse, retail, office, and hotel uses in the East of 101 Area. The East of 101 Area generally slopes downward to the east, towards San Francisco Bay. The MEIR Study Area, itself, comprises a hilly region to the south, formed by southeast-trending Coyote Point Fault Zone, and low-lying areas to the northeast. Elevations range from 182 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the top of San Bruno Hill to approximately 0 feet MSL at the low-lying areas in the northeast portion of the MEIR Study Area (USGS 1956). The City has a Mediterranean type of climate, characterized by dry, relatively cool summers and wet, mild winters. Average annual precipitation in the City is between 18 and 22 inches per years, increasing to 26 inches in the upper watersheds west of the City=. Approximately 90 percent of the precipitation is received between November and April (D&B 1997). Runoff throughout the City= is collected in the Cite='s storm drainage system, which discharges to Colma Creek or San Francisco Bay, and is described further in Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.2-1 Chapter 4 EnWronmental Anatysls Floodplain Risk The City of South San Francisco is highly urbanized with relatively high runoff generation rates (D&B 1997). These conditions increase the potential for flood conditions in periods of heavy rainfall. Periodic flooding occurs along most of Colma Creek, but the principal flooding problems in the Ciry exist near its eastern edge, just southwest of the MEIR Study Area, where flows of Colma Creek are limited by passage under the Caltrain railroad tracks and US 101. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the Cin~, no portion of the MEIR Study Area is located in the 100-year or 500-year floodplains, which are the result of flooding in Colma Creek. Portions of the Ciry along US 101 are in the 500-year floodplain, but the 500-year floodplain does not extend much further east of Harbor Way. The location of the MEIR Study Area in relation to the FEMA-designated floodplain is shown in Figure 4.2-1. However, according to the Ciry's General Plan, the eastern shoreline of the MEIR Study Area is subject to 100-year flood conditions as a result of coastal flooding and wave action. The San Mateo County Flood Control District (SMCFCD) is responsible for maintenance of Colma Creek. The SMCFCD has developed a Colma Creek Flood Control Improvement Project, which is expected to reduce flood hazards on all reaches of Colma Creek from a 10- to 20-year storm and even to a 50-year storm recurrence (D&B 1997). The area constrained by flood hazards will be greatly reduced and may be eliminated after completion of the project. After its completion, FEMA will remap the 100- year floodplain. Other Inundation Hazards Dam Failure Dam failure often results from neglect, poor design, or structural damage caused by a major event such as an earthquake or flood. When a dam fails, the quantity of water held back by the dam (i.e., the contents of the reservoir) is suddenly released downstream, causing damage in its inundation zone. Although there are no dams within the City of South San Francisco, several dams are in the nearby cities of San Francisco, Burlingame, and San Mateo. Inundation zones resulting from failure of these dams would not reach the City of South San Francisco (ABAG 1995). Levee Failure As with dams, levee failure can occur in the event of a major earthquake or flood. The largest levees in the Northern California region are in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, on the American River, and on the Sacramento River. However, inundation zones resulting from failure of these levees would not reach the City of South San Francisco. Smaller levees are present throughout the Bay Area along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and in local ponds and creeks. These levees include those in the San Francisquito Creek flood control system, the Foster Ciry and Redwood Shores levee trails, and the Cargill salt ponds. 4.2-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR £ d c ~€ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 3 £~ o ~ .. n; 5 v ~ L d~ W ~~ O T C W ~ 5 p S (n ~~ O d~ d U C C G S O O N~ O V m~ O t d g' r , m c c °>c3d a''°o~oa°E~6~°o ~ w Q` o coo ~~ ~acaooduEc ~=~~ O p r -c a awu~ic gv~D^d~o.~° `~8.~ Z uZi N o o avo~«E xvc~~o^adc s~=s W W ~ O tai ~ C O~ m U ~ C U O d U O O d U ~ a~ S (`~ 9 o r c 1 1 ~ a~~r~ ~J w 0 0 N '-~ ~' r /~ 1 ~ ~ ~ i ~ m C ~ 1 `~~~~ ~ ` i ~ ~ ~~ ,~ o r.....1 a ,~ - 1 O N Yr= .. N 1 _ ~ `~ , ~ 1~~ r° ~ ~ ~ ',~ ;; r_ ~~. 1 ~ ~Q Vii, 1 ~` ,r - .~ 1 _ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ 1 Z ~7M ~;- , 2 ~ c~ ~,' c F' y~ O / ;~ o ry ~ m * m 'tom ~ ~ F ~h• :~ N ~• -, ~ ~ 'J. f ~** ~. .?4 ~a _' ~~ ~ T~ t f T ,. "7 T~- ;tip` -~ SiF'ti.'; ~~~ ~~.,"~`''} r..:~,~`~F\ Q ~i~ o .: - '~' ~~ ~ h ~ ~ .. } ..^ r L 4.2 Flood and Inundation Hazards Seiche Reservoirs, lakes, ponds, swimming pools, and other enclosed bodies of water are subject to potentially damaging oscillations (sloshing) called seiches. This seismic hazard is dependent upon specific earthquake parameters (e.g., frequency of the seismic waves, distance and direction from the epicenter), as well as site-specific desi~m of the enclosed bodies of water, and thus difficult to predict. Genentech's 1.5 million gallon storage reservoir on the top of San Bruno Hill poses the greatest risk of Seiche hazards in the MEIR Study Area. Tsunami Earthquakes can also cause tsunami (i.e., tidal waves) in San Francisco Bay. As specified in the City's General Plan: Ea;isting Conrlition.r and Planning Lcrues, two portions of the Cite are subject to inundation by tsunami; the northwest portion of the MEIR Study Area (Lower Campus) extending north past Ovster Point Marina Park, and the area of land south of the MEIR Study Area bordered by Littlefield Avenue and Swift Avenue (see Figure 4.2-1). Wave run-up is estimated at approximately 4.3 feet above mean sea level (MSL) for tsunami with a 100-year recurrence and 6.0 feet MSL fora 500-year tsunami (D&B 1997). Mudflow Mudflows (i.e., debris flows, mudslides) are rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with water. They develop when water rapidly accumulates in the ground, such as during heavy rainfall, changing the earth into a flowing river of mud or "slurry." A slurry can flow rapidly down slopes or through channels, and can strike with little or no warning at avalanche speeds. A slurry can travel several miles from its source, growing in size as it picks up trees, cars, and other materials along the way. Mudflow hazards are primarily concentrated in the Hillside Zones of the City, where slopes are steep and are covered with exposed soil. Hillside Zones are at the southern flank of San Bruno Mountain and near Skyline Boulevard, but not in or near the MEIR Study Area (D&B 1997). 4.2.2 Regulatory Framework Flood hazards are regulated under a variety of local, state and federal laws. The following summarizes the applicable flood damage protection regulations that apply to the Cit<~ of South San Francisco. Federal National Flood Insurance Program FEMA is responsible for determining flood elevations and floodplain boundaries based on US Army Corps of Engineers studies. FEMA is also responsible for distributing the FIRMS, which are used in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). San Mateo County participates in the NFIP. FIRMs identify the locations of special flood hazard areas, including the 100-year and 500-year floodplain. Portions of the MEIR Study Area that would contain structures are within the 500-year floodplain. Federal Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.2-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis regulations governing development in a Zone A (100-year) floodplain are set forth in Title 44, Part 60 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which enables FEMA to require municipalities that participate in the NFIP to adopt certain flood hazard reduction standards for construction and development within floodplains. Mudflows are also covered under the NFIP which San Mateo County participates in. State There are no state flood control regulations applicable to the proposed project. Local San Mateo County Flood Control District The San Mateo County Flood Control District (SMCFCD) 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 be determined before a flood control project is undertaken. Recent changes in the California Constitution require an election if a flood control zone is to be financed with property assessments or taxes. There are currently three active flood control zonesColma Creek, San Bruno Creek, and San Francisquito Creek-none of which directly affect the MEIR Study Area. City of South San Francisco General Plan The Cit<'s General Plan contains policies designed to protect people and development from damage associated with flooding. Policies applicable to the 2006 FMPU are as follows. Health and Safety Element Flooding 8.2-G-1 Minimize the risk to life and property from flooding in South San Francisco. 8.2-I-2 Use the City's development review process to ensure that proposed development subject to the 100-year flood provides adequate protection from flood hazards, in areas identified in Figure 8-3. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The purpose of Chapter 15.56 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the South San Francisco Municipal Plan (SSFMC) is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. To accomplish this purpose, this chapter includes methods and provisions to: ^ Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, and property due to water or erosion hazards, or which result in damaging increases in erosion or flood heights or velocities. ^ Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction. ^ Control the alteration of natural floodplain, stream channels, and natural protective barriers, which help accommodate or channel flood waters. 4.2~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.2 Flood and Inundation Hazards ^ Control filling, grading, dredging, and other development which may increase flood damage. ^ Prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will unnaturally divert flood waters or which may increase flood hazards in other areas. The provisions contained in SSFMC Chapter 15.56 are applicable only to development in special flood hazard areas as identified by FEMA. According to the FEMA FIRM, no portion of the MEIR Study Area is located in the 100-year or 500-year floodplain (Figure 4.2-1). However, according to the City's General Plan, the eastern shoreline of the Study Area is subject to 100-year flood conditions, as a result of coastal flooding and wave action. East of 101 Area Plan The MEIR Study Area is within the East of 101 Area, which is bounded by the San Francisco Bay on the east, US 101 and rail lines on the west, the Cit<~ of Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The East of 101 Area Plan, prepared in July 1994, is a policy document that guides land use, circulation, noise control, geotechnical safety, public facilities provision, design, recreation and natural resource enhancement, and financing in the East of 101 Area. The Public Facilities Element of the East of 101 Area Plan includes the following policy applicable to the 2006 FMPU: Policy PF-8 Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage and flood protection requirements. 4.2.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method The analysis in this section focuses on the effects of construction and operation of the proposed project on existing flood and inundation hazards. The increase in flood risks associated with implementation of the 2006 FMPU is also analyzed. The information in this section is based upon reviews of previously prepared reports documenting flood and inundation hazards in the City, including the City of South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues report. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that construction and operation of the 2006 FMPU would comply with relevant federal laws and regulations, Ciry General Plan policies, and ordinances. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts on flood hazards and inundation if the proposed project would result in any of the following:: ^ Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. ^ Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.2-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls ^ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. ^ Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map Impact 4.2-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not place housing in a designated flood hazard area and would result in no impact. The 2006 FMPU would not construct housing in the MEIR Study Area. Furthermore, the MEIR Study Area is not within the 100-year flood hazard area. However, as discussed in 4.2.1 (Existing Conditions), the shoreline of the MEIR Study Area is considered a 100-year flood hazard area by the Cit~~'s General Plan. Coastal flooding and wave action during a 100-year storm would inundate the narrow strip of shoreline bordering the MEIR Study Area to the east. Since, housing would not be placed within the 100- year flood hazard area under the 2006 FMPU, there would be no impact. Threshold Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed project could place structures in a 100- year flood hazard area, but not in a manner that would substantially impede or redirect flood flows. This impact is considered less than significant. As described in Existing Conditions, the MEIR Study Area is not within a FEIVIA-designated floodplain. However, the shoreline of the MEIR Study Area is considered a 100-year flood hazard area by the Ciry's General Plan. Coastal flooding and wave action during a 100-year storm would inundate the narrow strip of shoreline bordering the MEIR Study Area to the east. A wider strip of land just inland and along the shoreline is designated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as the Bay Trail, a public open space area. For this reason, it is unlikely that development under the 2006 FMPU would place structures directly on the shoreline. However, potential opportunin~ sites identified in the 2006 FMPU are near the shoreline. Unlike flood flows along a drainage channel, flood flows at the shoreline would not travel a substantial distance on land. Coastal flood waters would run up onto land and recede back to San Francisco Bay. The flow of coastal flood waters that encounter a building constructed under the 2006 FMPU would not be substantially obstructed or redirected because the path of flow, i.e., the width of the shoreline, is short. In addition, structures that substantially impede flood flows, such as dams and levees, would not be constructed under the 2006 FMPU. Therefore, the impact of the 2006 FMPU on flood flows is less than significant. 4.2,8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.2 Flood and Inundation Hazards Threshold Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed project could place people or structures in an area susceptible to flooding, but would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death. This impact is considered less than significant. As analyzed in Impact 4.2-2, above, while it is unlikely that development under the 2006 FMPU would place structures on the shoreline where there is a flood hazard area, potential opportunity sites identified in the 2006 FMPU are near the shoreline. Thus, structures near the shoreline could potentially be exposed to coastal flooding. Buildings constructed in flood hazard areas are required to comply with the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the SSFMC. Section 15.56.140 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. Thus, implementation of the 2006 FMPU would not expose people or structures to substantial risks involving flooding. As described in Existing Conditions, the MEIR Study Area is not prone to flooding in the event of dam or levee failure. Failure of a small-scale levee in the vicinity of the City would not release a volume of water such that the MEIR Study Area would become flooded. Thus, the 2006 FMPU would not expose people or structures to flood risks associated with dam or levee failure and this impact would be considered less than significant. For an analysis of potential flood hazards associated with storm drain system deficiencies, see Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems). Threshold Expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Impact 4.2-4 Implementation of the proposed project could expose people and structures to inundation by tsunami, resulting in a potentially significant impact. Compliance with flood damage prevention provisions of the City's Municipal Code would reduce tsunami inundation impacts to less than significant. The 1.5 million gallon storage reservoir in the MEIR Study Area could experience seiching during an earthquake. Because the reservoir is situated on top of San Bruno Hill near the center of the Genentech Campus, water from the reser~=oir would flow downhill, potentially reaching structures and people in various parts of the MEIR Study Area surrounding San Bruno Hill. However, because the reservoir holds a relatively small volume of water, water released during seiching would be largely absorbed in the vegetated hillsides. Because the hillsides are not very steep, the flow of water would not be rapid. Also, water would drain away from the hill instead of ponding and resulting in high water levels. Thus, seiche inundation impacts are considered to be less than significant in the MEIR Study Area. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.2-9 Chapter 4 Environmental AnatysJs As shown in Figure 4.2-1, the northwestern portion of the MEIR Study Area in the Lower Campus could potentially be inundated by a tsunami. A few of the potential opportunity sites identified in the 2006 FMPU are in the tsunami inundation zone. As such, the proposed project could expose people and structures to inundation by tsunami. However, as described in Impact 4.2-3, buildings constructed in flood hazard areas are required to comply with the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the SSFMC. Specifically, Section 15.56.140 identifies standards specific to construction in coastal high hazard areas, which include areas subject to inundation by tsunami. Developments shall be elevated above the flood level, anchored, and constructed of materials resistant to flood damage. In addition, both Genentech and the City have in place emergency services to respond to natural disasters. Genentech's Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) team and designated production and research personnel have training in emergency preparedness and response, and serve as first responder for the entire campus (D&B 2005). Genentech currently has an Alternate Command Post (ACP) located in the Upper Campus. The ACP is equipped with all necessary emergency gear and equipment to allow a focus of emergency activities in the event of a natural disaster. The City's emergency services are established in SSFMC Chapter 2.72, which also provides for the preparation and implementation of plans for protection of people and property in the event of an emergency. Under the General Plan, the City's Emergency Response Plan serves as the guide for emergency management. Thus, compliance with the SSFMC requirements would reduce potential impacts resulting from tsunami inundation to a less-than- significant level under the 2006 FMPU. The potential for inundation by mudflow is considered low because the MEIR Study Area does not contain steep slopes of exposed soil. Hillsides in the MEIR Study Area, such as that of San Bruno Hill, are covered by development and/or landscaping. Rainfall onto these areas would encounter vegetation or impervious surfaces, and would not pose a risk of causing saturated soil to loosen and flow downhill. Thus, there would be no mudflow inundation impact on the MEIR Study Area. 4.2.4 References Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 1995. Darn Failure Inundation Areas in the .San Francisco Bay Legion, http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/egmaps/damfailure/damfail.html, accessed 11 January, 2006. Brady and Associates for the Cite of South San Francisco. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, July. Dyett & Bhatia (D&B) for the City of South San Francisco. 2003. City of .South .San Francisco General Plan, October 1999, as amended December 2003. 1997. City of South .San Francisco General Plan: E.~~zsting Conditions and Planning Issues, September. . 2005. Draft Genentech Central Campus Ten-Y'earMaster Plan, November. USGS. 1956..S'ar~ Francisco .South Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), photo revised 1980. 4.2-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Quality 4.3 AIR QUALITY This section evaluates the potential impacts on air quality resulting from implementation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the proposed project to conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, to violate an air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment, to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The section has been prepared using methodologies and assumptions recommended in the air quality impact assessment guidelines of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, most recently published in December 1999. The air quality assessment considers both "criteria air pollutants" (pollutants for which state and federal ambient standards exist) and "toxic air contaminants" (pollutants that pose human health risks). Data used to prepare this section were taken from various sources, including the City of South San Francisco General Plan prepared by Dyett & Bhatia and adopted in October 1999; the East of 101 Area Plan prepared by Brady and Associates and adopted in July 1994; and the Genentech Existing Conditions Report prepared by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants in April 2005. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.3.4 (References). No comment letters related to air quality were received in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.3.1 Existing Conditions South San Francisco enjoys generally good air qualit}', due largely to the presence of the San Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the City are more likeh~ to result in pollutant exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the US 101, Interstate-280, and El Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heave traffic volumes, particularly during peak periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the south and southeast exposes the City to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Climate and Topography South San Francisco and the MEIR Study Area are located in San Mateo County, within the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Specifically, the MEIR Study Area is located within the Peninsula Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR _ 4.3-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts climatological subregion of the Basin, that extends from northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The location of the Santa Cruz Mountains throughout the center of the Peninsula has great influence on the climate and air quality of the area. The mountains, with elevations exceeding 2000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to 500 feet elevation in South San Francisco, block the typical high incidence of cool, foggy weather that occurs along the coast. Warmer temperatures and fewer foggc~ days characterize the southeastern area of the peninsula, where the marine layer is blocked by the ridgeline to the west. However, in the north end the marine layer is able to flow across most of San Francisco due to its low topography. In the South San Francisco area, near the MEIR Study Area, the marine air is able to penetrate the bay through the lower elevations at the San Bruno Gap. The East of 101 Area generally slopes downward to the east, towards San Francisco Bay. The MEIR Study Area itself comprises a hilly region to the south, formed by southeast-trending Coyote Point Fault Zone, and low-lying areas to the northeast. Elevations range from 182 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at San Bruno Hill to 0 feet MSL at the low-lying areas in the northeast portion of the EIR Study Area (USGS 1956a, USGS 1956b). The large-scale influences of the Bay Area's climate are summarized below, based on meteorological data presented in "Climate, Physiography, and Air Pollution Potential" (BAAQMD and the Association of Bay Area Governments 2006). The San Francisco Bay Area's regional meteorological conditions are dominated by the semi-permanent high pressure area in the eastern Pacific Ocean, which is in large part responsible for the cool, dry summers and mild, moderately wet winters. This pressure system is also responsible for the daytime sea breeze that tends to provide fresh air to the Bay Area. Region-wide temperature inversions, caused by warm air positioned above the cool daytime surface air, prohibit vertical mixing of air. Thermal inversions may be caused by flows of cool marine air at the surface moving inland from the Golden Gate or by rapid cooling of the surface after sunset, which causes the air close to the surface to rapidly cool. Air pollution potential in the region is highest when inversions are strong and winds are light. Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the Peninsula with higher wind speeds in the MEIR Study Area due to the low-lying areas in the mountain ranges. The prevailing winds in the peninsula are westerly and in the MEIR Study Area the winds are in a southwest wind pattern. These winds typically dilute pollutants and transport them away from the area. Average maximum temperatures during summer in the area between Half Moon Bay, west of the MEIR Study Area, and San Francisco, north of the MEIR Study Area, are in the mid-60s Fahrenheit (F), while minimum winter temperatures are approximately low-40s F. Air Quality Background Air pollutant emissions within the Bay Area are generated by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: point and area sources. Point sources occur at an 4.3-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Quality identified location and are usually associated with manufacturing and industry. Examples are boilers or combustion equipment that produces electricity or generates heat. Area sources are widely distributed and produce many small emissions. Examples of area sources include residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and consumer products such as barbeque lighter fluid and hair spray. Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and are classified as either on-road or off-road. On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, racecars, and self-propelled construction equipment. Mobile sources account for the majority of the air pollutant emissions within the Basin. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment such as when fine dust particles are pulled off the ground surface and suspended in the air during high winds. Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations of various pollutants in order to protect public health. The national and state ambient air quality standards have been set at levels where concentrations could be generally harmful to human health and welfare, and to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort with a marlrin of safety. The air pollutants for which national and state standards have been promulgated and which are most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the Bay Area include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), respirable particulate matter (I'M~~,), fine particulate matter (I'M,,), sulfur dioxide (SO,), and lead. In addition, toxic air contaminants are of concern in the Bav Area. Each of these is briefly described below. ^ Ozone (O;) is a highly reactive and unstable gas that is formed when volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOS), both byproducts of internal combustion engine exhaust, undergo slow photochemical reactions in the presence of sunlight. Ozone concentrations are generally highest during the summer months when direct sunlight, light wind, and warm temperature conditions are favorable to the formation of this pollutant. ^ Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless gas produced by the incomplete combustion of carbon-containing fuels, such as gasoline or wood. CO concentrations tend to be the highest during the winter morning, when little to no wind and surface-based inversions trap the pollutant at ground levels. Because CO is emitted directly from internal combustion engines, unlike ozone, motor vehicles operating at slow speeds are the primary source of CO in the Basin. The highest ambient CO concentrations are generally found near congested transportation corridors and intersections. ^ 13e.rpirable Particulate Matter (1'M,,,) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM,,~ consist of extremely small, suspended particles or droplets 10 microns and 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, respectively. Some sources of particulate matter, like pollen and windstorms, are naturally occurring. However, in populated areas, most particulate matter is caused by road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, abrasion of tires and brakes, and construction activities. ^ Nitrogen rlioxitle (NO,~ is a nitrogen oxide compound that is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, such as in internal combustion engines (both gasoline and diesel powered), as well as point sources, especially power plants. Of the seven types of nitrogen oxide compounds, NO, is the most abundant in the atmosphere. As ambient concentrations of NO, are related to traffic density, commuters in hea~~~ traffic may be exposed to higher concentrations of NO, than those indicated by regional monitors. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls ^ ,S'~rlfur dioa~de (,SOJ is a colorless, extremely irritating gas or liquid. It enters the atmosphere as a pollutant mainly as a result of burning high sulfur-content fuel oils and coal and from chemical processes occurring at chemical plants and refineries. When SO, oxidizes in the atmosphere, it forms sulfates (S04). Collectively, these pollutants are referred to as sulfur oxides (SO J. ^ L.ead (Pb) occurs in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The combustion of leaded gasoline is the primary source of airborne Pb in the Basin. The use of leaded gasoline is no longer permitted for on-road motor vehicles, so the majority of such combustion emissions are associated with off-road vehicles such as race cars. However, because it was emitted in large amounts from vehicles when leaded gasoline was used for on-road motor vehicles, Pb is present in many soils and can get re- suspended in the air. Other sources of Pb include the manufacturing and recycling of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, ammunition, and the use of secondary Pb smelters. ^ To.~zc Air Contaminants (TAC) refer to a diverse group of air pollutants that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. TACs are different than "criteria" pollutants in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them, largely because there are hundreds of air toxics and their effects on health tend to be felt on a local scale rather than on a regional basis. State standards have been promulgated for other criteria air pollutants, including SOS, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility reducing particles. The state also recognizes vinti~l chloride as a TAC with an undetermined threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects. Vinyl chloride and hydrogen sulfide emissions are generall~~ generated from mining, milling, refining, smelting, landfills, sewer plants, cement manufacturing, or the manufacturing or decomposition of organic matter. The state standards for sulfate and visibility reducing particles are not exceeded anywhere in the Basin. Pb is typically only emitted during demolition of structures expected to include Pb-based paint and materials. However, the project applicant would be required to follow federal and state regulations that govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing Pb are present. Further discussion on the presence and removal of Pb-based materials is included in Section 4.6 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Health Effects of Air Pollutants Ozone Individuals exercising outdoors, children and people with preexisting lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible sub-groups for ozone effects. Short-term exposures (lasting fora few hours) to ozone at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibilin~ to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes. Elevated ozone levels are associated with increased school absences. In recent years, a correlation between elevated ambient ozone levels and increases in daily hospital admission rates, as well as mortality, has also been reported. 4.34 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Quality An increased risk for asthma has been found in children who participate in multiple sports and live in high ozone communities. Ozone exposure under exercising conditions is known to increase the severity of the above mentioned observed responses. Animal studies suggest that exposure to a combination of pollutants that include ozone may be more toxic than exposure to ozone alone. Although lung volume and resistance changes observed after a single exposure diminish with repeated exposures, biochemical and cellular changes appear to persist, which can lead to subsequent lung structural changes. Carbon Monoxide Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart are the most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. The effects observed include earlier onset of chest pain with exercise, and electrocardiograph changes indicative of worsening oxygen supply to the heart. Inhaled CO has no direct toxic effect on the lungs, but exerts its effect on tissues by interfering with oxygen transport and competing with oxygen to combine with hemoglobin present in the blood to form carboxvhemoglobin (COHb). Hence, conditions with an increased demand for oxygen supply can be adversely affected by exposure to CO. Individuals most at risk include patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses, and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes. Reduction in birth weight and impaired neurobehavioral development have been observed in animals chronically exposed to CO, resulting in COHb levels similar to those observed in smokers. Recent studies have found increased risks for adverse birth outcomes with exposure to elevated CO levels. These include pre-term births and heart abnormalities. Particulate Matter A consistent correlation between elevated ambient fine particulate matter (I'M,,, and PM, ;) levels and an increase in mortality= rates, respiratory infections, number and severity of asthma attacks and the number of hospital admissions has been observed in different parts of the United States and various areas around the world. In recent years, some studies have reported an association between long-term exposure to air pollution dominated by fine particles and increased mortality, reduction in life-span, and an increased mortality from lung cancer. Daily fluctuations in PM,; concentration levels have also been related to hospital admissions for acute respiratory conditions in children, to school and kindergarten absences, to a decrease in respiratory= lung volumes in normal children and to increased medication use in children and adults with asthma. Recent studies show lung function growth in children is reduced with long-term exposure to particulate matter. The elderly, people with pre-existing respiratory or cardiovascular disease and children appear to be more susceptible to the effects of high levels of PM,,, and PM,;. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Nitrogen Dioxide Population-based studies suggest that an increase in acute respiratory illness, including infections and respiratory symptoms in children (not infants), is associated with long-term exposures to NO, at levels found in homes with gas stoves, which are higher than ambient levels found in Southern California. Increase in resistance to air flow and airway contraction is observed after short-term exposure to NO, in healthy subjects. Larger decreases in lung functions are observed in individuals with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g., chronic bronchitis, emphysema) than in healthy individuals, indicating a greater susceptibility of these sub-groups. In animals, exposure to levels of NO, considerably higher than ambient concentrations results in increased susceptibility to infections, possibly due to the observed changes in cells involved in maintaining immune functions. The severity of lung tissue damage associated with high levels of ozone exposure increases when animals are exposed to a combination of ozone and NO,. Sulfur Dioxide A few minutes exposure to low levels of SO, can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics, all of whom are sensitive to its effects. In asthmatics, increase in resistance to air flow, as well as reduction in breathing capacity leading to severe breathing difficulties, are observed after acute exposure to SO,. In contrast, healthy individuals do not exhibit similar acute responses even after exposure to higher concentrations of SO,. Animal studies suggest that despite SO, being a respiratory irritant, it does not cause substantial lung injury at ambient concentrations. However, very high levels of exposure can cause lung edema (fluid accumulation), lung tissue damage, and sloughing off of cells lining the respiratory tract. Some population-based studies indicate that the mortality and morbidity effects associated with fine particles show a similar association with ambient SO, levels. In these studies, efforts to separate the effects of SO, from those of fine particles have not been successful. It is not clear whether the two pollutants act synergistically or one pollutant alone is the predominant factor. Lead Fetuses, infants, and children are more sensitive than others to the adverse effects of Pb exposure. Exposure to low levels of Pb can adversely affect the development and function of the central nervous system, leading to learning disorders, distractibility, inability to follow simple commands, and lower intelligence quotient. In adults, increased Pb levels are associated with increased blood pressure. Pb poisoning can cause anemia, lethargy, seizures, and death, although it appears that there are no direct effects of Pb on the respiratory system. Pb can be stored in the bone from early age environmental exposure, and elevated blood Pb levels can occur due to breakdown of bone tissue during pregnancy, hyperthyroidism (increased secretion of hormones from the thyroid gland) and osteoporosis (breakdown of bony tissue). Fetuses and breast-fed babies can be exposed to higher levels of Pb because of previous environmental Pb exposure of their mothers. 4•~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 AIr Quality Toxic Air contaminant Emissions TACs are airborne substances that are capable of causing chronic (i.e., of long duration) and acute (i.e., severe but of short duration) adverse effects on human health. They include both organic and inorganic chemical substances that may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, motor vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, painting operations, and research and teaching facilities. TACs are different from the "criteria" pollutants previously discussed in that ambient air quality standards have not been established for them. Existing Regional Air Quality Measurements of ambient concentrations of the criteria pollutants are used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to assess and classify the air quality of each air basin, county, or, in some cases, a specific developed area. The classification is determined by comparing actual monitoring data with federal and state standards. If a pollutant concentration in an area is lower than the standard, the area is classified as being in "attainment." If the pollutant exceeds the standard, the area is classified as a "nonattainment" area. If there are not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated "unclassified." Air quality in the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which operates a regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the federal and state standards for criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved. The Bay Area Basin is considered "nonattainment" for ozone federal standards, and is considered "nonattainment" for state standards for ozone and respirable particulate matter (PM,,,). It is in "attainment" for the federal standard for PM,,,, and in "attainment" for both the federal and state ambient air quality standards for PM,;, SOZ, Pb, and NO,, which is a pure form of NOS. The average daily emissions inventory for the entire Bay Area and San Mateo Counn~ is summarized in Table 4.3-1. In the Bay Area, motor vehicles generate the majority of VOC, NOS, and CO emissions; stationary sources generate the most SOS; and area-wide sources generate the most airborne particulate. Existing Local Air Quality The BAAQMD monitors ambient air pollutant concentrations through a series of monitoring stations located throughout the Bay Area. While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco, approximately eight miles from the MEIR Study Area. Table 4.3-2 identifies the national and state ambient air quality standards for relevant air pollutants along with the ambient pollutant concentrations that have been measured at the Arkansas Street-San Francisco monitoring station through the period of 2002 to 2004. Monitoring was not conducted at this station for the CO maximum 1-hour concentration, or for SO,. Therefore, no site-specific data is available for those emission levels. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Stationary Sources 89.4 68.3 42.3 58.6 16.0 12.3 Area-wide Sources 90.1 19.3 174.4 0.6 151.6 48.6 Mobile Sources 233.4 472.3 2,104.6 12.4 21.3 17.1 Total Emissions 412.9 559.9 2,321.3 71.6 188.9 78.0 San Mateo County-San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Stationary Sources 7.2 1.9 1.7 0.04 1.0 0.8 Area-wide Sources 9.3 2.3 19.2 0.07 15.7 5.1 Mobile Sources 26.3 57.0 248.7 0.75 2.3 1.8 Total Emissions 42.8 61.1 269.6 0.85 19.0 7.7 SUUKUt: Ualitornia Air Kesources i3oartl 1UU5 Monitoring station measurements indicate that air quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco performs well against state standards for criteria air pollutants. Ambient PM,,, concentrations have violated the state standard on occasion at the Arkansas Street station. PM,,, in the atmosphere is the result of many dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources (such as roadway dust), and atmospheric photochemical reactions involving VOCs and NOS. For carbon monoxide, a product of incomplete combustion, the air in South San Francisco meets state and federal standards; however, concentrations in the vicinity of congested intersections and highwa}~ segments would potentially be higher than the monitoring data indicates. BAAQMD maintains an inventory of substantial stationary sources of TAC emissions in the Bay Area. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, as of 2002, there are seventeen such sources that exceeded trigger threshold listed within South San Francisco, fourteen of which are dn~ cleaners. The remaining sources include the South San Francisco San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Shell Oil Company Distribution Plant, and the Superior Aluminum Body Corporation. The Genentech Campus is not included within this list. Existing EIR Study Area Emissions The EIR Study Area is located along the western shoreline of the Ciry, and is developed on and around San Bruno Hill, the highest point in the East of 101 Area and the approximate center of the MEIR Study Area. The MEIR Study Area is largely paved and occupied primarily by buildings and parking lots. San Francisco Bay forms the eastern boundary of the MEIR Study Area, while the rest of the area is surrounded by mixed industry, warehouse, office, and hotel uses in the East of 101 Area. 4.3-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR San Francisco Bav Area Air Basin 4.3 Air Quality Ozone (Os) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.05 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.09 ppm Days exceeding federal 0.12 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding state 0.09 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 1 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 0.05 ppm 0.06 ppm 0.06 ppm Days exceeding federal 0.08 ppm 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Respirable Particulate Matter (PMfo) Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 60.2 Nglm3 52 Ng/m3 52 Ng/m3 No. of days exceeding federal 150 Ng/m3 24-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding state 50 Ng/m3 24-hour standard 2 1 1 Annual arithmetic mean (AAM) 24.7 pg/m3 22.7 Nglm3 22.5 Ng/m3 Does measured AAM exceed federal 50.0 pglm3 AAM standard? No No No Does measured AAM exceed state 20.0 Nglm3 AAM standard? Yes Yes Yes Fine Particulate Matter (PMz.s) Maximum 24-hour concentration measured 70 Ng/m3 42 Ng/m3 40 Ng/m3 No. of days exceeding federal 65 Ng/m3 24-hour standard 1 0 0 Federal and state AAM 13.6 Nglm3 10.1 Ng/m3 9.9 Ng/m3 Does measured AAM exceed federal 15.0 Ng/m3 AAM standard? No No No Does measured AAM exceed state 12.0 Ng/m3 AAM standard? Yes No No Carbon Monoxide (CO) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 3.5 3.6 2.9 Days exceeding federal 35.0 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Days exceeding state 20.0 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 Maximum 8-hour concentration measured 2.6 ppm 2.8 ppm 2.2 ppm Number of days exceeding federal and state 9.0 ppm 8-hour standard 0 0 0 Nitrogen Dioxide (NOz) Maximum 1-hour concentration measured 0.08 ppm 0.07 ppm 0.06 ppm Days exceeding state 0.25 ppm 1-hour standard 0 0 0 AAM 0.019 ppm 0.018 ppm 0.017 ppm Does measured AAM exceed federal 0.0534 ppm AAM standard? No No No Sulfur Dioxide (SOZ) Maximum 24-hour concentration measured NIA N/A NIA Days exceeding federal 0.14 ppm 24-hour standard N/A N/A NIA Days exceeding state 0.04 ppm 24-hour standard NIA N/A NIA SOURCE: California Air Resources Board 2005 ppm=parts by volume per million of air. ug/m3=micrograms per cubic meter. N/A=No monitoring performed for this standard. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Existing Localized CO Concentrations Traffic-congested roadways and intersections have the potential to generate localized high levels of CO. Localized areas where ambient concentrations exceed national and/or state standards for CO are termed CO "hotspots." The BAAQMD considers CO as a localized problem requiring additional analysis when a project is likely to subject sensitive receptors to CO hotspots. Land uses such as primary and secondary schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be sensitive receptors to poor air quality because the very young, the old, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air quality=-related health problems than the general public. The proposed child care facility at 444 Allerton would be considered a sensitive receptor for localized CO concentrations. Residential uses are considered sensitive because people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods of time, so they could be exposed to pollutants for extended periods. Recreational areas are considered moderately sensitive to poor air quality because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory function. The MEIR Study Area does not contain any of these receptors, other than the above mentioned child care facility. Localized CO concentrations are calculated based on a simplified CALINE4 screening procedure developed by BAAQMD. The simplified model is intended as a screening analysis, which identifies a potential CO hotspot. This methodology assumes worst-case conditions and provides a screening of maximum, worst-case CO concentrations. Only intersections that were projected to operate at level of service (LOS) E or F were analyzed. As all other intersections would operate at a better LOS, localized CO concentrations at those intersections would be expected to be less. The resulting emissions are compared with adopted federal and state ambient air quality standards. Table 4.3-3 presents the results of localized CO monitoring, conducted by EIP. Gi0 QonoerMrador~s h Alm per titon 25fieet 50Feet 100Feet .inba-sedion 1-tlar 8fbii ifla~ 8~ 3,tlbtr 8~ Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard 4.8 3.7 4.5 3.5 4.2 3.2 Gull Road and Oyster Point Boulevard 4.7 3.6 4.4 3.4 4.2 3.2 Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue 4.4 3.3 4.2 3.2 4.0 3.0 Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue 4.5 3.4 4.3 3.3 4.0 3.1 Allerton Avenue and Grand Avenue 3.9 3.0 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.8 Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue 4.0 3.0 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.8 US-101 Ramps and Dubuque Avenue 4.5 3.4 4.3 3.3 4.0 3.1 Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard 4.2 3.3 4.1 3.1 3.9 3.0 Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue 4.6 3.6 4.4 3.4 4.1 3.2 Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue 4.4 3.4 4.2 3.2 4.0 3.0 SvUKCt: tIF' Associates 1UU6; calculation sheets to be provided in Appendix C Federal 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million. State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million. Federal 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. State 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. 4.3-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Quality TDM Programs In order to reduce vehicular emissions within the MEIR Study Area, Genentech offers employees several Trip Demand Management (TDM) programs as alternatives to commuting by private automobile. TDM policies and programs are outlined in the 2006 FMPU. As referenced in this document, in 2005 Genentech conducted a detailed cordon count that found that 23 percent of their South San Francisco employees commuting at peak hours arrived via carpool, vanpool, transit, bicycle, or means other than driving alone. Genentech estimates that at least an additional 10 percent of employees commute during nonpeak hours by one of these modes. Table 4.3-4 displays the TDM measures currently provided by Genentech, and proposed TDM programs to further decrease drive-alone rates. Genentech currently markets its TDM through promotional programs and a comprehensive transportation Intranet site. Structure ^ Increase TDM staff with responsibility for maintaining, coordinating and implementing the Genentech TDM program. ^ Maintain a TDM Coordinating Committee, consisting of representative from the City and regional transit agencies, that meets on a regular basis to oversee progress toward attainment of the goals. Preferential Parking ^ Ensure the adequate availability of designated preferential, conveniently located car/van-pool parking areas, including in on- streetlocations close to buildings where possible. Pricing and Subsidies ^ Maintain a coordinated program of parking pricing and transit subsidies that helps achieve Genentech's overall parking and transportation demand objectives. ^ Provide free or subsidized car-pool spaces. ^ Partner with Vanpool vendors for onsite service and consider subsidizing employee seats in vanpools Coordination ^ Provide acar/van-pool matching service (could beweb-based), particularly for neighborhoods that have 50 or more Genentech employees within afive-mile radius. Transit ^ Implement new shuttle and bus services between Genentech and San Francisco, Glen Park, Millbrae, and surrounding areas, as discussed in Section 4.1 of the Ten Year Master Plan: Transit and Shuttle Services. ^ Provide guaranteed ride home in evenings to workers who use alternate transportation. ^ Work with the City, San Mateo County Transit (Sam Trans), and other agencies to provide convenient, comfortable, safe and sheltered waiting areas for transit and carlvan-pool users. Bicycles and Pedestrians ^ Explore providing secure and safe, and preferably sheltered, bicycle parking at new buildings. ^ Locate bicycle-parking areas conveniently in relation to established bicycle routes and main buildin entrances. SOURCE: Genentech Central Campus Ten-Year Master Plan, Draft, November 2005 TDM Goals: Achieve an enhanced reduction of single occupancy vehicles (SOV) used by Genentech employees of up to 70 percent of commute trips. TDM Strategies: Increase TDM staff for maintaining, coordinating, and implementing the Genentech TDM program. Bolster existing programs such as existing car and vanpool programs. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls To encourage and assist employees in using alternative transportation, employees utilizing alternative modes are qualified for the Guaranteed Ride Home Program and pre-tax commuter benefits. Carpool and Vanpool Services Carpools in the Bay Area consist of three or more people riding in one vehicle for commute purposes. Vanpools provide similar commuting benefits as carpools, though a vanpool consists of seven to fifteen passengers, including the driver, and the vehicle is typically leased by a vanpool rental company such as VPSI or Enterprise. Guaranteed Ride Home Program Genentech offers a guaranteed ride home to all participants of alternative commute programs. The Guaranteed Ride Home Program provides a ride home in the event of an emergency. Walking and Bicycling Genentech has over 100 private bike lockers that can be reserved by employees. Locker requests can be submitted on the Intranet site and are assigned on a first-come, first-served basis. Existing Sources of Toxic Air Contaminants The Genentech Campus conducts routine operations that generate TAC emissions regulated by California. The primary sources that contribute to the release of TACs are typical of research and development facilities, and include the following types of equipment as compiled primarily from San Mateo County Environmental Health Department file records and BAAQMD permit records: ^ Incinerator ^ Laboratory fume hoods ^ Boilers ^ Spray booth ^ Diesel emergency generators ^ Kitchens ^ Diesel storage/dispensing ^ Gasoline storage/dispensing ^ Refrigerants ^ Chemical storage tanks ^ Wipe cleaning ^ Ethylene oxide sterilization ^ Hazardous waste storage 4.3.2 Regulatory Framework Air quality within the Bay Area is addressed through the efforts of various federal, state, regional, and local government agencies. These agencies work jointly, as well as individually, to improve air quality through legislation, regulations, planning, policy-making, education, and a variety of programs. The agencies responsible for improving the air quality within the Bay Area are discussed below. 4.3-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 AIr Quality Federal The U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the federal ambient air quality standards for atmospheric pollutants. It regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain locomotives. As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The SIP must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs within the timeframe identified in the SIP. State The California Air Resources Board (ARB), a part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, is responsible for the coordination and administration of both federal and state air pollution control programs within California. In this capacity, the ARB conducts research, sets California Ambient Air Quality Standards, compiles emission inventories, develops suggested control measures, provides oversight of local programs, and prepares the SIP. The ARB establishes emissions standards for motor vehicles sold in California, consumer products (e.g., hair spray, aerosol paints, and barbecue lighter fluid) and various types of commercial equipment. It also sets fuel specifications to further reduce vehicular emissions. To address diesel particulate and other TAC emissions, the ARB has recently finalized an Air Ouaiity and Lang' U.re Han~'book: A ComTrrunity Health Perspective (April 2005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of TACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. Local Bay Area Air Quality Management District The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for comprehensive air pollution control in the entire San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. To that end, the BAAQMD, a regional agency, works directly with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and local governments and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The BAAQMD develops rules and regulations, establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources, inspects emissions sources, and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the state requirements of the Cal forma Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated twice, in 1994 and 1997, with the continued goal of improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels, and combustion in cars and trucks, and increased commute alternatives. The BAAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Ozone Attainment Plans and Clean Air Plans that comply with the federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatys-s accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, meet federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The Ozone Attainment Plans are prepared for the federal. ozone standard, and the Clean Air Plans are prepared for the state ozone standards. The most recent Ozone Attainment Plan was adopted by the BAAQMD Board of Directors on October 2001 and demonstrates attainment of the federal ozone standard in the Bay Area by 2006. The current regional Clean Air Plan was adopted by the Board of Directors on December 20, 2000. It identifies the control measures that would be implemented through 2006 to reduce major sources of pollutants. These planning efforts have substantially decreased the population's exposure to unhealthful levels of pollutants, even while substantial population growth has occurred within the Bay Area. The Clean Air Plan predicts that regional ozone concentrations will decrease by 1.2 percent per year or 9.0 percent over the 12 years after it was adopted. Although no plans are currently required to demonstrate attainment of federal or state particulate matter standards, the Clean Air Plan discusses this pollutant since the health effects of particulates can be serious, and many of the measures identified in the Plan to reduce VOCs and NO, as ozone precursor emissions will also reduce ambient concentrations of particulate matter. The BAAQMD's New Source Review Rule, Regulation 2, Rule 2, and the District's Air Toxics Risk Management Policy require that new or modified stationary sources of air pollutants constructed and operated undergo permit review for Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and/or Best Available Control Technology for Toxics (TBACT) when certain thresholds are exceeded. Mobile sources of TACs are also regulated indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and fuel specifications. Under BAAQMD rules, BACT is defined as the most stringent emissions control which, for a given class of air pollutant source, has been achieved in practice, identified in a State Implementation Plan, or has been found by the BAAQMD to be technologically achievable and cost-effective. To minimize the emissions of TACs, the BAAQMD requires laboratory facilities to either demonstrate that the health risk resulting from emissions of TACs is less than one additional cancer risk in one million or follow Responsible Laboratory Management Practices (RLMPs). Because of the varied nature of research, estimating TAC emissions and demonstrating low risk is difficult while following the RLMPs is fairly straightforward. Moreover, the RLMPs are based on risk analyses using information from Stanford University and the Universit}~ of California, San Francisco. South San Francisco General Plan Local jurisdictions, such as the City of South San Francisco, have the authority and responsibility to reduce air pollution through its police power and decision-making authority. Specifically, the Ciry is responsible for the assessment and mitigation of air emissions resulting from its land use decisions. The City of South San Francisco is also responsible for the implementation of transportation control measures as outlined in the Clean Air Plan. Examples of such measures include bus turnouts, energy- efficient streetlights, and synchronized traffic signals. Cit<~ of South San Francisco environmental plans and policies recognize community goals for air quality. Chapter 7.3 of the South San Francisco General Plan identifies goals and policies that help the Cit}~ 4.&14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 AIr Quality contribute to regional air qualit}' improvement efforts, and are consistent with the Clean Air Plan. These are outlined as follows: ^ Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all federal and state ambient air quality standards by reducing the generation of air pollutants from stationary and mobile sources, where feasible. ^ Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling. ^ Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing them from one another. ^ Cooperate with the BAAQMD to achieve emissions reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including CO, ozone, and PM~~„ by implementation of air pollution control measures as required by federal and state statutes. ^ Use the City's development review process and the CEQA regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new development on air quality. ^ Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines. ^ Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean-burning fireplaces and wood stoves. ^ In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest management program that consists of planting new trees and maintaining existing ones. In accordance with CEQA requirements and the CEQA review process, the City assesses the air quality impacts of new development projects, requires mitigation of potentially adverse air quality impacts by conditioning discretionary permits and monitors and enforces the implementation of such mitigation. The City does not, however, have the expertise to develop plans, programs, procedures, and methodologies to ensure that air quality within the City and region will meet federal and state standards. Instead, the City relies on the expertise of the BAAQMD and utilizes the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines as the guidance document for the environmental review of plans and development proposals within its jurisdiction. The goals and policies outlined in the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan are generally consistent with the General Plan, as well as the Clean Air Plan. Both Cit<~ documents are discussed in more detail in Section 4.8 (Land Use). 4.3.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method Because the proposed project is still in a conceptual development phase and has not been designed, no site-specific drawings that depict the buildings, structures, and other project features have been developed. Therefore, the proposed project is evaluated in this MEIR for potential impacts related to air quality, such as increases in construction or operational emissions, release of toxic contaminants, or production of odorous emissions. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Although the BAAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate the air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects within the Bay Area. Instead, the BAAQMD has used its expertise and prepared the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines to indirectly address these issues in accordance with the projections and programs of the Ozone Attainment Plan and Clean Air Plan. The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties, in evaluating potential air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. Specifically, the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines explain the procedures that the BAAQMD recommends be followed during environmental review processes required by CEQA. The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines provide direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are adverse, and how to mitigate these impacts. The BAAQMD intends that by providing this guidance, the air quality impacts of plans and development proposals will be analyzed accurately and consistently throughout the Bay Area, and adverse impacts will be minimized. It should be noted that the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines were published in December 1999 after the ARB's identification of diesel engine particulate matter as a toxic air contaminant. Construction Emissions Construction-level air quality emissions are not compared with a quantified threshold, in part because the construction industry is an existing source of emissions within the Bay Area, and the entire state. In general, construction equipment operates at one site for a short time, and when finished, moves on to a new construction site. The same situation occurs for the construction employees who make a living going from one site to another doing similar construction work. For those reasons, construction exhaust emissions are included in the regional emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans. Further the Keuised .San Francisco Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan for the 7-Hour National Ozone Standard (2001) shows construction equipment comprises a good portion of the past, existing, and future (through 2006) emission inventory within the Bay Area. Also, the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan states that PM,~ emissions from "other sources" include construction operations for the past, present, and future (2006) emissions inventory. Consequently, the BAAQMD does not expect these emissions to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone or CO standards in the Bav Area. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the proposed project are estimated using the URBEMIS 2002 computer model developed for the ARB, the information provided in Chapter 3 (Project Description), and trip generation rates from the project traffic study, included in its entirety as Appendix C of this MEIR. URBEMIS 2002 is a program that estimates air pollution emissions in pounds per day or tons per year for various land uses, area sources, construction projects, and project operations. The model uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual along with the ARB's motor vehicle emissions model, EMFAC 2002, to calculate motor vehicle emissions. Operational emissions would be comprised of mobile source emissions and area source emissions. Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in motor vehicle trips to and from the MEIR Study Area associated with operation of the proposed project. Area source emissions generated will include the following: the increase in natural gas 4.&16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 A-r Quality consumption for space and water heating, utilities operations (including diesel-powered emergency generators), an increase in TAC emissions associated with research and development and manufacturing activities (including fume hoods and chemical storage), and the increase in landscape maintenance equipment. To determine if an air quality impact would occur, the increase in emissions will be compared with the BAAQMD's recommended thresholds. Localized CO Concentrations for Operation The ambient air quality= effects of traffic emissions were evaluated using the BAAQMD'S simplified CALINE4 screening model. As noted in Section 4.3.1 (Existing Conditions), this methodology assumes worst-case conditions and provides a screening of maximum worst-case CO concentrations. The evaluation will utilize traffic volumes provided in the project traffic study, which is included in its entirety as Appendix C of this MEIR. For this analysis, CO concentrations from approximately ten roadway intersections determined to operate at a Level of Service (LOS) E or F in 2008, with F representing the heaviest level of traffic congestion, were analyzed. All other roadway intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better, and would therefore generate lower CO concentrations. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potential)}~ significant impacts to air quality if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. ^ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. ^ Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualit-~= standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors such as VOCs and NOS). ^ Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. ^ Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The thresholds discussed below are currently recommended by the BAAQMD in the BAAOMD CEOA Garidelirae.r to determine the significance of air quality= impacts. Construction Emissions Thresholds Construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration, and the BAAQMD does not recommend any environmental criteria for their associated emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the criteria on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the BAAOMD CEOA Gui~leline.c are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are not considered adverse. Currently these control measures only apply to emissions of fugitive dust. Emission controls are not required for the emissions generated by construction vehicle engines. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Operational Emissions Thresholds The BAAQMD currently recommends that projects with operational emissions that exceed any of the following thresholds be considered significant. These thresholds apply to the operational emissions associated with individual projects only; they do not apply to construction-related emissions. The operational emissions that are generated by individual projects and exceed these thresholds are also considered to be cumulatively considerable by the BAAQMD. ^ 80.0 pounds per day (ppd) of ROG ^ 80.0 ppd of NOS ^ 80.0 ppd of PM~~, Also, operational emissions of CO are considered significant if they cause or contribute to violations of the federal or state ambient air quality standards for CO (i.e., 35 ppm and 20 ppm, respectively, for one- hour averages; 9 ppm for eight-hour averages). The BAAQMD recommends that projects that could emit carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants that exceed the maximum individual cancer risk of ten in one million or a hazard index greater than one be considered significant. Consistency with the 2000 Clean Air Plan Although the BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines identify specific significance thresholds for a project's emissions or concentrations of most criteria air pollutants (as specified below), there is no similar air quality-related threshold or methodology to determine whether a general development project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. The BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines specify that, in jurisdictions where the local general plan is consistent with the Clean Air Plan (as is South San Francisco's General Plan), and if a project is consistent with the local general plan's land use designation, then it is consistent with the Clean Air Plan. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan Impact 4.3-1 Development associated with implementation of the project is consistent with current zoning and land use designations, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. This is considered aless- than-significant impact. The Clean Air Plan, discussed previously, was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, meets federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimizes the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. The Clean Air Plan assumed that future growth would occur within the zoning restrictions in effect at the time of its adoption. As described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) and Section 4.8 (Land Use), the floor area ratio (FAR) maximum within the Genentech R&D Overlay District is 1.0, which is to be calculated on facility-wide 4.3-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Quality basis. According to the 2006 FMPU, development intensity would vary within each Neighborhood, but the maximum FAR of each proposed Neighborhood would not exceed 1.0. The overall Genentech Campus FAR would be 0.69. The FAR is calculated as part of the total area of the Genentech Campus buildout, not on aparcel-by-parcel basis. The development intensin~ is consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District standards. The MEIR Study Area's current zoning designation would accommodate the proposed project's components. Thus, the proposed project is consistent with the Clean Air Plan, and this impact is less-than-significant. Impact 4.3-2 The proposed project would implement and conform to various transportation control and trip reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD's goals for reducing regional air pollutants, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. As outlined in Table 4.3-4 the TDM programs in place and planned for implementation would provide amenities and incentives that would help to encourage non-motor vehicle transportation by employees and visitors. Based on this information, the programs and policies would satisfy BAAQMD requirements. The proposed project would implement and conform to various transportation control and trip reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD's goals for reducing regional air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of an applicable air quality plan, and this impact would be Zess-than-significant. Threshold Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (Construction) Impact 4.3-3 Implementation of the proposed project would include excavation, grading, and construction activities which could generate dust, thus exposing people to the potentially unhealthy effects of particulate matter or the annoyance of particulate matter soiling. This would be a temporary but potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of identified mitigation measures MM 4.3-1(a) and MM 4.3-1(b), this impact would be reduced to less-than-significant. As discussed previously, construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration and the BAAQMD does not recommend an~~ thresholds of significance for construction-related emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. At this time, the only construction-related control measures the BAAQMD recommends are those related to dust. If all appropriate emissions control measures recommended by the BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines relating to dust are implemented for a project, then construction emissions are considered less-than-significant. MM 4.3-7(a) Implement appropriate dust control meAStrres recommended by the BAAOMD as ocrtlined helo~a~. The project contractor(s~ shall comply with these duct control strategies. Genentech shall include in construction contracts the folloaving re~uirementr or measures shown to be e~nally ~ective: Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls ^ Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose construction and demolition debris from the site, or require all such trucks to maintain at least tzvo feet of freeboard ^ 1-Ylater all ea~osed or disturbed soil.rurfaces in active construction areas at least tavice daily. ^ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilisers on all unpaved parking areas and staging areas. ^ S~u~eep daily (with water sweepers) all paved parking areas and staging areas. ^ Proinde daily clean-up of mud and dirt carried onto paved streets from the site. ^ Enclose, cover, water tavice daily or apply non-toxic soil Cinders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.. ^ Limit tra~c speeds on unpaved roads to 75 mph. ^ Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadavays. ^ Keplant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. ^ Install avheel zvachers for all existing trucks, or avash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving the site. ^ Install wind Creaks at the ivindavard side(s~ of construction areas. ^ Suspend excavation and grading activity avhen winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 miles per hour over a 30-minute period or more. ^ To the extent passible, limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other dust- generating construction activity at any one time. MM 4.3- 7 (b) Designate a dust control coordinator. All construction sites shallpost in a conspicuous location the name and phone number of a designated construction dust control coordinator zvho cara respond to complaints by suspending dust producing activities or providing additional personnel or equipment for dust control. The implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-1 (a) and MM 4.3-1 (b) would reduce Impact 4.3-3 to a less-than-significant level. 4.3-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 AIr Quality Threshold Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) (Operational) Impact 4.3-4 Operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal day-to-day activities within the MEIR Study Area. These would potentially exceed air quality standards, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). As there is no feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Stationary and area source emissions would be generated by the consumption of natural gas for space and water heating devices, the operation of diesel-powered emergency generators, the operation of landscape maintenance equipment, and the use of consumer products. Mobile emissions would be generated by the motor vehicles traveling to and from the MEIR Study Area. The analysis of daily operational emissions was prepared utilizing the URBEMIS 2002 (Version 8.7) computer model recommended by the BAAQMD and the project daily motor vehicle trip generation data for total daily trips contained in traffic study (see Appendil E). As stated above, URBEMIS 2002 is a program that estimates air pollution emissions in pounds per day or tons per year for various land uses, area sources, construction projects, and project operations. The model uses the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual along with the ARB's motor vehicle emissions model, EMFAC 2002, to calculate motor vehicle emissions. As described in the 2006 FMPU, in terms of operational emissions the proposed project has incorporated certain features in its design that would help reduce the operational emissions that would otherwise be generated. These design features would encourage pedestrian activity, which would reduce emissions from the operation of motor vehicles by project employees. These features include the following: ^ Creation of a safe and accessible pedestrian environment through the use of signage, lighting, and crossing treatments such as high-visibility striping ^ Creating a continuous off-street pedestrian connection that links all quadrants of the Genentech Campus ^ Supporting pedestrian movement with frequent circuits of the shuttle bus and well-placed and designed bus shelters ^ Use of landscaping features such as tree-spacing In addition, Genentech offers employees several TDM programs (Table 4.3-4). In 2005 Genentech found that 23 percent of its South San Francisco employees commuting at peak hours arrived via Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Anafysls carpool, vanpool, transit, bicycle, or means other than driving alone. Genentech estimates that at least an additional 10 percent of employees commute during nonpeak hours by one of these modes. While TDM reduces vehicle emissions, the percent reduction is unknown. The estimated daily emissions associated with operation of the proposed development are identified in Table 4.3-5 along with the thresholds of significance recommended by the BAAQMD. As shown, the average daily emissions would exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the BAAQMD. This is a significant impact. It should be noted that use of diesel-powered emergency generators would not occur under normal daily operation of the proposed project. Although TDM and design features have been incorporated into the proposed project, the performance of these measures is unknown. As there is no quantifiable and feasible mitigation to reduce these emissions, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Fm hAsrUBy EnYsslonSauae ROG WIGLc 00 SOZ Plbho Stationary 46.26 20.96 20.10 0.00 0.04 Mobile 212.54 256.92 2,110.75 2.09 316.10 Maximum Daily Emissions 258.44 277.84 2,128.33 2.09 316.14 BAAQMD Thresholds 80.00 80.00 NT NT 80.00 Significant Impact? Yes Yes NT NT Yes SOURCE: EIP Associates 2006; based on year 2015 emission factors, which is the expected year of project buildout. NT=No threshold Threshold Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Impact 4.3-5 As described below, the project would not potentially expose sensitive receptors such as schools, hospitals, convalescent facilities, and residential areas, to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is considered aless- than-significant impact. Localized CO Concentrations The simplified CALINE4 model was used to predict existing and future (Year 2015) CO concentrations at selected locations along the major access routes within the MEIR Study Area, other than the planned child care center to be located on Allerton Avenue. The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. There are no long-term sensitive receptors within the MEIR Study Area; other than the planned child care center to be located on Allerton Avenue. These locations were chosen because of the likelihood that people sensitive to CO would be so exposed there over the short- term (e.g., on sidewalks near busy intersections). The results of these calculations are presented in Table 4.3-6. Existing and future CO concentrations at these receptors would not exceed the national and 4.3-22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Qualliy state 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality standards for CO (as presented in Table 4.3-2 or in the footnote to Table 4.3-3). Therefore, implementation of the project would not expose any sensitive receptors located in close proximitS~ to these intersections to substantial pollutant concentrations. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. OO Qonoenbatbr>s h P~rfs per Ann 251[9et 50 Feat 100Feet hba-sec0lon 1~ B~Hotr ld~brr 8Har 1-Fbu- 8i~ar Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard 4.3 3.3 4.1 3.1 3.9 3.0 Gull Road and Oyster Point Boulevard 4.2 3.2 4.1 3.1 3.9 3.0 Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue 3.9 3.0 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.8 Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue 4.2 3.3 4.1 3.1 3.9 3.0 Allerton Avenue and Grand Avenue 3.9 3.0 3.8 2.9 3.6 2.8 Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue 3.9 3.0 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.8 US 101 Ramps and Dubuque Avenue 4.1 3.1 4.0 3.0 3.8 2.9 Gull Road and Forbes Boulevard 3.9 2.9 3.8 2.9 3.7 2.8 Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue 4.1 3.2 4.0 3.1 3.8 2.9 Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue 4.0 3.1 3.9 3.0 3.7 2.9 avurcut: tir Hssociates ~~~b ~NOte: caicwaUOn sneers to be provitletl in Appentlix c.~ Federal 1-hour standard is 35.0 parts per million. State 1-hour standard is 20.0 parts per million. Federal 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. State 8-hour standard is 9.0 parts per million. Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) Diesel particulate matter (DPM), a known toxic air contaminant, would be emitted from diesel-powered delivery trucks traveling to and from the MEIR Study Area. Emergency diesel generators are also a source of potential intermittent diesel emissions, although these emergency generators would only be used intermittently and would not be used under normal daily operation of the proposed project. To address DPM and other TAC emissions, the ARB has recently finalized an Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (April 2005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of TACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. Among the important sources of DPM it identifies are distribution centers, warehouses and other facilities that accommodate 100 or more large diesel trucks per day, and it recommends that no new residential uses be located within 1000 feet of such facilities (or conversely that no new large sources of DPM be located near existing residential uses). The proposed development would not represent these uses, and typically only a fraction of delivery trucks would be diesel-powered, and only a fraction of the latter would consist of the large tractor-trailer type described. Furthermore, the MEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) and Section 4.8 (Land Use). There are no residential uses located within 1000 feet. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, there are seventeen stationary sources of TAC emissions listed within South San Francisco, as of 2002, fourteen of which are dry cleaners. The remaining sources include the South San Francisco San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Shell Oil Company Distribution Plant, and the Superior Aluminum Body Corporation. The Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis Genentech Campus is not included within this list. While the proposed project would increase truck trips and create new sources of emissions from proposed laboratories, these increase would not be expected to increase TAC emissions to hazardous levels. Additionally, the typical sources of TAC emissions associated with research and development facilities, such as laboratory fume hoods, boilers, ethylene oxide sterilization, and chemical storage tanks are regulated by the BAAQMD, and other regulatory agencies as discussed on page 4.6-10 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Activities that could create biohazardous aerosols are conducted in biosafety cabinets, which filter all released air to remove biohazardous materials. Biosafety cabinets are tested annually in accordance with regulatory requirements. Therefore, the effects of the DPM emissions resulting from future truck delivery and TAC emissions from Genentech's proposed operations would be less than significant. Threshold Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people Impact 4.3-6 Construction of and operation of the proposed project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. This impact is considered less than significant. The occurrence and severity of potential odor impacts depend on several factors: the nature of the source, the frequency and strength of the emissions, the presence/absence of odor-sensitive receptors near the source, and the local pattern of wind speeds and directions. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be unpleasant and cause distress among the public and generate citizen complaints. Construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Although construction activities occurring in association with the proposed project could generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of interior and exterior architectural coatings, these emissions would only occur during daytime hours, would generally be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the construction site and activity, and would not affect a substantial number of people. There is one hotel located within the MEIR Study Area; however, hotels are not among the land uses that the BAAQMD has identified as prime sources of odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, certain manufacturing plants). The most likely potential operational airborne odors associated with operation of the project office uses could emanate from refuse storage area(s). These odors would likely be confined to the immediate vicinity of the storage area(s), and since the refuse receptacles would have lids and be emptied on a regular basis, substantial odors would not likely have a chance to develop. Therefore, there would be no significant odor impacts to on-site or off-site sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. 4.3.4 References Air Resources Board (ARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, Apri12005. 4.&24 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3 Alr Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 1997. 1997 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. . 1999. BAAOMD CEOA Guidelines. . 2000. 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. . 2001. Revised Bcy Area Ozone Attainment Plan for 1-Hour Ozone Attainment .Statadgrrl. 2004. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Ann~ral Report 2002. BAAQMD and the Association of Bay Area Governments. n.d. Climate, Physiography, and Air Pollution Potential. http://www.baagmd.gov/dst/papers/bay_area_climate.pdf. Accessed March 2006. Brady and Associates. 1994. Eust of 101 Area Plan. Adopted 1994. Dyett & Bhatia. 1999. City of .South .San Francisco General Plan. Adopted October 1999. Genentech. 2005. Genentech E.~isting Conditions Report. Prepared by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, April. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Air Pollution and Health Kruk, 1999. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.3-25 4.4 Nolse and Vlbratlon 4.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION This section describes the potential for impacts related to noise and round-borne vibration resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The primary noise concerns related to the proposed project would result from the increased vehicular traffic in the MEIR Study Area, associated noise levels associated with project construction, and the associated noise levels experienced by nearby sensitive receptors, including the Larkspur Landing Hotel, located on Gateway Boulevard approximately 2,000 feet to the northwest of the MEIR Study Area, and the proposed childcare center located on Allerton Avenue that is part of the proposed project. Specifically, this section evaluates the site-specific environmental impacts related to substantial temporary and/or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the proposed project; exposure of residents or businesses to excessive noise levels or ground-borne vibration; and whether this exposure would be in excess of standards established in the East of 101 Area Plan and the City's Noise Ordinance, or any other applicable standards. Preparation of this section used data from various sources, including the proposed 2006 FMPU, the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), the City of South San Francisco General Plan prepared by Dyett & Bhatia and adopted in October 1999; the East of 101 Area Plan prepared by Brady and Associates and adopted in July 1994; the San Mateo Count~~ Airport Land Use Commission FAA Height and Noise Contours, 2000; the Genentech Existing Conditions Report prepared by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants in April 2005, and the traffic study prepared for the 2006 FMPU. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.4.4 (References). No comment letters related to noise and vibration were received in response to the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the proposed project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment consists of a base of steady "background" noise that is the sum of many distant and indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from individual local sources. These can Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.41 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing b}~ to virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway. Table 4.4 1 (Representative Environmental Noise Levels) lists representative noise levels for the environment. Gbm~or-Q~dbaActltrAles /Yolsete+~e!(~ (b-maniidoorAcUNtles -110- Rock Band Jet Fly-over at 100 feet -100- Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet -90- Food Blender at 3 feet Diesel Truck going 50 mph at 50 feet -80- Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Noisy Urban Area during Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 100 feet -70- Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 feet Heavy Traffic at 300 feet -60- Large Business Office Quiet Urban Area during Daytime -50- Dishwasher in Next Room Quiet Urban Area during Nighttime -40- Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Quiet Suburban Area during Nighttime -30- Library Quiet Rural Area during Nighttime Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (background) -20- Broadcast/Recording Studio -10- Threshold of Human Hearing -0- Threshold of Human Hearing SUUKCt: California Department of Transportation 1998 Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of communit~~ noise on people. Because environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. The rating scales of Ley, Lm;~, and L,,,~, are measures of ambient noise, while the L~„ and CNEL are measures of communit~~ noise. Each is applicable to this analysis and defined as follows: ^ L~q, the equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy content of noise over any chosen exposure time. The Ley is the constant noise level that would deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear as the actual time-varying noise over the same exposure time. L«i does not depend on the time of day during which the noise occurs. 4.42 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 Nofse and Vlbratfon ^ Ldp, the clay-night average noire level, is a 24-hour average Ley with a 10 dBA "penalty" added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.~i. to 7:00 A.1~1. to account for increased nighttime noise sensitivity. Because of this penalty, the L~„ would always be higher than its corresponding 24-hour L~.~~ (e.g., a constant 60 dBA noise over 24 hours would have a 60 dBA L~9, but a 66.4 dBA L~~. ^ CNEL, the co~emunity noire e~zrivglent Ieve1, is an Lin with an additional dBA "penalty" for the evening hours between 7:00 P.11. and 10:00 P.~s. ^ L11,;~, the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. ^ I-max~ the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period of time. Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by median noise levels during the day or night, or over a 24-hour period. Environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA, moderate in the 60 to 70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA. Examples of low daytime noise levels are isolated, natural settings that can provide noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet, suburban, residential streets that can provide noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples of moderate-level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically 55 to 60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder environments adverse, but most will accept the higher noise levels associated with more noisy urban residential or residential-commercial areas (60 to 75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65 to 80 dBA). When evaluating changes in 24-hour community noise levels, a difference of 3 dBA is a barely perceptible increase to most people (Hendriks 1998). A 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Noise levels from a particular source decline as distance to the receptor increases. Other factors, such as the weather and other reflecting or shielding factors, also help intensify or reduce the noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at acoustically "hard" locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at acoustically "soft" locations (i.e. the area between the source and receptor is unpacked earth or has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older homes in California were constructed (appro:~imately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer units is generally 30 dBA or more. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.43 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Fundamentals of Environmental Groundborne Vibration Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called groundborne noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocit<~ in inches per second and, in the U.S., is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. A vibration velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels for many people. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible. The range of interest in groundborne vibration is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Additionally, the FTA has established criteria for vibration sensitive research equipment, such as high- powered optical microscopes (10000 and electron microscopes. Table 4.4-2 (Vibration Criteria for Specialized Research Equipment) details the FTA's significance criteria for specialized equipment. Me~c 1kB Oe~or#xbnofeq~$mer~tuse 90 Distinctly feelable vibration. Appropriate to workshops and non-sensitive areas. 84 Feelable vibration. Appropriate to offices and non-sensitive areas. 78 Barely feelable vibration. Adequate for computer equipment and low-power optical microscopes (up to 20X). 72 Vibration not feelable, but ground-borne noise may be audible inside quiet rooms. Suitable for medium-power optical microscopes (100X) and other equipment of low sensitivity. 66 Adequate for medium- to high-power optical microscopes (400X), microbalances, optical balances, and similar specialized equipment. 66 Adequate for high-power optical microscopes (1000X), inspection and lithography equipment to 3 micron line widths 54 Appropriate for most lithography and inspection equipment to 1 micron detail size. 48 Suitable in most instances for the most demanding equipment, including electron microscopes operating to the limits of their capability. 42 The most demanding criterion for extremely vibration-sensitive equipment. SUURGt: HMMH 2UU6 The general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels is described in Table 4.4 3 (Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration). 4.44 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 Noise and Vibration VRxaNon I~SInc~+Lere! hNmen Abactfon 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception for many people. 75 Vd6 Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. SOURCE: HMMH 2006 Existing Noise Levels The existing Genentech Campus is bounded by San Francisco Bay on the north and the east, and connected by Oyster Point/Forties Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Genentech Campus, and is roughly one mile north of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). The Genentech Campus is built on and around San Bruno Hill, the highest point in the East of 101 Area. The General Plan currently designates two land use categories within the MEIR Study Area: 1) Business and Technology Park and 2) Park and Recreation. The majority of the MEIR Study Area is designated as Business Technology Park, with a narrow strip of land in the southern Genentech Campus that extends south along the coastline is designated as Park and Recreation. Existing uses within the East of 101 Area generally consist of warehouse, industrial and research and development activities. Under the Citds existing zoning regulations, the MEIR Study Area is contained within SSFMC Chapter 20.40: Genentech R&D Overlay District and within SSFMC Chapter 20.32: Planned Industrial District. The Genentech R&D Overlay District was adopted by the City in 1995 and currently extends over approximately 124 acres of Genentech property. The remainder of the EIR Study Area is not within the Genentech R&D Overlay District; rather the remainder of the area is within the underlaing Planned Industrial zoning district. The entire East of 101 Area lies within the FAA height limit jurisdiction for the San Francisco International Airport. Along the Genentech Campus shoreline, the Bay Trail public right of way extends within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction, connecting the existing Genentech Campus to the San Francisco Bay regional park system. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, the primary noise sources within the City are streets and highways, rail operation, and industrial uses. As noted in Table 4.4-1, a jet fly-over at 100 feet produces noise levels of approximately 105 dBA; however, it is unlikely that jets fly-over the MEIR Study Area at such low altitudes. Within the MEIR Study= Area, noise is primarily generated by airplane fly- overs from the nearby SFIA approximately one mile to the north. These potentially high single-event noise levels result from overflight of aircraft departing on the Shoreline Departure Route from runway 28 at SFIA. Background noise includes vehicle noise from US 101 approximately '/2 mile to the southwest. Noise sources also include local sources such as vehicles in the parking areas, local vehicular traffic, municipal bus, and commercial truck traffic in and around the MEIR Study Area. Existing daytime noise levels were monitored at six locations in and around the MEIR Study Area in order to identify representative noise levels at various areas. The monitoring locations are identified in Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.45 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Figure 4.4-1 (Noise Monitoring Locations). The noise levels were measured using aLarson-Davis Model 720 precision sound level meter, which satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for general environmental noise measurement instrumentation. The average noise levels and sources of noise measured at each location are identified in Table 4.4-4 (Existing Daytime Noise Levels at Selected Locations). These daytime noise levels are characteristic of a typical developed area. As shown, an ambient noise measurement taken at the site by EIP Associates on March 1, 2006 showed an existing noise level of 71.1 dBA Ley. The noise measurement taken at the Larkspur Landing Hotel, which is the nearest existing sensitive receptor to the MEIR Study Area, shows an ambient noise measurement of 71.3 dBA Ley. MaLseLetiel nlaLaeMee~rernenUacaBor- Pr#nerylvo~seSar~es ~., L„r, L,,.~ 1. Hotel parking lot-North of East Grand Avenue between Forbes Boulevard and Traffic on East Grand 67 7 59 8 77 9 Gateway Boulevard Avenue . . . 2. Adjacent to Hotel parking lot-East of Gateway Boulevard between Corporate Traffic on Gateway 66 8 4 59 85 0 Drive and East Grand Avenue Boulevard . . . 3.500 Forbes Boulevard-South of Forbes Boulevard between Allerton Avenue Traffic on Forbes 70 6 7 55 90 9 and Gull Drive Boulevard . . . 4. Adjacent to Genentech parking lot-Northeast of Forbes Boulevard and DNA Traffic on Forbes 71 1 52 3 89 2 Way intersection Boulevard . . . 5. Adjacent to Hotel parking lot-Northeast of Airport Boulevard and Gateway Traffic on Gateway 71 3 65 9 89 2 Boulevard intersection Boulevard . . . suurcct: tiN associates zuue. Noise levels were monitored for 10 minutes at each location on March 1, 2006. Lm~,,, the minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during the measurement period. Lma., the maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during the measurement period. Sensitive Noise Receptors Sensitive receptors and noise sensitive uses are typically defined as residences, schools, places of worship, hospitals, care centers, and hotels that are sensitive to noise or locations where people might sleep. The nearest existing sensitive receptor to the MEIR Study Area is the Larkspur Landing Hotel, which is located approximately 2000 feet from the northwest boundary of the MEIR Study Area. Additionally, a childcare facilit~~ is proposed to be developed on Allerton Avenue as part of the proposed project. All other sensitive receptors are located further away and would not have the potential to be impacted by noise or vibration resulting from implementation of the proposed project. Existing Roadway Noise Levels Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for the roadway segments in the MEIR Study Area vicinity that have noise-sensitive uses facing the roadways. Roadway noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) (FHWA Model) and traffic volumes from the project traffic study. The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental 4.46 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~---+ o w ~~ _V .l o 5 m ~ _- i a 's l a` ~_ i t T O O V Z ~ N O w ua Z _. O Q ~ \\ / >\ ~_ f ~ \ I I ~ / ~ .... \_,.. - _ \. o., ~~' a~B ~ bp~~i^ dp ~ phbb~ i 0 0 a~ m U ~' O W ~~~~ ~ ~~A ~ ~ d ~~'. ~ ~: ~ i ~ a ,,\ , `\~ 1 a _ J V ~.\\ d 'i ~ IC r\\ ~ 1 ~J \ © O O N ~'. t J c L '` U 0 ~ W C © ~ •C N w Q' ~ '~ .~ ~ V 0 O LL Z (n O n 4.4 Nolse and Vlbratfon conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energ<~ rates) utilized in the Federal Highwa}~ Administration Noise Prediction Model (FHWA Model) have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along these roadway se~rnents are presented in Table 4.4-5 (Existing Roadway Noise Levels). f~e4fe-enoef~VEl D~aEanoeb~lYoi~eOanooure H+aAdWay$q~g-lerq.' et1AUFeet° 7oCiNEI. 65GVi+-1 6001 Airport Blvd.l0yster Point Blvd. to Oyster Point west 63.3 -b 68 214 Airport Blvd.l0yster Point Blvd. to US 101 Rampsl0yster Point Blvd. 63.7 - 75 237 US 101 Ramps/Oyster Point Blvd. to Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd. 66.0 - 127 402 Oyster Point BIvd.IGateway Blvd. to Oyster Point BIvd.IGull Rd. 64.2 - 82 260 Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. to Oyster Point east 60.3 - - 106 Forbes BIvd.IGull Rd. to Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. 58.8 - - 76 Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. to Forbes east 61.2 - - 131 Forbes Blvd.lAllerton Ave. to Forbes Blvd. west 58.3 - - 68 Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to E. Grand Ave. east 55.1 - - - Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to Allerton Ave.IGrand Ave. 61.7 - - 148 Forbes Ave./Grand Ave. to Gateway Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. 64.4 - 86 273 Allerton Ave.IGrand Ave. to Forbes Blvd./E. Grand Ave. 62.4 - - 174 Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave. to ExecutivelGrand Ave. 63.8 - 77 243 ExecutivelGrand Ave. to Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. 63.8 - 75 238 Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. to Airport BIvd.IGrand Ave. 63.7 - 74 234 Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. to Grand Ave. west 60.6 - - 114 Airport Blvd./San Mateo to San Mateo west 60.7 - - 116 Gateway Blvd./Mitchell to Mitchell east 57.7 - - 59 Airport Blvd.l0yster Point Blvd. to Airport Blvd. north 62.0 - - 158 Airport Blvd.l0yster Point Blvd. to Airport Blvd./Miller 61.4 - - 138 Airport BIvd.IMiller to Airport BIvd.IGrand Ave. 63.2 - 67 211 Airport BIvd.IGrand Ave. to Airport Blvd./San Mateo 64.1 - 82 260 Airport Blvd./San Mateo to Airport Blvd. south 64.3 - 86 271 Gateway Blvd./Mitchell to Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave. 61.8 - - 152 Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave. to Gateway Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. 62.3 - - 170 Allerton Ave.IGrand Ave. to Allerton Ave.IForbes Blvd. 53.6 - - - Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to Grandview Dr. north 59.9 - - 99 Oyster Point BIvd.IGull Rd. to Forbes BIvd.IGull Rd. 60.4 - - 110 SUUHGt: tIF' Associates 2006. G81CUlation data and results are provided in Appendix u a Distances are in feet from roadway centerline. The identified noise level at 100 feet from the roadway centerline is for reference purposes only as a point from which to calculate the noise contour distances. It does not reflect an actual building location or potential impact location. Noise contour is located within the roadway lanes. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.49 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Existing Groundborne Vibration Levels The greatest regular sources of groundborne vibration at the MEIR Study Area and immediate vicinity are roadway truck and bus traffic. These sources typically generate noticeable groundborne vibration velocity levels at the edge of the road as they pass by. 4.4.2 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal noise regulations applicable to the proposed project. State The California Government Code requires that a noise element be included in the General Plan of each county and city. Local The California Government Code requires that a noise element be included in the General Plan of each county and city in the state. Each local government's goals, objectives, and policies for noise control are established by the noise element of the General Plan and the passage of specific noise ordinances. In the South San Francisco General Plan, the MEIR Study Area is shown to be in the East of 101 Area Plan. City of South San Francisco General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the General Plan identifies sources of noise in the City and provides objectives and policies that ensure that noise from various sources would not create an unacceptable noise environment. It is a tool that city planners use to achieve and maintain land uses with compatible environmental noise levels. Table 4.4-6 (Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas) shows the exterior noise standards as shown in the Noise Element of the General Plan. Consistency with the goals, policies, and strategies of the Noise Element of the General Plan is analyzed in Section 4.8 (Land Use). East of 101 Area Plan The East of 101 Area Plan Noise Element establishes policies to provide acceptable noise levels for anticipated land uses. These policies have been used to set criteria for the control of noise generated by individual aircraft flyover noise and for at=erage noise levels. The purpose of these criteria is to reduce the various potential effects of noise on people, including sleep disturbance, reduced physical and mental performance, annoyance, and interference with speech communication. The East of 101 Area Plan identifies the MEIR Study Area as commercial development. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Noise Element, the requirements for commercial land uses such as industrial, office, and retail indicate that the interior calculated hourly noise levels during the daytime should not exceed 45 dBA L~.y and instantaneous maximum noise levels should not exceed 60 dBA. The Noise Element also establishes a 4.410 Genentech Co rporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 No1se and Vlbrat/on polio= to ensure that new development be designed so that the average noise level does not exceed a I'~.~I of 60 dBA at the nearest open space or recreational area. Land !be d6A WEL (~ene-allandlLse cadeada Less than 65 dBA CNEL Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Residential 65 to 70 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 70 Development should not be undertaken Less than 70 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Commercial 70 to 80 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 80 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided Less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements Industrial 75 to 85 Development requires analysis of noise reduction requirements and noise insulation as needed Over 85 Airport-related development only; special noise insulation should be provided O en Less than 75 Satisfactory; no special insulation requirements p Over 75 Avoid uses involving concentrations of people or animals suurct;t: laity of Soutn San Francisco General Plan Noise Element (1999). Consistence with the goals, policies, and strategies of the Noise Element of the East of 101 Area Plan is analyzed in Section 4.8 (Land Use). City of South San Francisco Municipal Code The Cit}= of South San Francisco has adopted a Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8-32 of the SSFMC), which identifies ambient baseline noise levels, noise standards for various sources, specific noise restrictions, exemptions, and variances for sources of noise within the CitS~. The noise levels are used as baseline criteria for noise levels for different land use categories. The SSFMC Section 8.32.030 provides noise level standard for specific zones and land uses within the Cin~ (see Table 4.4-7). The noise standards apply to all noise sources with the exception of vehicle horns and utilitS~ and emergence vehicles. Land tJse (~Oe~ory Tone Aeiiod Ablse Label (dB) R-E R-1 and R-2 zones or an sin le-famil or d l id ti l i ifi l di t i t 10 P.M. 7 A.M. 50 , y g y ex res up en n a spec a an c p s r c 7 A.M.-10 P.M. 60 R-3 and D-C zones or any multiple-family residential or mixed residential/commercial in any 10 P.M.-7 A.M. 55 specific plan district 7 A.M.-10 P.M. 65 C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster Point Marina specific plan districts or any commercial use in 1 O P.M. 7 A.M. 60 any specific plan district 7 A.M.-10 P.M. 65 M-1, P-1 Anytime 70 ~.~. ~.ny vi ovum oan nanasw mwuupai 4UUe J@GUUn a.3L.V3V Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.411 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Per Section 8.32.050(d) of the SSFMC, construction activities are exempt from the noise level standards listed in Table 4.4-7 during the hours of 8:00 A.~i. to 8:00 P.~t. on weekdays, 9:00 A.~i. to 8:00 P.~t. on Saturdays, and 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.~f. on Sundays and holidays. The exemption is only allowed if the construction equipment does not produce a noise level greater than 90 dBA at 25 feet from the source or 90 dBA outside of the property line, whichever is greater. 4.4.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Analytic Method Implementation of the proposed project could result in the introduction of noise levels that may exceed permitted City noise levels. The primary sources of noise associated with the proposed project would be construction activities within the MEIR Study= Area and project-related traffic volumes associated with operation of the proposed project. Secondary sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units) and increased human activity throughout the MEIR Study Area. The net increase in noise levels generated by these activities and other sources have been quantitatively estimated and compared to the applicable noise standards and thresholds of significance. Aside from noise levels, groundborne vibration would also be generated during the construction phase of the proposed project by various construction equipment. Thus, the groundborne vibration levels generated by construction equipment have also been quantitatively estimated and compared to applicable thresholds of significance. Construction Noise Levels Construction noise levels were estimated by data published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Potential noise levels are identified for on- and off-site locations that are sensitive to noise, including hotels and sensitive research facilities. The EPA has compiled data regarding the noise-generating characteristics of typical construction activities. These noise levels would diminish rapidly= with distance from the construction site, at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. For example, a noise level of 86 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receptor would reduce to 80 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receptor, and reduce by another 6 dBA to 74 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receptor. Roadway Noise Levels Roadway noise levels have been calculated for various locations around the MEIR Study Area. The noise levels were calculated using the FHWA-RD-77-108 model and traffic volumes from the project traffic study. The average vehicle noise rates (energ}= rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. Traffic volumes used in the FHWA model are derived from the project traffic study, which is provided in Appendix E and summarized in Section 4.7 (Transportation/Traffic) of this document. 4.412 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 No1se and Vlbratlon Vibration Levels Associated with Construction Equipment Groundborne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the MEIR Study Area were estimated by data published by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. for the Federal Transit Administration. Potential vibration levels are identified for on- and off-site locations that are sensitive to vibration, including hotels and sensitive research facilities. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from noise and vibration if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies ^ Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels ^ Cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project ^ Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the proposed project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project ^ Expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport ^ Expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip The CEQA Guidelines do not define the levels at which temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise are considered "substantial." As discussed previously in this section, a noise level increase of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to most people, a 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, and a difference of 10 dBA would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. Based on this information, a 3 dBA CNEL increase would be considered significant. The CEQA Guidelines also do not define the levels at which groundborne vibration or groundborne noise is considered "excessive." For the purpose of this analysis, groundborne vibration impacts associated with human annoyance would be significant if the proposed project exceeds 85 VdB, which is the vibration level that is considered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to be acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day (as described in Table 4.4-2 [Human Response to Different Levels of Groundborne Vibration]). Groundborne vibration impacts associated with the use of vibration sensitive equipment would be significant if the proposed project exceeds 66 VdB, as described in Table 4.4-3. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.413 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Impacts and Mitigation Threshold Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies Impact 4.4-1 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the SSFMC. This is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the project requirement PR 4.4-1 and mitigation measures MM 4.4-1(a) through MM 4.4-1(c) would reduce this impact, but noise levels could still be substantial. However, the proposed project's construction noise impacts would be temporary, would not occur during recognized sleep hours, and would be consistent with the exemption for construction noise that exists in Section 8.32.050(d) of the SSFMC. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project could result in the development of approximately 3.17 million sf of office, research and development, manufacturing, amenities, and parking by the year 2016. The proposed project would also include vehicular access and roadway improvements, as well as associated utility infrastructure improvements and physical amenities, such as landscape, hardscape, and lighting. Construction activities occurring within the MEIR Study Area would involve excavation and grading activities followed by construction of the proposed facilities and associated parking as well as roadway and landscaping improvements, which would involve the use of heavy equipment. Construction activities would also involve the use of smaller power tools, generators, and other equipment that are sources of noise. Haul trucks using the local roadways would generate noise as they move along the road. Each stage of construction would involve a different mix of operating equipment, and noise levels would van' based on the amount and ty=pes of equipment in operation and the location of the activit<=. Sensitive uses that would be affected (depending on the distance from the project site) by the construction noise occurring as a result of the proposed project include the Larkspur Landing Hotel, which is located approximately 2000 feet from the northwest boundary of the MEIR Study Area, and the proposed childcare center to be located on Allerton Avenue. Based on the information presented in Table 4.4-8 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels) and the diminishment of noise levels at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the maximum noise levels experienced by the Larkspur Landing Hotel due to construction activities occurring at the MEIR Study Area and off site would be 54 dBA. As the childcare center is to be constructed as part of the proposed project, construction noise would not affect the childcare center until it is operational. The 2006 FMPU spans a 10 year planning horizon, during which the childcare center could be in operation during future construction on the Genentech Campus; however, no construction activities are planned to be within 200 feet of the proposed childcare center. Therefore, the construction activity noise levels that the childcare center would potentially be exposed to would be no more then 74 dBA. 4.414 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 Nolse and Vlbratlon G~tru~cdor- Phase lYaiseLetielat50 Feetwf~AM/lk~s (d6A i.ad NntseLeNalat80 f'eatrvlChA~MBeis (rBAl.d nloJseLetie1~100 Feetw~hll~kiA9ers (tBA L.a1 NdseLe~lat200 Feetw-ti-As (~A L.d NofseLere1~Z000 Feetwilt-ll~Illers (~ W Ground Clearing 82 80 76 70 50 Excavation/Grading 86 84 80 74 54 Foundations 77 75 71 65 45 Structural 83 81 77 71 51 External Finishing 86 84 80 74 54 JVUK(.:tJ: U.J. tF'A 1~J/1 As discussed above and shown in Table 4.4-8 (Typical Outdoor Construction Noise Levels), the proposed childcare center located on Allerton Avenue could potentially be exposed during the daytime to construction noise levels that exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL if construction staging occurs adjacent to the operational childcare center. Although the construction activities would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL noise standard identified in the SSFMC at these locations during construction at the MEIR Study Area, the increase in noise levels would be temporan~ in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are possible. Further, although the construction noise levels for the proposed project are provided in CNEL, which is a 24-hour average Ley with noise penalties added during specific hours of the day to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, these noise levels associated with the proposed project would only be generated during 12 hours of the day maximum (8:00 A.1~t. to 8:00 P.~i. for weekdays) and not for 24 continuous hours. However, because the City's exterior noise standards are given in CNEL, the construction noise levels associated with the proposed project have been converted from Ley to CNEL for the purpose of anah~sis in this MEIR. Currenth~, under Section 8.32.050(d) of the SSFMC, construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.~7. to 8:00 P.tit. on weekdays, 9:00 A.~s. to 8:00 P.1~1. on Saturdays, and 10:00 A.1~7. to 6:00 P.~t. on Sundays and holidays, as discussed in Section 4.4.2 of this section. As such, the following project requirement shall be incorporated, as required by applicable local, state, or federal laws or regulations: PA4.4-1 All construction activity within the City shall be limited to betaveen the hours of 8.•00 ~9.~17. to 8:00 P.11~1 on aveekdays, 9:00 9.111. to 8:00 P.,~1. ora Satur~lay.r, and 10:00 ~3.~~1. to 6:00 P.117. on S'unrlays and holidays. Construction noise that occurs during these hours is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. Consequently, the Citt~ considers impacts resulting from construction noise during these hours to be less than significant. The nearest noise sensitive uses near the MEIR Study Area are the Larkspur Landing Hotel, and the proposed childcare center once it is operational. Occupants of these sensitive uses are likely to be present throughout the day and consequently would be more sensitive to higher noise levels generated during Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.415 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls daytime hours. Althounh the City's exemption would apply to project construction noise heard at these noise sensitive uses, the ~- sensitive nature means that noise should be reduced where feasible: To reduce the noise levels resulting from construction of the proposed project to the extent feasible, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: MM 4.4-1(a~ The pr ject applicant shall require by contract specifications that the following construction hest management practices (BMPs) be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: ^ Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction, notification must he provided to scrrrounding land uses disclosing the construction schedule, including the various types of activities that woarld be occurring throughout the dcrration of the construction period ^ Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards ^ Place noise generating construction equipment and locate construction staging areas away from sensitive uses, where feasible ^ S'chedule high noise producing activities between the hours of 8:00 ~.R1. and 5:00 Pali. to minimise disruption on sensitive uses ^ Klement noise attenuation measures to the e.~tent feasible, which may include, but are not limited to, noise barriers or noise blankets MM 4.4- ~ (b) The project applicant shall require by contract specifications that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving equipment within the MEIR Study Area would be located as far away from vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents„ which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. MM 4.4-7 (c) The project applicant shall require ly contract specifications that heavi~~ loaded trucks used during construction would he routed away from noise- and vibration-sensitive uses, to the extent possible. Contract specifications shall be included in the construction documents, avhich shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. under mitigation measure MM 4.4-1(a), the implementation of noise attenuation measures may include the use of noise barriers (e.g., sound walls) or noise blankets. As a general rule of thumb, a sound wall is able to reduce noise by 5 dBA. In addition, mitigation measure 1VIlV1 4.4-1(b), which requires that construction staging areas and earthmoving equipment be located as far away from vibration-sensitive land uses as possible, and mitigation measure MM 4.4-1(c), which requires that heavily loaded trucks be routed away from residential uses to the extent possible, would also reduce construction-related noise levels. No other feasible mitigation measures are available. Since construction noise would be reduced where feasible, and because construction noise is exempted by the provisions of the SSFMC, this impact would be less-than-significant. 4.416 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 No1se and Vlbratlon Impact 4.4-2 Operation of the proposed project would not expose noise-sensitive land uses off site to noise levels that exceed the standards established by the City of South San Francisco. This impact would be less than significant. Large HVAC systems associated with new buildings in the MEIR Study Area can result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA L~.y at 50 feet from the equipment. As discussed previously in this section, 24-hour CNEL noise levels are about 6.7 dBA greater than 24-hour L«~ measurements. This means that the HVAC equipment installed under the proposed project could generate noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet when the equipment is operating constantly over 24 hours. These HVAC units would be mounted on the rooftops of the proposed buildings and would be screened from view by building features. When the proposed childcare center to be located on Allerton Avenue is operational, occupants of the childcare center could potentially be exposed to noise levels as high as 72 dBA CNEL as a result of the operation of these HVAC units. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older commercial structures in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer commercial is generally 30 dBA or more (HNIMH 2006). However, it is expected that the childcare center would only be in operation during typical business days and would not be occupied during evening and nighttime hours. As such, occupants of the proposed childcare center would not be exposed to noise levels above the Ciry's 75 dBA CNEL limit established for industrial land uses, which is the land use designation for the MEIR Study Area; therefore, this impact would be considered less than signiftcant. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the MEIR Study Area is the Larkspur Landing Hotel. The Larkspur Landing Hotel is located approximately 2000 feet from the northwest boundary of the MEIR Study Area. As discussed in Impact 4.4-1, noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the MEIR Study Area at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Thus, the noise levels generated by the HVAC equipment associated with the new buildings would be approximately 42 dBA CNEL at the Larkspur Landing Hotel. Since the noise levels that would be experienced by the sensitive receptor nearest to the MEIR Study Area would be below the 50 dBA CNEL standard for night-time use, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 4.4-3 Operation of the proposed project would not generate traffic that would contribute to the exposure of persons off site to noise levels in excess of the standards. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. As discussed in detail in Impact 4.4-6, traffic-related noise would increase by as much as 4.1 dBA CNEL at project buildout in the Year 2016, which is in excess of the 3.0 dBA CNEL threshold of significance for traffic-related noise. However, as shown in Table 4.9-10, traffic noise levels would not exceed the 75 dBA CNEL noise limit for industrial and institutional uses. As the proposed project would not exceed local noise standards for the Cit<~ of South San Francisco, this impact would be less than significant. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.417 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Threshold Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels Impact 4.4-4 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not generate or expose persons or structures off site to excessive groundborne vibration. However, the construction activities may adversely affect vibration sensitive equipment within the MEIR Study Area. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-2(a) and MM 4.4-2(b) would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Construction activities that would occur under the proposed project both within the MEIR Study Area and off site would include excavation, which would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Table 4.4-9 (Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment) identifies various vibration velocity levels for the types of construction equipment that would operate within the MEIR Study Area during construction. Based on the information presented in Table 4.4-8, vibration levels could reach as high as approximately 87 VdB within 25 feet of the MEIR Study Area. Construction activities occurring under the proposed project would have the potential to impact the nearest sensitive receptors to the MEIR Study Area in areas where construction staging would occur closer to these receptors, including the Larkspur Landing Hotel and during operation of the proposed childcare center. (bnsfix~lnn 6gWprnent AppraodniaEe 1hBat251feet Large Bulldozer 87 Caisson Drilling 87 Loaded Trucks 86 Jackhammer 79 Small Bulldozer 58 SOURCE: HMMH 1995 Given the distance of the Larkspur Landing Hotel, from the MEIR Study Area, the vibration levels experienced at the propern~ could reach up to approximately 51 VdB. Further, no construction activity is proposed within 200 feet of the proposed childcare center during its operation. Even if construction were to occur closer to these sensitive receptors, the construction would have to be within approximate)}' 25 feet of the use to exceed the 85 VdB threshold. As no off-site sensitive uses are calculated to be within 25 feet of construction activity at any location, groundborne vibration would not exceed the FTA's vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance, therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Although trenching would also occur within the MEIR Study Area for the installation of utility lines, the construction equipment that is expected to be used for this activity would be either small backhoes or trenchers. The groundborne vibration levels generated from either of these pieces of equipment would not be greater than the vibration levels generated by a large bulldozer. Consequently, the groundborne vibration levels resulting from trenching activities within the MEIR Study Area would not exceed 4.418 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 Noise and Vlbratlon 85 VdB thresholds for human annoyance. Therefore, the vibration impacts resulting from trenching activities associated with the proposed project would be Zess than significant. No mitigation is required. Hea«~ trucks would be used to transport materials to and from the MEIR Study Area when construction activities occur. The construction haul route would include use of Forbes Boulevard, Grand Avenue, and Gateway Boulevard and US 101 Freeway. These trucks typically generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB. These levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks pass over bumps in the road. The groundborne vibration velocity= levels generated by these trucks would be less than the FTA's 85 VdB vibration impact threshold for human annoyance. Thus, impacts related to groundborne vibration from heavy trucks would be Zess than significant. No mitigation is required. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-1 (c) would ensure that the vibration levels caused by the operation of heavy trucks would be further minimized to the extent feasible at the sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the MEIR Study Area by requiring routing of loaded trucks away from sensitive uses to the extent possible. Genentech potentially use research equipment that may be especially vibration sensitive. The threshold for vibration sensitive equipment is 66 VdB (HMMH 2006). Construction activities have the potential to occur within 25 feet of buildings containing vibration sensitive equipment. This would potentially expose the equipment to vibration levels up to 87 VdB, which exceeds the 66 VdB threshold; therefore, this impact is potentially significant. In order to reduce this impact, mitigation measures MM 4.4-2(a) and MM 4.4-2(b) shall be implemented. 11~TN14.4-2(a~ Prior to the commencement ofgrou~zd clearing activities, the project applicant shall conduct apre- construction survey to determine avhether the construction pr ject'.r activities avould impact vibration sensitive equipment located in adjacent buildings rvithira 100 feet of tl~e construction activity. If ~it is deterrrrined that no impact avould occur then construction activities shall begin and no further action need be taken. ~111~14.4-2(b~ I f the project applicant determines that vibration sensitive equipment has the potential to be affected, it shall irrdplement a construction schedule to ensure that construction Activities ~a~ould occur during times when vibration sensitive equipJnent would not be in use. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.4-2(a) would ensure that construction related activities, including caisson drilling would not occur adjacent to existing buildings containing vibration sensitive equipment. If construction activities were to occur adjacent to building containing vibration sensitive equipment, mitigation measure MM 4.4-2(b) would ensure that construction activities that could potentially impact vibration sensitive equipment, such as pile-driving, would be scheduled such that vibration sensitive equipment would not be impacted. With implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-2(a) and MM 4.4-2(b), the potentially significant impact to vibration sensitive equipment would be reduced to a level of Zess than significant. No further mitigation is required. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.419 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Impact 4.4-5 Operation of the proposed project would not generate and expose sensitive receptors on or off site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. During operation of the proposed project, background operational vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 VdB, as discussed previously in this section. This is substantially less than the 85 VdB threshold for people in the vicinity of the project site. Groundborne vibration resulting from operation of the proposed project would primarily be generated by trucks making periodic deliveries to the MEIR Study Area. However, these types of deliveries would be consistent with deliveries that are currently made along roadways in the project vicinity to the existing Genentech Campus and would not increase groundborne vibration above existing levels. Because no substantial sources of groundborne vibration would be built as part of the proposed project, no vibration impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors on or off site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Threshold Cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project Impact 4.4-6 Operation of the proposed project would generate increased local traffic volumes that would cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. This is considered a significant impact. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Future noise levels within the City would continue to be dominated by vehicular traffic on the adjacent roadways. Other sources of noise would include new stationary sources (such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment) and increased human activity throughout the City. Locations in the project vicinity could experience slight changes in noise levels as a result of an increase in the on-site uses due to the potential development under the proposed project and resulting increase in motor vehicle trips. Existing traffic noise levels are identified in Table 4.4-5. Noise levels associated with traffic generated from Year 2015 proposed project buildout, are calculated at the selected locations along the study-area roadway segments within the City of South San Francisco using traffic data from the project Traffic Study (Section 4.7 (Transportation) and Appendix E of this MEIR). As stated in the Thresholds of Significance above, a 3.0 dBA CNEL increase is considered substantial. Table 4.4-10 (Traffic Noise Impacts for Proposed Project Buildout in Year 2015) presents the future average daily noise levels associated with these roadways under Year 2015 buildout and compares them to existing conditions. 4.420 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 Nolse and VibratJon Noiselewals hdBA (xVELat]OOfiaet RoedN~ySe~nerK Qor~tor~s IA~h Rgect h-aense 7ireshoka TlresholdT Airport Blvd.lOyster Point Blvd. to Oyster Point west 63.3 64.6 1.3 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. to US 101 Ramps/Oyster Point Blvd. 63.7 65.2 1.5 3.0 No US 101 Ramps/Oyster Point Blvd. to Oyster Point BIvd.IGateway Blvd. 66.0 67.9 1.9 3.0 No Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd. to Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. 64.2 66.2 2.0 3.0 No Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. to Oyster Point east 60.3 60.6 0.3 3.0 No Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. to Forbes Blvd.lAllerton Ave. 58.8 61.9 3.1 3.0 Yes Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. to Forbes east 61.2 61.5 0.3 3.0 No Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. to Forbes Blvd. west 58.3 59.6 1.3 3.0 No Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to E. Grand Ave. east 55.1 59.2 4.1 3.0 Yes Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to Allerton Ave./Grand Ave. 61.7 64.9 3.2 3.0 Yes Forbes Ave./Grand Ave. to Gateway Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. 64.4 67.1 2.7 3.0 No Allerton Ave./Grand Ave. to Forbes Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. 62.4 65.5 3.1 3.0 Yes Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave. to Executive/Grand Ave. 63.8 65.6 1.8 3.0 No Executive/Grand Ave. to Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. 63.8 65.4 1.6 3.0 No Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. to Airport BIvd.IGrand Ave. 63.7 65.5 1.8 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. to Grand Ave. west 60.6 62.2 1.6 3.0 No Airport Blvd./San Mateo to San Mateo west 60.7 60.8 0.1 3.0 No Gateway Blvd./Mitchell to Mitchell east 57.7 59.4 1.7 3.0 No Airport Blvd.lOyster Point Blvd. to Airport Blvd. north 62.0 64.1 2.1 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. to Airport BIvd.IMiller 61.4 62.4 1.0 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Miller to Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. 63.2 64.1 0.9 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. to Airport Blvd./San Mateo 64.1 64.2 0.1 3.0 No Airport Blvd./San Mateo to Airport Blvd. south 64.3 66.6 2.3 3.0 No Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.421 Chapter 4 Environmental Analys-s Abtsete~elsht~4 E~daGirlq Yba-201a `~' 'F~aceedsS~flfaenoe Roeli~D~Se~fierK fbr~or~s WRh Aojed lrKarree5e 7lresh0~ 'lireshold? Gateway BIvd.IMitchell to Gateway 61 8 64 3 2 5 3 0 No Blvd./E. Grand Ave. . . . . Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave. to Gateway 62 3 1 63 0 8 3 0 No Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. . . . . Allerton Ave./Grand Ave. to Allerton 53 6 55 8 2 2 3 0 No Ave.IForbes Blvd. . . . . Grandview Dr.IE. Grand Ave. to 59 9 62 8 2 9 3 0 No Grandview Dr. north . . . . Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. to Forbes 60 4 62.9 2 5 3 0 No Blvd./Gull Rd. . . . SOURCE: EIP Associates 2006 (calculation data and results are provided in Appendix H) i As described in Section 4.4 3 (Thresholds of Significance), the significance threshold is 3 dBA if the noise increase would meet or exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at sensitive land uses. However, if the noise levels remain below the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at sensitive land uses, then an increase in noise between 3 dBA and 5 dBA would be noticeable, but would not be considered to be significant. z. Although a significant increase in ambient noise over existing conditions is experienced at this roadway segment, this roadway segment would not be located adjacent to any existing or proposed sensitive uses. As shown in Table 4.4-10, four roadway segments are expected to experience a significant increase over existing conditions, with a maximum increase of 4.1 dBA CNEL, which is considered an audible and substantial increase and would exceed the identified thresholds of significance. All other roadway segments in the project vicinity would not experience increase in traffic-related noise above the 3.0 dBA CNEL threshold of significance. However, it should be noted these roadway segments would not be located adjacent to any existing or proposed sensitive uses. Nonetheless, these roadway segments would experience an increase in traffic-related noise levels in excess 3.0 dBA CNEL, which is considered a significant impact. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Threshold Cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed project Impact 4.4-7 Construction activities associated with the proposed project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at off- site locations. However, construction noise is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance; thus, this impact would be less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.4-1, construction activities associated with the proposed project during the daytime could result in noise levels as high as 54 dBA Ley at the Larkspur Landing Hotel, located northwest of the MEIR Study Area. As daytime noise monitored at the Larkspur Landing Hotel is 71.3 dBA Ley, as shown in Table 4.4-3, these construction activities would not represent a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at the off-site sensitive use locations. As discussed under Thresholds of Significance, this MEIR assumes that an increase of 3 dBA or greater over ambient noise levels is significant. Ambient noise levels at off-site sensitive receptors would not increase by more than 3 dBA during construction of the proposed project. 4.422 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.4 No1se and Vlbratlon The construction activities associated with the proposed project would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the SSFMC. In addition, as discussed in Impact 4.4-1, construction noise that occurs within the permitted time frames is exempt from the City's Noise Ordinance. Due to this exemption, the temporar}' increases in ambient noise at off-site locations associated with construction activities of the proposed project would be Zess than significant. Impact 4.4-8 Operation of the proposed project would not result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels at off-site locations. There would not be a substantial temporary or periodic increase and, thus, no impact would occur. Operation of the proposed project would not include special events or temporan~ activities which would cause an increase in ambient noise levels. In addition, operation of the proposed project would not require periodic use of special stationan~ equipment that would expose off-site sensitive receptors to an increase in ambient noise levels above those existing without the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no temporary or periodic noise impacts to off-site receptors due to operation of the proposed project. No impact would occur. No mitigation would be required. Threshold Expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport Impact 4.4-9 The proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels due to proximity to airport-related noise sources. No impact would occur. The MEIR Study- Area is located approximately one mile from the San Francisco International Airport. Noise measurements taken on site showed the ambient levels at the site to be 71 dBA during daytime hours and contour levels from the East of 101 Area Plan indicate that the exposure level at the project site is less than 65 dBA CNEL. In addition, no residences currently, or are planned to, exist within the MEIR Study Area. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and no impact would occur. No mitigation would be required. Threshold Expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Impact 4.4-10 The proposed project would not expose people residing or working in the project site to excessive noise levels from a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. No impact would occur. The EIR Study Area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Thus, no impact related to the exposure of people residing or working in the MEIR Study Area to excessive noise levels is anticipated, and no further analysis is required in this MEIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose Genentech Corporate Facil~ies Master EIR 4.423 Chapter 4 EnNronmental Anatysls people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and no impact would occur. No mitigation would be required. 4.4.4 References Brady and Associates. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, Cite of.South .San Francisco. July. Dyett and Bhatia. 2005. Genentech Central Campus Ten-~ ear Master Plan, Draft, November. Genentech. 2005. Genentech Existing Conditions Report. Prepared by Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates and Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, April. Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 1995. Transit Noise and Vif~ration Impact Assessment, Final Report, April. Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vihration Impact Assessment, Final Report, May. Hendriks, R. 1998. Technical Noise .Supplement.• A Technical.S'upplement to the Tra~c Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, California. October. San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission FAA Height and Noise Contours, 2000. South San Francisco, City of. 1999. City of Sout1~ San Francisco General Plan Noise Element, October. . Municipal Cocle. Updated June 2005. United States Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. 1980a. Highway Noise Fundamentals. . Federal Highway Administration. 1980b. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Tra~c Noises. September. . Federal Highway Administration. 1980c. Highway Noise Mitigation. . Federal Highway Administration. n.d. Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FH1VA-RD-77-108). . Federal Railroad Administration. 1998. High-.Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vihration Impact Assessment. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Buihling Equipment and Home Appliances. 4.424 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5 Geology and So11s 4.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS This section of the MEIR describes existing geology, soils, and seismic conditions on the MEIR Stud}' Area and analyzes the potential physical environmental effects related to seismic hazards and erosion. The MEIR evaluated the environmental impacts related to geology and soils based upon information from a variety of sources including, the Cite of South San Francisco General Plan, the East of 101 Area Plan, the 2006FMPU, as well as previously published information from the U.S. Geological Survey and the California Geological Survey [(CGS), formerly California Division of mines and Geology (CDMG)]. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.5.4 (References) of this section. No comment letters related to geology and soils were received in response to the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.5.1 Existing Conditions Regional Geology The geology of the San Francisco Bay Area includes three geologic provinces: The Salinian block, the Franciscan complex, and the Great Valley sequence (Figure 4.5-1 [Regional Geology and Faults]). The Salinian block is west of the San Andreas Fault. It is composed primarily of granitic plutonic rocks, which are similar to those found in the Sierra Nevada and are believed to be rocks of the Sierra Nevada batholith that have been displaced along the San Andreas Fault. East of the San Andreas Fault, and bounded on the west by the Hayward Fault, is the Mesozoic Franciscan complex. Franciscan rocks represent pieces of former oceanic crust that have accreted to North America by subduction and collision. These rocks are primarily deep marine sandstone and shale. Chert, marble, serpentinite, and limestone are also found in the assemblage. The rocks of the Franciscan complex are prone to landslides. East of the Hayward Fault is the Great Valley Sequence. In the San Francisco Bay area, this sequence is mainly composed of Cretaceous and Tertiary marine sedimentary rocks. Like the Franciscan assemblage, the rocks of the Great Valley Sequence are also prone to landsliding. Local Geology/Soil Types and Characteristics The MEIR Study Area is on the west shore of San Francisco Bay on reclaimed bay lands and adjacent uplands at the eastern base of San Bruno Mountain. Elevations range from 182 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the top of San Bruno Hill to approximately 0 feet MSL at the low-lying areas in the northeast portion of the MEIR Study Area (USGS 1956). The lower portion of the MEIR Study Area was reclaimed from the waters of the San Francisco Bay in the mid to late 1960's by using well compacted materials derived primarily from excavations consisting of the Bedrock belonging to the Franciscan complex, alluvial material and Bay Mud lie directly beneath the reclaimed fill material. In this area, the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-1 xv G ••• ~ ~~s'•i x~ C:~ ~ ~ `~ y ' ' ~x~, aan OAKLA qND `~ `~ ' • ~r~ ~^ f ``~ ~.J • ~ ~ ~~ O~~•• •~• l `'~ • N ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ G~ •• k ! ~, ~~; ;~~sr~i ~~, Ll ~ • ~~~ EIR Study ~Q • A ~ ~~ ,, PaGlfle C~G£c?t7 ~- ~ rea ~ ~i~vi~~.:,i~f ~ .y ~ "~ ~ San ~' >C ~~ •i r~ ~ ~~ ~ ~^ !~~ I41atr~..= ~ f ~ ~' ~~ • •' T • • ••r .. ~ •• Alto '--..,-_.,,. •• ''s •i San;Jose ~ r ~ *- r~' ' ::~ s: ~ ,~ . LEGEND Cenozoic Cover :~~ Franciscan Complex Great Valley Sequence _-~~~ Salinian Block ~~~~~ Geologic Faults *. r: I<I FIGURE 4.5-1 Not to Scale Regional Geology and Faults ~ T __..._ ~......... 1 ~~~17-OU Source: California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994 ...4 ~+' `~~ f• ;s o '$ ~,>._ f ~~+ ~. ~~.__.__ ~.•, L ^X 4.5 Geology and Solls Franciscan complex consists primarily of sandstone and shale. The Bedrock Alluvial units consisting of medium stiff to hard, green, gray-green, and brown sandy and siltt~ clay and medium dense to dense silt, silty sand, and sand unconformably overlie the bedrock surface. Borings at several building sites have shown that shearing has obscured bedding relations in the sandstone, and much of the shale has been sheared to gouge-like materials. Figure 4.5-2 (Local Geology and Stratigraphy) further illustrate the geology and soil structure associated with the MEIR Study Area. Seismicity The Ciry of South San Francisco is located in one of the most seismically active regions in the United States, with approximately thirty known faults in the Bay Area capable of generating earthquakes; eleven of these faults are located within 40 miles of South San Francisco. The San Andres Fault system, the general boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the southward moving North American Plate (east of the fault) is the dominate fault of the region and the entire state of California. The fault system movement is distributed across a complex system of generally strike-slip, right lateral parallel and subparallel faults including, but not limited to, the regional San Andreas, San Gregorio, Ha«vard, Rogers Creek and Calaveras Faults. As shown in Figure 4.5-1 Regional Geology and Faults, the Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas at approximately 7 kilometers (km) to the southwest, and the Seal Cove Segment of the San Gregorio Fault, at approximately 14 km to the west-southwest, are the two closest to the MEIR Study Area. It should also be noted that branches of the Hillside Fault have been mapped a very short distance southwest of the MEIR Study Area; however, there is no evidence that this fault has been actin=e within the geologically recent time. Based on criteria established by the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults may be categorized as active, potentially active, or inactive. Active faults, such as the San Andreas and San Gregorio, are those that show evidence of displacement within the last 11,000 years (historically active faults are those that have shown evidence of displacement during the last 200 years); potentially active faults are those that show evidence of displacement during the last 1.6 million years. Faults showing no evidence of displacement within the last 1.6 million years, such as the Hillside Fault, are considered inactive for most purposes. Historic and Future Seismicity The severity of an earthquake generally is expressed in two ways-magnitude and intensity. The energy released, measured on the Moment Magnitude (M~ scale, represents the "size" of an earthquake. The Richter Magnitude (M) scale has been replaced in most modern building codes by the MW scale because the MW scale provides more useful information to design engineers. The intensity of an earthquake is measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale, which emphasizes the current seismic environment at a particular site and measures groundshaking severity according to damage done to structures, changes in the earth surface, and personal accounts. Historically, seismicity for the Bay region is associated with the strike-slip faults of the San Andreas Fault System. Fourteen earthquakes of a moment magnitude (M~ 6.0 or greater have occurred in the Bay Area in historic times. Earthquakes of this magnitude pose significant groundshaking hazards to the MEIR Study Area. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4,~3 '-~~LJ ! . r' ~-,.'~C` ~111~1 ;.; ~~ 11~~) iRS~~L, 1 tl ~\i ~~ ,.-._ ~11=J ~'!))'ri ~'~~ /~'~ ~ :i ~i -.. '..:.i,,...g \ ~- f ~ ~~~- iT ~/\ ~~ Jai f ~ ,~! - ir% +° ~l ,t: ~~ii jt-~[,r-w~`. ~ ~1 { n iii ~l~ ~`~~~)f .. ~~~f~ 11 ~~! i~q / (~ ~ ..., { ~ ~;L ~y ~ ~ a ~ri ~ ~ i ~ '~. -- AC'S ~ - .fem. ~ '~ ~ -^.~ {h: + ~~ ~' ~?. i-~ - E r~, 'y ~8 s ~e ~ i 7r ~: ~ k ~ ~~ 1 ' __ a a ~ ~ = a ~, ""t .~""' ~ '.~~. ~'"~m r~ `L a = ~ J~C' --~4"~s.T~'~-`~-~-'~ "'.r'l~r \~ ~ .' ~s - tit Y i , ~ `~., '~ ~. / ~ ~ !-~ y ~' l ' ~ti,.- i a~! r~c ~ ~ A i~ ~ ~ s v~ ' w Y ~ ~ +~. ~ ur .'i a ~ ~~ t~ '~~.,."~ ~ ~~~r ~,4` €L~ /.-~f~' ~ ,~ ~ ~t ~ ~,,,~ 3~~~~' set 1 ` ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ;: ~ .., ~,, ~""'r ~ 0.3 ~, ' ; - '~~ - t ~f. F ~f ,,; ~ ~ 4, J ~'a 1~: ~ .r ~ 7? > t~' }-i 1,- ~~~~ / ~'~ ; ~.,: ' ~ r s ~ ~ ~-.,,... ,~ ~. ,-~`~-~< i ~ ~~ ~ + vx ~, ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ - ~r- ., ~, ',. ~~ ~~ drt !- ~ ~ •"~ ~~-may---~ r . ,. ~ ,af ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ a ~ ~~ + ~ ~~. w '-L '~} a _ __ E __. m ~ ~..~ t. '._ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ it ~ ~ .-_ ~ "'- -~s - - - ll T 1 =~ ~ ~ _ ~ `~. ~ ~ ~" y O~ t i .Y I9 ! __ ~'~: ~ '. '~ >-: ~~ ~ , L _ ~ San ~: `t ~ - ~- _~ ~~ranc+scc~ LEGEND - Ja }f ~~~~7 `~str;, Franciscan sheared rack ~ ~ EIRStudyArea i ^~' ~~~~~ fs - Franciscan sandstone 1- - A.lluvkrm I If if L`tsdividetl Franciscan rocks `---- _ ~sr Slapewashand ~..__...,.._..._.._..._. I ,Kls ~ Unnamed sandstane at L ` l ravine fiU {colluvium) o San Bruno Mountain Qaf ~~~' Artificial fill a sp ~ Serpentine Sa mud Qscn Y (k_..;.j Colma Formation- sand, with ' minor gravel, sift and clap ( ~ ~! Artificial fiU -~~?"R--' over bay mud 7Q~lYi: IvSerud Formation- sandstone, siltstone, and ciaystone with Fault- dashed where approximate satne cang[otneratc and lenses en ffi ®® dotted where concealed of valcank ash ~ ~ Thust fault FIGURE 4.5-2 Not to Scale Local Geology and Stratigraphy ~ I T w._ ....... 1 ~J 11117-00 Source: Environmental Science Associates "' 4.5 Geology and Solls Of the many seismic events, there have been four significant quakes: ^ On October 21, 1868, there was a quake that registered as an ML6.8 on the Richter Local Magnitude scale. This quake occurred on the southern Hayward Fault. Hea~-y damage was sustained in towns along the Ha~.~vard Fault in the eastern Bay Area, as well as in San Francisco and San Jose. Reported damage extended from Gilroy and Santa Cruz in the south to Santa Rosa in the north. ^ On March 31, 1898, the San Francisco Bav region was shaken by another earthquake that appeared to be centered near Mare Island in San Pablo Ba~~. This earthquake caused disturbances in the Bay that were reported as a "tidal wave." ^ On April 18, 1906, the Great San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 occurred with a moment magnitude (NIW) of 7.9. The epicenter was off the Pacific coast of the San Francisco Peninsula (formerly estimated to be near Olema), and was arguably the most destructive earthquake to have occurred in Northern California in historical times. It ruptured the San Andreas Fault from San Juan Bautista to Cape Mendocino. Damage was widespread in Northern California and injure and loss of life was particularly severe. Groundshaking and fire caused the deaths of more than 3,000 people and injured approximately 225,000. Damage from shaking was most severe in areas of saturated or loose, young soils. Liquefaction was reported throughout the Bay Area. ^ On October 17, 1989, the MW 6.9 Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on the southern Santa Cruz segment of the San Andreas Fault. The cities of Los Gatos, Watsonville, and Santa Cruz were hard hit with damage, as were San Francisco and Oakland. Shaking was felt throughout the Bay Area. Damage to major transportation facilities included the collapse of the I-880 Cypress structure (with the loss of several dozen lives), liquefaction and settlement damage to Port facilities in Oakland, and the runway apron at Oakland International Airport, and temporar}~ closure of the Oakland-Bav Bridge. As in the 1906 earthquake, the worst damage from shaking occurred at structures on unconsolidated or saturated soils. Table 4.5-1 (Potential Activity on Major Active Bay Area Faults) contains the estimated maximum parameters for earthquakes on known major Bay Area faults that have the potential to affect the proposed project area. In addition, Figure 4.5-3 (Bay Area Earthquake Probability) shows the percent chance that Bay Area faults will generate an MW' of 6.7 or larger earthquake between the years 2003 and 2032. The two active faults with the highest potential to effect the MEIR Study Area, the San Andreas and Hayward, have 21 percent and 27 percent chances, respectively, to produce such a quake by 2032. All together, the Bay area has a 62 percent chance of producing one or more such quakes by 2032, each of which would affect the MEIR Study Area. FarrtNlarne :. ~ MmdrriymM~tude (AKIN) ~• - • Apptscq~dMostEdeoerkRapdne E~ern • Sipf~e (mrr~ O~raefiamSaithSenFiarx~ (r-~le~ San Andreas 7.9 1906 24 +/- 5 0 San Gregorio 7.7 Holocene 7+/- 3 7 Hayward 7.1 1868 (currently creeping) 9 +l- 2 14 Calaveras 7.5 Holocene (part in 1851) 15 +l- 3 25 Rodgers Creek 7.1 Holocene 9 +/- 2 34 ovun~c: vvurKUig croup on ~anrornia tarznquaKe rrooaon¢ies (laaa); worKing croup on Northern Galitornia Earthquake Potential (1996). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Seismic Hazards Groundshaking The major cause of structural damage from earthquakes is groundshaking. The intensit~~ of ground motion expected at a particular site depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the site to the epicenter and the geology of the area between the epicenter and the site. Greater movement can be expected at sites on poorly consolidated materials, such as alluvium, or compressible materials such as Bay Mud or un-engineered fill. Sites in close proximity to the causative fault, or seismic events of extraordinary magnitude may also cause damage from groundshaking. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has produced earthquake intensity maps that indicate the scenario earthquake listed for the entire San Andreas Fault (1906-sized earthquake) would produce a "Violent" shaking at the site, wile the Peninsula Segments of the San Andreas, or the San Gregorio Fault, would produce a "Very Strong" shaking intensity at the site. Table 4.5-2 presents the earthquake magnitudes, distance to various faults from the site and the anticipated shaking intensity as a result of the scenario earthquakes potentially affecting the site. :• ~ FaultNarne Disiar-oe6am5'~e pa--1 • • MIa--'~ntA~+ihrdep-~IM ~~b Entire San Andreas (1906) 7 7.9 IX-Violent San Andreas (Peninsula Segment) 7 7.2 VIII-Very Strong San Gregorio (North) 14 7.3 VIII-Very Strong Hayward (North & South) 24 7.3 VII-Strong suurcct: AssociaUOn or Cay Area ~overnmenxs, zuus Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated (submerged) cohesionless soils can be subject to a temporary loss of strength due to buildup of excess pore pressure, and reduction of soil effective stress during cyclic loading, such as those produced by earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires mobility sufficient to permit both the horizontal and vertical movements, if not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, clean saturated, uniformly-graded fine sands. Silty sands and clayey sands may also be susceptible to liquefaction during strong groundshaking, although to a lesser extent. Loose to medium dense sand layers can also be subjected to seismic compaction if they are above the water table. In addition to the necessary soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must be of a sufficient level to initiate liquefaction. Based upon the 2001 ABAG Liquefaction Hazard Map, the MEIR Study Area has a high potential for liquefaction, specifically in the northeastern areas of the site that consist of fill material overlying Bay Mud. 4.5-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~4~ 4 ~ ~ `t ~ 75 II ~ . ,-, ~ ~y ~ ~QI~I.irArrFlttl ~y ~ T''S 'k7~ ~'• . L.1 t . V * ye,. . •~ ~ - ~'.. ~ •.i ~ - t r~ i. 4 ~S +i +~ •~ O - ~ ~ +~' ' ~ t ~ 'r , , ~ a a p ~ ~. ~'~ . ~~ ~I [!_ `/~ 4 ~: '~.~ ~ ., ' probabii ily for one or more ~~ i ei:,l~u ~~, ;a.,., .-' ... ~. ~' ~ magsitude ~_7 or greeter ~~~ tp ` ~,. w, o. ~ ' _ 4 • o earth cakes from 2flfl3 la 20Ci2. q ~ ~ - w:r ,,~ . ~ ' This res.h i~carpor8ies 14ab odds ~~ '~, , ~.wQ+~.~~~ 27° 0 < } ~ ~ 1Y~tejei al quakes not an shown faults. y ~ ~ ~ , t __, j t ~~ ~~ `y`•1Y~~7 Ali ~d.T1' ~Ti '. - .:._.. ~ ,~.,: ~ , H~yxa~d , ,,~ ~ Ptu'IrC~tf ".:y~~in EIR Study ~`+' 1~1 Area ~ Pier~s:imi„~M - ;~,'. ~~r0 t'~`~t - ._ - . '~ ~ ^~ ,, ~ -n , ,,F Half f41w~ ; ~ , 1` ~} J ~. -.. r; _'~ ~ ~. , / i (~ tC ~~`~~' ~ y '~ ~ f ~~ ~ , -: i. ~ - ` I j ~ i l ~ .1 ^_ 20 MILES - ~ r w n t ``~', - S .-~ 0 20 KILOI'~JIETERS r t ,,y. ~¢ ~ ~;~, ~?~~ y, ~'~ ;r . LEGEND F~ ~ ~.. ~ ~;, .."'kr ",, 1` 1~~•''r~`,ti,~'':."'f7 _^~ ago I~robat~liiy c-i magnltLrde ~ __F - ~~~~ -i~9'r~~y~'fi +". ' ~''~ ~' £-,7 or gr$aler quakes ~;- '` ~ O . , "• I , trelara 203.2 on the '~'~, , ~ ~, ~,,h irEdacalted fauN ~ Walsonsilir, - ~,~~,,~ ,~ ~ +~,* '~ ..~ =: ~ . Increasing ~xobHbility -y ~~ t ~ "'R ' ~ along fault segments ~ ='~ 'nay, , ,x•~ .~ `; '. Expanding urban areas hlnnlcr~w `,. , - _ ~. ~4-~ o ~' ~~ _ '+! FIGURE 4.5-3 Bay Area Earthquake Probability ~ T 1~~t7-00 Source: USGS, 1993 1 4.5 Geology and Solls Seismically Induced Settlement Settlement occurs in areas prone to different rates of ground surface sinking and densification (differential compaction), and are underlain by sediments that differ laterally in composition or degree of existing compaction. Differential settlement can damage structures, pipelines and other subsurface entities. Strong groundshaking can cause soil settlement by vibrating sediment particles into more tightly compacted configurations, thereby reducing pore space. Unconsolidated, loosely packed alluvial deposits and sand are especially susceptible to this phenomenon. Poorly compacted artificial fills may experience seismically induced settlement. Subsidence and Expansive and Collapsible Soils Subsidence involves a sudden sinking or gradual settling and compaction of soil and other surface material with little or no horizontal motion. Expansive soils have a significant amount of clay particles that can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The occurrence of these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stabilit<~. Expansive soils can be dispersed widely, found in hillside areas as well as low-lying areas in alluvial basins. Soils testing to identify expansive characteristics and appropriate mitigation measures are required routinely by grading and building codes. Collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains, and a loss of cementation, resulting in substantial and rapid settlement under relatively low loads. Collapsible soils occur predominantly at the base of mountain ranges where Holocene-age alluvial fan and wash sediments have been deposited during rapid run-off events. Soils prone to collapse are commonly associated with man-made fill, wind- lain sands and silts, and alluvial fan and mudflow sediments deposited during flash floods. During an earthquake, even slight settlement of fill materials can lead to a differentially settled structure and significant repair costs. Differential settlement of structures can occur when heavily irrigated landscape areas are near a building foundation. Examples of common problems associated with collapsible soils include tilting floors, cracking or separation in structures, sagging floors, and nonfunctional windows and doors. Due to the presence of significant amounts of artificial fill materials placed over soft Bay Mud, as well as the shallow water table (borings have indicated that the water table may be as shallow as 6 feet, with the potential of groundwater at near zero elevation at mean sea level), the potential for subsidence and/or expansive and collapsible soils is considered high for the MEIR Study Area. Landsliding Landslides are the downward sliding of a mass of earth and rock. Landsliding is a geological phenomenon that includes a wide range of ground movements, such as rock falls, deep failure of slopes, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis and shallow debris flows. Although gravity acting on an over-steepened slope is the primary cause of landsliding, there are other contributing factors, such as (1) erosion by rivers, glaciers, or ocean waves; (2) rock and soil slopes that are weakened through saturation by snowmelt or hea~~y~ rains; (3) volcanic eruptions that produce loose ash deposits, hea~~y~ rain, and/or debris flows; (4) vibrations from machinery, traffic, blasting, and even thunder; and (5) excess weight from accumulation of rain or snow, stockpiling of rock or ore from waste piles, or from man-made structures. The strong ground motions that occur during earthquakes are capable of inducing landslides, generally where unstable soil conditions already exist. As illustrated by Figure 4.5-4 (Slope), portions of the MEIR Study Area have slopes greater than 15 percent that are underlain by weak bedrock. These areas will have a greater susceptibility to the risks associated with landsliding. Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from a land surface by wind, water, or graving. Most natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the rate of erosion increases when land is cleared or altered and left in a disturbed condition. Erosion can occur as a result of, and can be accelerated by, site preparation activities associated with development. Vegetation removal in previously landscaped areas could reduce soil cohesion, as well as the buffer provided by vegetation from wind, water, and surface disturbance, which could render the exposed soils more susceptible to erosive forces. Additionally, excavation or grading may result in erosion during construction activities, irrespective of whether hardscape previously existed at the construction site, because bare soils would be exposed and could be eroded by wind or water. The effects of erosion are intensified with an increase in slope (as water moves faster, it gains momentum to carry more debris), and the narrowing of runoff channels (which increases the velocity of water). Surface improvements, such as paved roads and buildings, decrease the potential for erosion. Once covered, soil is no longer exposed to the elements. The MEIR Study Area currently is heavily developed with various buildings, hard pack and paved parking lots and landscaping over fill material and exposed bedrock. 4.5.2 Regulatory Framework Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase 1(General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit) As discussed in further detail in Section 4.13 (Utilities), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared in compliance with an NPDES Permit describes the MEIR Study Area, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of post-construction sediment and erosion control measures and maintenance responsibilities, and non Stormwater management controls. Dischargers are required to inspect construction sites before and after storms to identify Stormwater discharge from construction activity, and to identify and implement controls where necessary. 4.5-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR .i .n ~ o' a .. .~99~ f ~ `~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r +` . .. L ~, r ~ « ._ ~~ ~ ~ ~ r.- ~ - ., r---_ ~ --~ ~ - ~ ~ ~` _ _ _ o .t . - _ ~ _ y e _ . ~~ t t ~9' ~ C^F' `~Y H'6 t ce ti ` / ~' / X41 i ~ y U~ ~ ~ W '; ~_ y/ ,- ~ ~ ro - _ ~ ~_ . , ~, ~ " ~u~ +• ~ ~ t4 4~ ~ ~ / i •~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~~ ~ o -~ Z 4 o M ~r N t ~..,Y..f ~ W ~_ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ t .i .:. ~-..~ ~y~.~iY '~i' c~Y{ ~ N //~1 ~ ^ .. .C ~~ .. ~ W U ~~ I~ W ~ ~ Q ~ 0 C> lL V1 v i O N 4 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls State California Building Code The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is published by the International Conference of Building Officials. It forms the basis of approximately half of the state building codes in the United States, including California's, and has been adopted by the state legislature together with Additions, Amendments, and Repeals to address the specific building conditions and structural requirements in California. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24, Part 2, the California Building Code (CBC), provides minimum standards for building design. Local codes are permitted to be more restrictive than Title 24, but are required to be no less restrictive. Chapter 16 of the CBC addresses General Design Requirements, including but not limited to, regulations governing seismically resistant construction (Chapter 16, Division I~ and construction to protect people and property from hazards associated with excavation cave-ins and falling debris or construction materials. Chapters 18 and A33 address site demolition, excavations, foundations, retaining walls and grading, including, but not limited to, requirements for seismically resistant design, foundation investigations, stable cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control. In addition, construction activities are subject to occupational safety standards for excavation, shoring, and trenching as specified in Cal-OSHA regulations (CCR, Title 8). In addition to providing standards for building design, the CBC defines and ranks different regions within the state based upon their seismic hazard potential. There are four different seismic regions: Seismic Zones 1 through 4, with Seismic Zone 1 having the least potential for seismic hazards, and Seismic Zone 4 having the greatest potential for seismic hazards. The MEIR Study Area is in Seismic Zone 4, as is about 45 percent of California. Accordingly, any future development would be required to comply with all desigm standards applicable to Seismic Zone 4, the most stringent in the state. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The .Seismic Ha~arrls Mapping Act became effective in 1991 to identify and map seismic hazard zones for the purpose of assisting cities and counties in preparing the safety elements of their general plans and to encourage land use management policies and regulations that reduce seismic hazards. The intent of this Act is to protect the public from the effects of strong groundshaking, liquefaction, landslides, ground failure, or other hazards caused by earthquakes. In addition, CGS's Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, provides guidance for the evaluation and mitigation of earthquake-related hazards for projects in designated zones of required investigations. Local The California Building Code Vol. 1 and 2, 2001 Edition, including the California Building Standards, 2001 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions set forth in the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), has been adopted as the building code of the Cite of South San Francisco. All building guidelines used for the proposed project will be dictated by the City of South San Francisco Building Code. 4.5"u Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5 Geology and Solls Further, in 1994 the City of South San Francisco developed the East of 101 Plan with the overall goal of recognizing the unique character of the East of 101 Area and to guide and regulate development in a manner which protects and enhances the area's physical, economic and natural resources, while also encouraging appropriate development in the area. As such, the East of 101 Plan Chapter 10, Geotechnical Safety Element, has set forth specific guidelines with respect to site treatment and building design and the unique geological hazards of the area. The East of 101 Geotechnical Safety Element policies are as follows: Policy GEO-1 The City shall assess the need for geotechnical investigations on a project-by project basis on sites in areas of fill shown of Figure 17, and shall require such investigations where needed. Policy GEO-2 Where fill remains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Policy GEO3 Given the extensive use of the area for industrial and waste disposal purposes, investigation both by drilling and by examination of historic aerial photographs shall be conducted by project developers to determine if landfills exist under the project site prior to construction. Policy GEO-4 Project developers shall design developments on landfills and dump sites to deal safely with gas produced by the decomposition of the buried garbage. Inorganic soil capping over landfills shall be thick enough that excavation for repair of existing utilities or installation of additional utilities does not penetrate to buried garbage. Policy GEO-5 If hazardous fill, such as garbage organics, is encountered it shall be appropriately disposed by a project developer during construction. This material shall not be used for either structural fill or grading fill. However, other uses may be possible, such as landscaping around vegetation if the fill has a high organic content. If no acceptable use is found on-site, the hazardous fill should be properly disposed off-site. Policy GEO-6 Where a landfill or dump occurs under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Policy GEO-7 New slopes greater then 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created be placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the top of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safet<~ by a geotechnical engineer. Policy GEO-8 The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of surficial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by other means. Runoff from paved or other parts of the slope shall be directed away from the slope. Policy GEO-9 Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Policy GEO-10 In fill areas mapped on Figure 17, a geotechnical investigation to determine the true nature of the subsurface materials and the possible effects of liquefaction shall be conducted by the project developer before development. Policy GEO-11 Development shall be required to mitigate the risk associated with liquefaction. Policy GEO-12 Structural design of buildings and infrastructure shall be conducted according to the Uniform Building Code and appropriate local codes of practice which specify procedures and details to reduce the effects of ground shaking on structures. Policy GEO-13 Development within the preliminary boundary of the Coyote Point hazard area, as depicted on Figure 15, shall be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer. Fault trenching may be required on individual development sites where feasible and determined necessary by the engineer. No structure for human occupancy shall occur within 50 feet of identified active faults, unless a geotechnical investigation and report determine that no active branches of that fault underlie the surface Policy GEO-1 refers to Figure 17 of the East of 101 Area Plan, and Policy GEO-13 refers to Figure 15 of the East of 101 Area Plan; these figures are depicted in this MEIR as Figure 4.5-5 (Figure 17 of East of 101 Area Plan) and Figure 4.5-6 (Figure 15 of East of 101 Area Plan) respectively. Additionally, the 1999 South San Francisco General Plan Health and Safet<~ Element contains policies designed to minimize the risks associated with development in areas of seismic hazards. As such, the South San Francisco General Plan, Health and Safety Element, has set forth specific guidelines with respect to site treatment and building design and the unique geological hazards of the area. The South San Francisco General Plan, Health and Safety Element, policies are as follows: Implementing Policy 8.1-I-1 Do not permit special occupancy buildings, such as hospitals, schools and other structures that are important to protecting health and safett~ in the community, in areas identified in Figure 8-2. Implementing Policy 8.1-I-2 Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade should be retained in their natural state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible. Grading should be kept to a minimum. Implementing Policies 8.1-I-1 and 8.1-I-2 refer to Figure 8-2 (General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands), of the South San Francisco General Plan, Health and Safety Element; this figure is depicted in this MEIR as Figure 4.5-7 (General Plan Policies for Seismically Sensitive Lands). 4.5-14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR LEGEND ~ °'`~ ; , ..i aq ~-- , ° oe o F3II UvCr,$a3' I+~lld ,/~~ ~ ° ~ (Liquefaction Potential) \ ~~ d ° 6 a D ii. ~',;~',~ Landfill ~ ~ ° ~ `' ;' ~ tl o . ~ Othez Fill ,~ ~.- .. ~ ~~ ~~ s-,,,,mss a # 'r.e9~ s ~ a°a non °De:o ~"^~. ^. ` tl 'o ° ~ ' a o ¢-, K170vVT1 Farmer I~1JImI7 ' ~ aC ° p 0 ~°.. - s n °-Q p q ° o o , ~~~ EIRStudyArea /` ,/ r . ~_ }~:a oo Q oa '' oa ~ o°y' > ~ aoa n` a oe ,~^ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~h, °,,r~ ..• } Z _~ y.. - a o°a egoDa as ° ooao~- _ '~ _... ~ '. t ~ ~ .1 ~ i , ~ t; ~,~s.e} 'ems / a ~ ° ° o : e~~ ~ _', ~ ~ ~ "~ l /-, ~'' •-'y""•1P~ ~l~i Y 1 ~ j E i _ ~; # o o -s`°ooa~a o a ~ :. .•.r , -a '~';f.Y_ rt- .` ~~~3~• / .~j'•. ~ ~~~~xi;!` ~ i °~e o°o o~O Oa e ' Y ~~., ~ t 1 0 r~Y ~ =1~• ??I ~ ,s. -i a a~ O a ~t~~. O 1 -•, } r s ~ t r o ~i. - ^• ,.» , s,y ~/' na o 4~ as oo ~, * I~ J~ ~ oa l S ae.o~ao~`o~±. ?` =». ''..'ail., U 1, ° °-D ° ~~. ......._..,. ~ ' <`.. ..{ ~ ~ o o a' e o s~ ~ ^aoa °~ ~; ~, w',g o , ,l ~q .. ~~~ c q ar a D~ v - 'F °e ~ / o oa Did 4.tlR o ~~, ~ _ 3 - ~ ~~ .:t °a _~,. ~~'n rt7 op °y _eaoa~ ea aoBaaaD - L. ,,//..;_ i .. - 4 "^': r~' a° ss o .9~.~ eq r o ,o oao~, o° ~ \''" _, ... .~~ ,,._ r^ ~ •,~ i e . a -a a ~ ~' a ? e a o a a a ` o` , '..'". _ ~ ,~ ~ x ~~` r~ v a I { ° oa;gs apF a oisa o ao n oDOn ~"" `.~ - ~~rlri~ ~ !f~ 1 f r 1' s o s ova oa ao o°o °° .,, e:.~ •`~: ... - ~.~ - ~a!.j' po a~ O OO Oa Oa p OO q ~ ~"~" ~~. A> ~ F ~'. 3/""~ q~ nrJ~-~otl°Oa°t1 aY, o~'~ aD a°of q s~~~ O a D' 1 t „. O a a6 a~°~D a a ISO O Otl ~.~ D V a3b^.~Mr~-'~Ob a O;Q..., 7- i'd0 O AO ° Oa .p.~ a,~,0 °•a~pw« gash 0 D9 a~ O a'tl~b °°a Oqa O°a a°O .L. p,.p tl°° a~ +++~~~~~~ ~" 4 -• .,a A. ate. O q. tl >I O- x°-- . y~- ~ ~i ~qj~,, 00 ° a~a OOD GO O a O a0 "ti"'If oa a0 O .~..~'"--O-..T- b. b O 1111~~ .p.~_.t~.e.. O D tl D 'A~O.~D q° O ~i p~°..Q a D q° a 4° O ' S ~ ~ ~ r.,~~ a ~ '~v PO O O.a ~. pDr ° ~00 ° a ° DO ° DD ° 00 ° tl6 ' q" o a a a o' ~ P } ° q~o~ oDa o° a~~ o .y qaa aoo ~foa ada Logo°otloaaYl..Patla°°aoo°a o°o oS 1 Y, .. - .. „D, - .„ - o0 ' t s = .t ~- 'O qA f: Oaa .a° O~t~ iD tl tl tl O atl0 O - - `. `-` ~ ~~ n p~Y ra oo c o0 oa-a ~o °_ va o a~~a...o_ _. ..";^ nK F'. ~ !. R ~`~ O Q O .~ D o 0 4 aa, ..~'d°~, a p V-. i qb~D O +Y 'O 8O pD py +~ ! YYY a` O~a 90 O~~,G°tl O°a O°17 q°tl m ~~: c, ~~4:°.. oa °b a' o i'ob. as °.od'° aq tl x 1 ~ a 0 YT D a , ~~a~ ' •O "4 e! O q.9/°'°.Q -~ ~ OSI a.OD °O a~. G C'~O C O °ry A~°.bq .~ aa~ 0'4 °onaooo o~°•~~-..poQSn~ o~, ~ oPoo;o 00 °o a qr'o 0 0 °o-D o . D6q ~~p0 e e a °b' tl D°tl q~ 10tl0 p, ° ° ,a D°6 O°a a ow o, ao 0 04 °a ~c r o» ~ ° on ° as j~'V -:: sabaoa~ono~ei `. n°a oDe. '~ o °6;o ttiD q'o0 q °° ° oo u oa r K ~. a d o o: o a' o a a a q e 'f a * aa~AD..°'aq o _ as , O O .. W °OSO.>O. O i~ O O i s D', ~- ~ '. ~ 0 ... ._ .~ n `s0 D a ,,~.4- ~~ .:.- G D o 0 0 O 7I Q G p Q O D Q O a ~ O D O O ~' D 6 O O. O O D tl i .6 TM OD OD OA pa 00 a0 O}~, 'is' a OgnaO 07 ~f~"O0 06 _. .. .. „+.,...... .. _°~.a Oa aO,;aa ~Dp OaOa D~'OOOa006°°O - ( •.~'. _ a~ a.0' Ap a4 - 'tl D ° ~a0- ° q0 D atl a °~ ° DO O. qq D I ~~ .; o a o a o a° a D q q q o° q o '~'. ,~; v - : ,... ._.. ~- o,w o %~ otl c D4 ~- o qo a oo a qa o ao a ao p':po u na c aw .., .. a'~ ft:' D D D o q D a o a a O ° ,~ o e o 0 6 ~~ o o e ';,~ D6~'~ n oa oa oa o no ° as ° ero ° oo ° go'Dr-~ ?:......,$o ~=-. - 3,.,,___.. ....~~~ „V. • :: a D a .. • a o a a o ° a c dl! ~ °orr D q o , . ~ "a _ o .. ;: '' \. ~t '. ...,,,,,,.. ., . ~. 1 ..r \ - ~~ ~ ;. ,. '.. ...,.. ...~'S ;, c '..ec ' ~ ... ; . S ~ A L E i•.iFOa• O 50b' t0(1D ZUOC' FIGURE 4.5-5 East of 101 Area Plan, Figure 17 tt117-00 ~ Source: City of South San Francisco EIP 1~ LEGEND ~__ Bedrock ~ . Sails ' Fitted _ `"-~, /, • ~ , Marshlands ., -~~ '--u ~` f Over Recent . ,a.. _ , ~ c f t Bay Mud ~'' / Fitt aver ~ , ~~, >: ~. ~ ..._ s " Resent ~w ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:~. ~ Ba Mud y , ~ , y ., ~~~3~ .; ,~ „ K ~,:' ~ x `tz r s Pretun~xtary °~' d ~~~ s t boundary 4 ~ ~ ' . a€ erea y ~ r x~ rt+ u x }ai:g, potcnttally .r ~ 1 sttscepwble " ,"~ ~ t0 sur€ace ~ ~ ; ; . €aLtt i ~ ~ i~ , . rttpturC. i ~ ij a'~~• :... ~. `ro°4ti,,&,~'~'u .. ~ ~ ~ EIR Srudy ~'~" ~ .~ ,. , Area ~;f •, x ~s ~ "... G ~,.t ~ +~. ~ S /1 ~ s e ~~ _ try ~.,"'~",~r .T r < 4 x.W..-•~J,,, J 1 ~: K *i _.~......,.e_ ~-- • ~ .~. ... '._r ... ~~. f~ I f ~ _ It ~' ,~ .~-1~.-- ,. ,: -' i _,, ;yp~ ~3 ~ i r~ ! ~ ~ Q ~ ~" ~ w ,. t ~,, - ~£ _~# i ~, .. \` .,. - ~. ...~.x ti ~ j ~~` ~. "`Area to the south o€ this boundary may expenence sur€ace displacements during earthquakes on the Coyaee Point €ault zone. The area to the north appears w tic outside o€ the Coyote PointlHillside fault zone. (Interpretation based on preliminary data collected by USGS.} ', ~~.~ r.: ^'t ,y,_ .' ~'~ ,~ 4 •' FIGURE 4.5-6 East of 101 Area Plan Figure 15 ~ l T _.~ 11J 11117-0o Source: City of South San Francisco ~ ~ _.. •~_~ I ~ ~ ' ~ I x ~ ~ z ~ ~ ' a, -° z, e .A 4 ~~ #$ I' \~ • .- y ,~ oJ~~ ~ F„"O I\ o~ o a ~~ Q< ,SOH ~ / • ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ m G ,b ~~ ~ ~yP fj/'~ ~~ ~ T? O '•~~~ °•~a ~ ~ .moo ~ ~ ~ x c~ .; ~.~ t a •~ ~ _. 'b s fem. ~~ ~ ~ / ~ ~. ,~/ pe ~ ~~~~ ~ c a ~ ./ ~~ ~~ o m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` C7rlktt ~ ~A c c own r• '. ,` ~. ~ s + ; ~ ~ ti ~ r' P g ~ ~ oo i ~ ~a< ~ a ~ p ~ @;/' ~ r ~ ~ Soc ,~ ./' .. _-.. /' i' 1 a N ~ ~ a Z ~ ~ 'W as ''i3^^i v .~ v/ W c ~ J a w ~ 1 ~~ .°_ c I~1 N r * , U E N C R J d f/! C d V d N d .~ O a C ~ N ~, a '^~ V ~ C7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts 4.5.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method Widely available industry= sources were examined to document regional and local geology (see Section 4.5. 4 References). Information regarding regional geology and seismically induced hazards was taken from various sources of the CGS and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Project-specific geologic information, soil characteristics, and liquefaction potential were obtained from the various geotechnical investigations prepared between 2004 and 2005 for individual building projects occurring on the MEIR Study Area. Estimated maximum earthquake magnitudes resulting from potential seismic activity on various active faults in the area were obtained from previous environmental documentation prepared for projects in the general vicinity. Where potential geological hazards are identified on the MEIR Study Area, such hazards are expected to affect any potential development. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from geology= and soils if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury= or death involving: > Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. > Strong seismic ground shaking. > Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides. ^ Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. ^ Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially= result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. ^ Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. ^ Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternate waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. 4.5-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5 Geology and Solls Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving ^ Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ^ Strong seismic ground shaking ^ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction ^ Landslides Impact 4.5-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse effects resulting from rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic groundshaking, seismic- related ground failure (i.e., liquefaction), or landsliding. Implementation of project requirements, PR 4.5-1(a) through PR 4.5-1 (d) would ensure the impact would remain less than significant. As described above, the project site is not located within an Earthquake Fault Zone as defined b}~ the Alquz,ct-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of ~ 1994, and no known active or potentially active faults traverse the Genentech Campus. Because ground rupture generally only occurs at the location of a fault, and no active faults are known to traverse the MEIR Study Area, the MEIR Study Area would not be subject to a substantial risk of fault (ground surface) ruptures. However, if evidence of an active or potentially active fault is discovered during preparation of asite-specific geotechnical report, as required by the East of 101 Plan, Policy Gen-13, and incorporated in the MEIR as PR 4.5-1, the report shall address the potential hazard and provide design recommendations that shall be incorporated into the project. Further, Genentech will retain a certified Licensed Geotechnical Engineer to prepare site-specific geotechnical studies, as required by PR 4.5-1(a), which will ensure that new development on the MEIR Study Area provides an acceptable level of protection against seismic-related hazards according to current geotechnical engineering and City standards. This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant. As part of the construction permitting process, the City requires completed geotechnical reports to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. The evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to mitigate for inappropriate soil conditions must be applied, depending on the soil conditions. The design of foundations and buildings must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the CBC, Chapters 16, 18, and A33 as described above in Subsection 4.5.2 Regulatory Framework. Adherence to the City's codes and policies, including those outlined the East of 101 Area Plan would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of the project. Several portions of the MEIR Study Area have relatively steep slopes, and general construction activities such as excavation and grading can create new slopes. Improper loading of fill materials, or excessive irrigation practices may also induce slope instability or landsliding. The East of 101 Plan Geotechnical Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-19 Chapter 4 Env-ronmental Anatysls Safety Element Policies GEO-7 through GEO-9, and incorporated in this MEIR as PR 4.5-1 (a) through PR 4.5-1(d), are designed specifically to mitigate the impacts associated with landsliding and unstable slope conditions. Adherence to the City's codes and policies, including those incorporated as PR 4.5-1 (b) through PR 4.5-1(d), would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of the project and minimize the risks associated with landsliding. PR 4.5-1 (a) Development within the preliminary boundary of the Coyote Point hazard area, as depicted on Figure 15of the East of 101 Area Plan and referred to as Figure~4.5-6 in this MEIR, shall be revieaved ly a geotechnical engineer. Fault trenching may be required on individual development sites avhere feasible grad determined necessary 1y the engineer. No strercture for human occupancy shall occur avithin 50 feet of identified active faults, unless a geotechnical investigation and report determine that no active branches of that fault underlie the surface. PA 45-1(b~ New slopes greater then 5 feet in height, either cut in native soils or rock, or created by placing fill material, shall be designed by a geotechnical engineer and should have an appropriate factor of safety under seismic loading. If additional load is to be placed at the tap of the slope, or if extending a level area at the toe of the slope requires removal of part of the slope, the proposed configuration shall be checked for an adequate factor of safety by ageotechnical engineer, based on applicable codes and professional standards,. PA 4.5-1 (c) The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted during construction to reduce the likelihood of su~cial sloughing. The surface of cut or fill slopes shall also be protected from erosion due to precipitation or runoff ~ by introducing a vegetative cover on the slope or by of/per means. Runoff from paved or otherparts of the slope shall be directed aavay from the slope. PR 45-1(d) .Steep hillside areas in excess of 30 percent grade shall be retained in their natcaral state. Development of hillside sites should follow existing contours to the greatest extent possible and grading should be kept to a minimum. Continued compliance with the CBC as well as the applicable provisions of the S~eisrnic Hazards Mapping Act and following the identified Project Requirements, would ensure that this impact remains less than signif2cant. No mitigation is required. ~ Threshold Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil ~ Impact 4.5-2 The construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. This is considered aless-than- signifzcant impact. Erosion can occur as a result of, and can be accelerated by, site preparation activities associated with development. Vegetation removal in landscaped (pervious) areas could reduce soil cohesion, as well as the buffer provided by vegetation from wind, water, and surface disturbance, which could render the exposed soils more susceptible to erosive forces. Additionally, excavation or grading for any proposed subterranean building or parking structures ma}' also result in erosion during construction activities, irrespective of whether hardscape previously existed at the construction site, as bare soils would be exposed and could be eroded by wind or water. Earth-disturbing activities associated with construction 4.5-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5 Geology and Solls would be temporary and erosion effects would depend largely on the areas excavated, the quantity of excavation, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be affected by erosion processes. In addition, all construction activities would comply with Chapter 18 of the CBC, which regulates excavation activities and the construction of foundations and retaining walls, and Chapter 33 of the CBC, which regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. As stated in Section 4.3 (Air Qualitti), Genentech would continue to implement dust control measures consistent with BAAQMD Rules regarding fugitive dust, which would stabilize soils and prevent erosion through the reduction of dust generation by up to 85 percent. Additionally, as stated in Section 4.13 (Utilities), Genentech would continue to comply with the NPDES general permit for construction activities, pursuant to which, as part of an erosion control plan, construction site erosion and sedimentation control BMPs would be implemented and would include such measures as silt fences, watering for dust control, straw bale check dams, hydroseeding, and other measures. Further, Genentech would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of the San Mateo Count~~vide Stormwater Pollution Program (STOPPP), and will require runoff management programs that would include BMPs to control erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, substantial erosion is unlikely to occur on an operational basis, and this impact would be considered to be less than signiftcant. No mitigation is required. Threshold Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse Impact 4.5-3 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to on-site or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, ground subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Implementation of project requirements PR 4.5-2(a) and 4.5-2 (b) would ensure this impact remains less than significant. The Lower Campus of the proposed project is composed of fill soils which were placed over wetlands and Bay Mud during the last century. Using unsuitable soils, such as improperly compacted fill material, would have the potential to create future liquefaction, subsidence, or collapse problems leading to building settlement and/or utility line disruption. When weak soils are re-engineered specifically for stability prior to use, these potential effects can be reduced or eliminated. An acceptable degree of soil stabilitt~ would be achieved for expansive, liquefaction-prone, and compressible soils by the required incorporation of soil treatment programs (replacement, grouting, compaction, drainage control, etc.) in the excavation and construction plans to address site-specific soil conditions. Asite-specific evaluation of soil conditions is required by the East of 101 Plan Geotechnical Safety Element Policies GEO-1 through 2, and incorporated as PR 4.5-2(a) and PR 4.5-2(b), and must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, that become an integral part of the construction design. PR 4.5-2(a) The City shall assess the need forgeotechnical investigations on a project-ly pr ject bari.r on sites in areas of fill as depicted an the East of 101 Area Plan, Figure 17and referred to as Fiaarre 4.5-7 in this MEIK, and shall require such investigations where needed PK 4.5-2(b) i~Yhere fill re~reains under a proposed structure, project developers shall design and construct appropriate foundations. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-21 Chapter 4 Env-ronmental Analys-s As part of the construction permitting process, the Cite requires completed geotechnical reports to identify potentially unsuitable soil conditions including liquefaction, subsidence, and collapse. The evaluations must be conducted by registered soil professionals, and measures to eliminate inappropriate soil conditions must be applied, depending on the soil conditions. The design of pilings support must conform to the analysis and implementation criteria described in the CBC, Chapters 16, 18, and A33. Adherence to the City's codes and policies and following the identified Project Requirements would ensure the maximum practicable protection available for users of the project and would result in a less- than-significant impact. No mitigation is required. Threshold Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property Impact 4.5-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in construction of facilities on expansive soils, and would not create a substantial risk to people and structures. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. As stated Subsection 4.5.1 (Existing Conditions), bedrock belon~ring to the Franciscan complex, alluvial material and Bay Mud are all found on the MEIR Study Area. Soil expansion potential, therefore, varies across the MEIR Study Area and can affect structures constructed on such soils, as water uptake after rainfall could cause soils to expand and damage building foundations, which may compromise the stability of the structures that underlie the affected foundations. However, all construction on the MEIR Study Area would be required to comply with applicable provisions of Chapter 23 of the CBC or Zone 4 of the UBC, and would be subject to structural peer review. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure that impacts related to expansive soils are less than significant by identifying site-specific soils characteristics and constraints and designing structures and foundations to address such constraints. Such recommendations could include desi~m features, such as expansion joints in structures, mounting foundations on concrete piles, or replacing existing soils on a project site with stable fill material, and would either result in a structure that could withstand soils expansion or a building pad substrate that would not be subject to expansiveness. Identification of expansive soils before construction and implementation of appropriate design measures would ensure that foundations and structures would provide an adequate level of protection according to current seismic and geotechnical engineering practice to provide adequate safety levels, as defined in the CBC, UBC, and the East of 101 Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, and as subjected to structural peer review. Therefore, no substantial risk to people or structures with respect to expansive soils would result. This impact would, therefore, be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 4,5-22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5 Geology and So/ls Threshold Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater Impact 4.5-5 The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact associated with this effect. Sewage and wastewater generated within the Cin~ is collected through the Citt~'s sewer system and is disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP). The sanitary sewer s~~stem has an interconnecting network of gravity sewers, force mains, and nine pump stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the WQCP. Existing infrastructure is located throughout the Genentech Campus, and any new development would connect to or expand the existing wastewater lines. Because no septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are proposed, there are no effects associated with soils incapable of adequately supporting these systems and no additional analysis is required in this MEIR. There would be no impact associated with this effect. 4.5.4 References Bay Area Geotechnical Group, 2004. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Genentech Building 33, DNA lay, ,S'outh .S'an Francisco, California, January. .S'upplemental Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Area 3 Fill Facility-Building 511Festern Corner of Kaufrraan Court at Forbes Boulevard Generatech's Loaver Campus .S'outh San Francisco, California, March. Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas. I~leinfelder, 2005. Geotechnical Investigation and .Seismic Response .S pectra for the Proposed Central Boiler Plant Project at Genentech in .South .San Francisco, California. South San Francisco. City o£ 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, July. Prepared b~~ Brady and Associates South San Francisco. Cite of. 1999. City of.Soirth .S'an Francisco General Plan, 13 October. Prepared by Dyett and Bhatia. URS. 2003. Final Program Environmental Impact Report-Expansion of Ferry Transit ,Service in the .San Francisco Bay Area, June. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. n.d. Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Kegion: 2000 to 2030 ~1 Summary of Findings. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.5-23 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section describes the potential adverse impacts on human health and the environment due to exposure to hazardous materials or conditions that could be encountered as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Hazardous materials include, but are not necessarily limited to, inorganic and organic chemicals, chemical reagents and reaction products, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, radioisotopes, fuels, oils, paints, cleansers, pesticides, and biohazardous substances that are used in activities such as laboratory research, biotechnology manufacturing, and building and grounds maintenance. Hazardous materials use at biotechnology centers generate hazardous by-products that must eventually be handled and disposed of as hazardous wastes. For the purposes of this analysis, hazardous materials include inorganic and organic chemicals and products containing such substances as defined by California laws and regulations, radioactive materials, and biohazardous materials. Potential effects include those associated with contaminated sites and the potential exposure to hazardous materials used, stored, transported, or disposed of during construction activities (such as exposure to asbestos or lead as a result of building demolition) or Genentech operations. Potential impacts to water quality from construction-related surface water runoff that could contain hazardous materials and/or from groundwater dewatering during construction or operation of the proposed project are discussed in Section 4.2 (Flood and Inundation Hazards) of the MEIR. Impacts related to toxic air contaminants that could be emitted during operation of the project are discussed in Section 4.3 (Air Quality) of the MEIR. Seismic activity that poses a potential hazard to the project site is discussed in Section 4.5 (Geolol,~y~ and Soils) of the MEIR. Data used to prepare this section was taken from various sources, including information provided by Genentech, the Genentech website, San Mateo County Environmental Health Department- Environmental Health Division (SMCEHD) records (including hazardous materials inventory), and the following reports prepared by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. in March 2006: (1) City Directories dating back to 1990, (2) Aerial Photographs dating back to 1946, (3) Historical Topographic Maps dating back to 1913, and (4) a report of hazardous materials sites located within ahalf--mile of the "center" of the Genentech Campus (approximately "1000 Grandview Drive"), also referred to as MEIR Study Area. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.6.4 (References) of this chapter. No comment letters related to hazardous materials or wastes were received in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held Januan~ 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of the MEIR. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls 4.6.1 Existing Conditions Definitions Hazard A hazard is any situation that has the potential to cause damage to human health and the environment. The risk to human health and the ecological environment is determined by the probability of exposure to hazardous material and severity of harm such exposure would pose. That is to say=, the likelihood and means of exposure, in addition to the inherent toxicity of a material, are used to determine the degree of risk to human health or the ecosystem. For example, a high probability of exposure to a low toxicity chemical would not necessarily pose an unacceptable human health or ecological risk, whereas a low probability of exposure to a very high toxicity chemical might. Various regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Boards, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) are responsible for developing and/or enforcing risk-based standards to protect the public and the environment. Hazardous Material The term "hazardous material" is defined in different ways for different regulatory programs. This MEIR uses the following definition of a hazardous material, provided in Sections 25501 (o) of the California Health and Safety Code: Any material that, because of its 9uantity, concentration, or ph~~sical or chemical characteristics, poses a signit7cant present or potential hazard to human health and safett~ or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. "Hazardous 1~laterials" include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, and any- material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safet<~ of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. By convention, most hazardous materials are thought to be hazardous chemicals, but certain radioactive and biohazardous materials, as defined here, are also hazardous. A "hazardous waste," for the purposes of this analysis, is any hazardous material that is abandoned, discarded, or recycled, as defined by Section 25124 of the California Health and Safety Code. In addition, hazardous wastes occasionally may be generated by actions that change the composition of previously nonhazardous materials. The criteria that characterize a material as hazardous include ignitability, toxicity, corrosivity, reactivity, radioactivity, or bioactivit<=. Hazard vs. Risk Workers and general public health are potentially at risk whenever hazardous materials have been used or where an exposure to such materials could occur as a result of the presence of unidentified fill materials or historic uses of a site. Inherent in the setting and analyses presented in this section are the concepts of the "hazard" of these materials and the "risk" they pose to human health and the ecological environment. Exposure to some chemical substances may harm internal organs or systems in the human 4.6-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials body, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability, or death. Hazardous materials that result in adverse effects are generally considered "toxic." Other chemical materials, however, may be corrosive, or react with other substances to form other hazardous materials, but they are not considered toxic because organs or systems are not affected. Because toxic materials can result in adverse health effects, they are considered hazardous materials, but not all hazardous materials are necessarily "toxic." For purposes of the information and analyses presented in this section, the terms hazardous substances or hazardous materials are used interchangeably and include materials that are considered toxic. Acute vs. Chronic Health Efifect Whether a person exposed to a hazardous substance would suffer adverse health effects depends upon a complex interaction of factors to determine the effects of exposure to hazardous materials: the exposure pathway (the route by which a hazardous material enters the body); the amount of material to which the person is exposed; the physical form (e.g., liquid, vapor) and characteristics (e.g., toxicity) of the material; the frequency and duration of exposure; and the individual's unique biological characteristics, such as age, gender, weight, and general health. Adverse health effects from exposure to hazardous materials may be short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic). Acute effects can include damage to organs or systems in the body and possibly death. Chronic effects, which may result from long-term exposure to a hazardous material, can also include organ or systemic damage, but chronic effects of particular concern include birth defects, genetic damage, and cancer. In the case of pathogenic (disease-causing) organisms or biohazardous materials, for transmission to humans to occur, the pathogen must be present in sufficiently high numbers to cause infection, and contact with the organism must occur. Historical Use Topographic Maps Historical topographic maps dating back to 1913 were reviewed to assist in determining if past uses within the MEIR Study Area involved hazardous materials. Table 4.6-1 provides a summary of these past uses. Aerial Photographs Historical aerial photographs dating back to 1946 were reviewed to determine past uses at the proposed project site. Table 4.6-2 provides a summary of these past uses. Genentech Policy, Practice, & Pertormance Genentech engages in the research, development, manufacture, and marketing of biotechnology products for serious or life-threatening diseases, including commercialization of those products. Research at Genentech focuses primarily on three areas of medicine: oncology, immunology and tissue growth and repair. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6~ Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts 1913 The proposed project site is primarily vacant undeveloped land. Several small structures are depicted along the eastern edge of the site along the San Francisco Bay. Two to three additional small structures are located further inland north of the San Bruno Canal; a small roadway originating west of the proposed project site leads to these structures. Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project site is also primarily vacant and undeveloped. 1947 The proposed project site is primarily vacant undeveloped land. A small roadway around the perimeter of the site, as well as one or two through the site, is now present. The San Bruno Canal is not designated. Several additional small structures are now present south and east of the proposed project site. The project site area is designated as Point San Bruno, and Oyster Point is now designated further north of the proposed project site. Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project site is also primarily vacant and undeveloped. 1956 The proposed project site is primarily vacant undeveloped land, however, is now designated as being occupied by the California National Guard. A larger roadway now leads to the center of the site where fifteen small structures are depicted. Another large roadway traverses south of the proposed project site along the San Francisco Bay to an area where a complex of large structures now exists. The project site area is still designated as Point San Bruno, and Oyster Point is now designated further north of the proposed project site. A "channel" and "spoil area" are designated in the San Francisco Bay south-southeast of the proposed project site. Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project site to the north and east is still primarily vacant and undeveloped. 1956 The proposed project site appears similar to the way it did in 1956, however, the large roadway that led to the center of to the site is now shorter, and fourteen of the fifteen small structures are no longer present. The now shorter roadway leads 1968 to the one remaining structure that is designated as a "Radio Tower." The proposed project site area is still designated as being occupied by the California National Guard. The large roadway that traversed south of the proposed project site along the San Francisco Bay is also now shorter and some of the previous structures part of the complex have been replaced with new structures slightly north. Other features in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site are similar to how they were in 1956, except that a "marina" now occupies the area just south of Oyster Point (north of the proposed project site). Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project site to the north and east is still primarily vacant and undeveloped. 1956 The roadways and structures that occupied the proposed project site in the 1956-1968 topographic map are present. The to proposed project site area is still designated as being occupied by the California National Guard. A new large roadway 1973 now appears along the western and northern perimeter of the site. Additionally, several large structures now occupy the western and northern areas of the proposed project site. Areas of the San Francisco Bay and San Bruno Canal, located south of the site, are now occupied by land. This land cuts through the "channel" that is designated to exist in the San Francisco Bay, and the San Bruno Canal is no longer present. Land at the northern end of the site also now occupies a larger area where water previously occurred. Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project site to the north and east are now occupied by structures and roadways. 1993 The proposed project site appears similar to the way it does today. It is occupied by a similar network of roadways and structures that exist at the Genentech facility. The area is still designated as Point San Bruno, and Oyster Point and the Marina are present further north. Areas surrounding the proposed project site are also fully developed. SoUHCt: tnvironmentai uata resources, mc., wr ni~wncai ~vNvg~aNiiw ~.~aN ~.oN~~~, ~.~U,..~, «, ~...,..• Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Protection Policy In striving to conduct their business in an environmentally responsible manner and protect the health and safety of their employees, Genentech adheres to an Emrironmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Protection Policy that includes policy objectives in each of the following areas: ^ Workplace Safety (conduct operations in a manner that fosters safety) ^ Environmental Protection (employ practices to reduce reliance on hazardous materials) ^ Integration into Business Decisions ^ Compliance (compl}~ with EHS regulations) ^ Emergency Preparedness 4,6.4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1946 The proposed project site is primarily vacant undeveloped land. A large roadway leads to the center of the site which is occupied by several small structures. Another large roadway traverses south of the proposed project site along the San Francisco Bay to an area where a complex of large structures exists. Land immediately adjacent to the proposed project site to the north is still primarily vacant and undeveloped. Land located further east is occupied by large roadways and structures. 1956 The proposed project site and surrounding areas appear similar to the way they were in 1946 except that the roadway , leading to the center of the site is now longer and ends at a larger complex of smaller structures. Similarly, the large roadway that traverses south of the proposed project site along the San Francisco Bay now leads to a denser complex of buildings. Areas to the north and east are similar to the way they were in 1946. 1965 The proposed project site is now further developed with large building complexes, parking lots and a few water towers. The development is primarily growing along the southern and eastern ends of the proposed project site. Several parcel of graded vacant land are also now present. Several new roadways also now appear at the northern end of the site. Areas to the north and east are similar to the way they were in 1956. 1973 The majority of the proposed project site is developed with roadways, buildings, parking lots and a few water towers. Large parcels of graded vacant land exist at the center, northeastern and southern areas of the site. Areas to the north and east are also more developed with structures and roadways. 1982 The proposed project site appears similar to the way it does today. It is occupied by a similar network of roadways and structures that exist at the Genentech facility. Areas surrounding the proposed project site are also fully developed. 1993 The proposed project site appears similar to the way it did in 1982, except with a few additional structures present. It is occupied by a similar network of roadways and structures that exist at the current Genentech facility. Areas surrounding the proposed project site are also fully developed. s~uKCt: environmental Uata Resources, Inc., EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, March 22, 2006. ^ Supply Chain Management (encourage suppliers, contractors, and partners to comply with EHS regulations, and minimize the use of toxic chemicals and the generation of hazardous wastes) ^ Industry Responsibilin~ (standards to assure biological agents do not adversely affect human health or the environment) ^ Continuous Improvement ^ Employees Hazardous Materials Practices Hazardous materials used by Genentech principally relate to research, development and manufacturing of biotechnology products, and could include the following: ^ Solvents used for cleaning, extraction, or other laboratory and production activities ^ Reagents (chemical starting materials) ^ Chemical reaction products, which may have unknown compositions ^ Radioisotopes (radioactive elements used to stimulate or trace chemical reactions) ^ Infectious agents, including bacteria, viruses, and other medical wastes ^ Test samples (e.g., specimens such as blood, tissue, soil, or water), prior to use in a testing procedure ^ Wastewater neutralization chemicals ^ Chemicals used to clean process equipment Genentech's manufacturing processes use recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology to grow medicinal proteins from cells. Depending on the size and complexity of the protein, the manufacturing process uses biological materials. Because of the low environmental and health risk associated with Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-5 Chapter 4 EnWronmental Analysts manufacturing proteins with biological materials, there are no standard requirements to manage biological wastes in a particular manner. Biological waste effluents at Genentech facilities are currently inactivated through either heat or chemical processes. In recent years Genentech has become involved in small molecule and antibody conjugation research and development activities. These programs, common in the biopharma sector, frequently involve newly developed chemicals for which there is limited research and data regarding hazardous properties and effects. Genentech takes a conservative approach by managing these substances as toxic even if they have not been proven to be toxic. Genentech incorporates specific containment and ventilation design features into laboratories intended for small molecule or antibody conjugate research, and provides appropriate personal protective equipment for lab workers in these areas. Maintenance of the Genentech Campus, as well as proposed construction activities, also requires the use of hazardous materials. Examples of hazardous materials involved in vehicle, grounds, and building maintenance, or used on construction sites, include the following: ^ Fuels (gasoline and diesel) ^ 'Oils and lubricants ^ Antifreeze ^ Cleaners, which may include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents ^ Paints and paint thinners (latex) ^ Freons (refrigerants) ^ Pesticides and herbicides Genentech has a variety of programs in place to ensure ongoing compliance with regulatory requirements governing the management of hazardous materials. Genentech has a combined Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan to manage the potential risks associated with an accidental release of hazardous materials to storm drains. Stormwater is monitored regularly consistent with regulatory requirements. The Genentech Chemical Hygiene Plan describes the company's laboratory safety program, and applies to all employees engaged in the use of hazardous chemicals in laboratories. The Chemical Hygiene Plan sets forth requirements and accountability for the proper labeling of all laboratory chemicals, the provision of appropriate training for lab personnel, the provision of appropriate protective equipment, and the implementation of periodic inspections. Genentech has a comprehensive Biosafety Program designed to protect employees against occupationally-acquired infections, to prevent environmental releases of biohazardous materials and wastes, and to ensure compliance with regulations and guidelines applicable to biological materials. The Biosafety Program consists of several components, including the Genentech Institutional Biosafety Committee, the Biosafety Manual, the Medical Surveillance Program, and the Bloodborne Pathogens Program (including Exposure Control Plan). Genentech has a comprehensive Laboratory Waste Management Guide providing detailed information and resources to laboratory personnel regarding the precise protocols for management of laboratory waste streams that may be hazardous, including radioactive waste, biohazardous waste, laboratory chemical waste, and non-chemical solid wastes. In addition, Genentech has created an Institutional Biosafety Committee and a Radiation Safety Committee to oversee compliance efforts and practices where biohazardous and radioactive materials may be used, 4.6-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials as well as a Research and Process Development EH&S Oversight Committee to oversee all EH&S issues pertaining to research laboratory and process development activities Genentech has an Injury & Illness Prevention Program, as well as a Hazard Communication Program, to ensure that employees are aware of any workplace hazards as well as the applicable hazardous materials management requirements. EH&S training courses are provided to employees based on their job duties and responsibilities pertaining to hazardous materials and/or wastes. Genentech maintains a company "intranet", on which the EH&S Department maintains all relevant company programs, procedures, standards, and general information and resources for employees. In addition to the EH&S information available on Genentech's intranet, the company maintains a database of MSDS' for chemicals used onsite that is accessible by all employees. Genentech's Health Services Department manages a Medical Surveillance Program to identify individuals' health conditions that warrant special attention for work exposures and to detect early possible effects of potentially harmful work exposure. Personal monitoring devices (such as dosimetry badges, finger rings, organic vapor monitors, sampling tubes and cartridges and direct reading instruments) are employed to conduct work area and employee monitoring. The following describe hazardous materials located or potentially located at the Genentech Campus in broad categories: general chemicals, underground storage tanks, hazardous materials sites, infrastructure (e.g., asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, and mercury), radioactive materials, and biohazardous materials. General Chemicals Many chemical materials, some hazardous, are used for research and production activities, as well as facilities maintenance, during the course of daily operations at Genentech. Virtually all of the buildings on the Genentech Campus contain commercial products (e.g., cleaners, copier toners, etc.) that could be considered "hazardous materials" under regulatory definitions. Non-household-t~~e hazardous materials used in research laboratories include chemical reagents, solvents, radioisotopes, and biohazardous substances. Process equipment may be cleaned using chemicals such as potassium hydroxide and phosphoric acid. Onsite wastewater neutralization systems may use sulfuric acid and sodium h}'droxide. Diesel fuel is used across the Genentech Campus for emergency power generators. For certain product lines, Genentech uses Tetramethylammonium chloride (TMAC) to extract medicinal proteins out of the water at the end of a production process. Some forms of TMAC waste streams are considered to be hazardous by California, but not by other jurisdictions. In terms of weight, TMAC is the largest single hazardous waste stream produced by Genentech. During 2004, Genentech produced 329 metric tons of TMAC hazardous waste as a result of using a chemical material to extract medicinal proteins from water at the end of a production process for certain product lines. Genentech's South San Francisco Campus uses alcohol-based solvent products, primarily for production cleaning purposes. These products include are alcohol wipes solution (70 percent alcohol/30 percent water) and reagent alcohol. The solvent types represented are ethanol, methanol and iso-propanol. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4,~7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Maintenance units, including grounds, custodian services, and pest management use a wide variety= of commercial products formulated with hazardous materials. These include fuels, cleaners and degreasers, sohrents, paints, lubricants, pesticides and herbicides, adhesives, and sealers. Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)/Hazardous Materials Sites The potential exists for buildings or sites that would be affected by project development to have been contaminated by hazardous substances as a result of former uses of the sites, leaks from unidentified USTs, or unidentified buried debris that could contain hazardous substances or hazardous by-products. Contaminated soils, building materials, and/or groundwater pose potential hazards to construction workers, Genentech staff, and nearby employees if not managed and remediated safely. According to the Environmental Data Resources Report, which lists whether or not any USTs occupy the proposed project site, there are either active or inactive USTs at Genentech. Additionally, the proposed project site is listed as a hazardous materials site in the Report. A more detailed discussion of this is provided below under the summary of the Environmental Data Resources Report findings. Infrastructure Asbestos Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used for years in many= building materials for its fireproofing and insulating properties. Loose insulation, ceiling panels, and brittle plaster are potential sources of friable (easily crumbled) asbestos. In addition, underground utility tunnels may also contain asbestos. Non-friable asbestos is generally bound to other materials such that it does not become airborne under normal conditions. Any activity that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during building renovation or demolition or relocation of underground utilities could release friable asbestos fibers unless proper precautions are taken. Inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, making friable materials the greatest potential health risk. Asbestos-related health problems include lung cancer and asbestosis. In accordance with Sections 25915 through 25916 of the California Health and Safety Code, a faciliry- wide inventory of locations of asbestos-containing building materials must be maintained and annual facility= -wide notification of locations containing asbestos must be provided. Appropriate signs are posted when asbestos-containing materials are disturbed during construction or renovation at facility= locations, in accordance with State and Bay Area Air Quality Management District regulations. Lead Lead is a naturally= occurring metallic element. Among its numerous uses and sources, lead can be found in paint, water pipes, solder in plumbing systems, and soils around buildings and structures painted with lead-based paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06 percent lead. Because some structures within the MEIR Study Area were constructed prior to 1978, wall surfaces and other building materials may contain lead-based paints, which can pose a risk of exposure due to chipped or peeling paint, or from renovation 4.6-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materlals or demolition of buildings or building materials that contain lead. Excessive exposure to lead (even low levels of lead) can result in the accumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) PCBs are organic chemicals, usually in the form of oil, that were formerh~ used in electrical equipment, including transformers and capacitors, primarily as electrical insulators. Some PCB-containing electrical equipment (e.g., transformers and capacitors) may still be present within the MEIR Study Area. In addition, some fluorescent light ballasts that contain PCBs could also be present in existing buildings that would be demolished or renovated under the proposed project. Nearly all ballasts manufactured prior to 1979 contain PCBs. Ballasts manufactured after July 1, 1978, which do not contain PCBs, are required to be clearly marked "No PCBs." PCBs, which are highly persistent in the environment, can cause various human health effects, including liver injury, irritation of the skin and mucous membranes, and adverse reproductive effects. PCBs are also suspected human carcinogens. In California, PCB-containing materials must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Mercury Elemental mercury is an insoluble, liquid, inorganic metal. It is commonly used in laboratory and medical equipment such as thermometers and manometers (used for measuring pressure). Other uses include electrical equipment and some water pumps. Mercury liquid evaporates very slowly if exposed to air. At certain levels of exposure, mercury vapors are toxic and can cause kidney and liver damage. It is possible that elemental mercury may be present in research laboratory sink traps, in cupboard floor spaces, or in sewer pipes if there have been any historical accidental spills or releases prior to the adoption of more stringent environmental regulations pertaining to hazardous waste disposal. If such spills or releases had occurred, exposure could result in the event of building renovation or demolition. Radioactive Materials Radioactive substances contain atoms that spontaneously emit radiation from the transformation of unstable atomic nuclei, which result in chemically different substances that may or may not be radioactive. Radioactive atoms are called "radionuclides" or "radioisotopes." Because radioactive materials emit ionizing radiation, their presence can be detected easily. Researchers and health care professionals take advantage of this ease detectabilit~~ by using radioactive materials to study various biochemical functions in animals and humans. Radiopharmaceuticals (radioisotopes or drugs containing radioisotopes) are also used in medicine and research. Limited types and quantities of radioisotopes are also used in research laboratories. All radioisotopes used on the project site are stored in sealed containers designed to prevent release of radioactive materials to the environment. Exposure to ionizing radiation can result in adverse human health effects that range from short-term mild symptoms (such as sunburn) to serious illness or death, depending upon the amount and concentration of the radioactive source and the duration of the exposure. The extent to which exposure would result in any adverse effects depends on the radioisotope and the amount and duration of exposure. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.Fr9 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls For wastes that are longer-lived, the final disposal depends on the hazard class of the low-level radioactive waste (LLRW). Genentech collects, prepares, and packages all radioactive waste for shipment and disposal. Genentech generates radioactive waste classified as Class A waste. Class A is waste that is usually segregated from other waste classes at the disposal site. Genentech uses a licensed radioactive waste broker (I'hilotechnics) to transport all radioactive waste to licensed disposal facilities. The two primary disposal facilities used by Genentech are the Energy Solutions facility in Salt Lake City, Utah and the Pecos facilit~~ located in Richland, Washington. Biohazardous Materials By statutory definition, biohazardous materials include biohazardous laboratory wastes and biologic specimens such as human or animal tissue, as defined by Section 117635 of the California Health and Safety Code. Genentech has developed programs, practices, and procedures for monitoring, routine inspection, reporting, and waste management to reduce community and worker exposure to potential hazards associated with medical wastes and biological hazards. Activities that could create biohazardous aerosols are conducted in biosafet~~ cabinets, which filter all released air to remove biohazardous materials. Biosafety cabinets are tested annually in accordance with regulatory requirements. Regulations specify that medical waste is stored in refrigerated facilities for not more than 90 days and that such waste is properly packaged and labeled. Medical waste may also be rendered noninfectious through steam sterilization. Genentech uses a medical waste transporter (e.g., Stericycle) to transport and treat all medical wastes, which are subsequently disposed of in municipal landfills. Disposal of Hazardous Materials Generated On-Site The Genentech Campus is registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a generator of hazardous waste. Genentech does not store (for longer than 90 days) or dispose of hazardous chemical waste on site. In most cases, the waste is picked up from a collection location or generator site where the recycling or disposal process for that waste is managed. Before the waste is collected, it must be packaged and labeled properly, which includes segregating incompatible materials, and placing them in appropriate sealed containers. Chemical wastes are further segregated by type, and consolidated, bulked, or compacted before a licensed hauler transports them from the Genentech Campus to permitted off-site facilities for incineration, treatment, recycling, or other disposal. Hazardous waste is disposed of at licensed disposal facilities in California and other states. While municipal landfills were once the most common destination for hazardous waste, federal (1984 Amendments to the Resource Con.rerz~atiorr and Kecover~~ Act [RCRA]) and state (Hazardous Waste Control) law now bans their use for many of the most commonly generated hazardous wastes. Alternative treatment and disposal technologies, including incineration and recycling, are now more common methods of disposing of hazardous wastes. 4.6-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazarcls and Hazardous Materials Hazardous Materials Transportation Requirements Genentech contracts with licensed hazardous waste transporters to transport hazardous wastes sent off site for treatment or disposal at licensed hazardous waste facilities. Hazardous materials are routinely transported by truck or rail. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Office of Hazardous Materials Safety=, prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as outlined in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In California, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) has the primary responsibility= for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Specifically, Section 31303 of the California Vehicle Code requires that when hazardous materials are transported on state or interstate highways, the highway (s) that offer the shortest overall transit time possible shall be used. Transportation of hazardous materials along any city or state roadways within or near the facility is subject to all hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the California Highway Patrol. Genentech's Compliance History According to Genentech's 2004 Corporate Environmental Performance Report, Genentech's South San Francisco facility' received four Notices of Violation (NOVs) during 2004 as follows: ^ One wastewater NOV was received for low pH in wastewater discharged to the sewer system. This exceedance was discovered during routine monitoring performed by Genentech. A root cause analysis was conducted, and the cause of the exceedance was determined to be improper operation of a particular piece of equipment. The users of that equipment were re-trained on proper operation and drain disposal. ^ Two wastewater NOVs were received for exceeding sulfide limits in wastewater discharged to the sewer system. These exceedances were discovered during routine monitoring by the local government. A root cause analysis was conducted, and although several potential causes were ruled out, no exact cause was conclusively determined. The facility continues to monitor for potential recurrence. ^ One air emissions NOV was received for exceedance of usage limits of soh=ent products in cleaning operations. The facility was permitted to use 23,820 pounds (lbs) in a 12 month period, and used 26,749 lbs in the period 4/1/2003 through 4/1/2004. This resulted in a fine of X1,000. The facility= evaluated its operations and concluded that the original permit limit was inadequate to meet recent expansions in production at the facility. The facility applied for and was granted a higher limit for solvent usage in its air permit. The facility also improved its system for tracking solvent usage, to prevent exceedances in the future. Hazardous Materials Summary (2005) Table 4.6-3 below outlines hazardous materials quantities utilized at the existing Genentech Campus for the year 2005. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.e-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Combustibles 345,600 lbs. 54,000 lbs. 135,200 lbs. 11,500 lbs. Flammable 37,600 lbs. 7,500 lbs. 73,700 lbs. 0 lbs. Corrosiveb 180,300 lbs. 4,300 lbs. 53,000 lbs. 0 lbs. Reactives~ 220 lbs. 15 lbs. 1,500 lbs. 0 lbs. Toxics 52,000 lbs. 1,500 lbs. 40,300 lbs. O lbs. Radioactives (Curies [Ci]) 0.01 Ci 943 Ci 2,800 Ci 0 Ci Waste Categories Hazardous Waste-Aqueousd 26,900 lbs. 20 lbs. 16,400 lbs. 0 lbs. Hazardous Waste-Flammable 3,200 lbs. 0 lbs. 38,000 lbs. 0 lbs. Hazardous Waste-Lab packe 11,100 lbs. 950 lbs. 3,900 lbs. 0 lbs. Medical Waste 3,500 lbs. 1,500 lbs. 5,0001bs. O lbs. Radioactive Wastef 700 lbs. 700 lbs. 4,100 lbs. 0 lbs. Broken Glassware Waste (Campus-Wide) 3,000 lbs. SOURCE: Harnish 2005 Liquids listed in pounds (Ibs.) assumes 1 Gallon = 10 lbs. * Materials listed with multiple hazards are subtotaled under each hazard class. For example, 1 Ib. Sodium azide would be included as 1 Ib. under both the toxic and reactive classifications. Due to this overlapping reporting, the quantities for each category cannot simply be added together to derive the total aggregate quantity of hazardous materials. The "total" row reflects the true total of materials on each campus neighborhood on any given day, without double-counting for overlapping categories. Thus, in the "total row, 1 Ib. Sodium azide would be reflected as 1 Ib. a. The combustible classification includes 50,115 gallons (501,150 lbs.) of diesel fuel in aboveground tanks used for emergency generation. b. Includes both acids and bases. c. Includes explosives, Class 3/4 Oxidizers, Class 2/3 Water Reactives, and other highly reactive materials. d. Aqueous waste typically contains 50% toxics. e. Lab-pack waste typically contains 40%toxics, 40% flammables, 15% corrosives, and 5% reactives. f. Radioactive waste is estimated from 2005 Waste Manifests totaling 5,500 lbs. for the year for all of the South San Francisco campus. It is assumed that 75% of radioactive waste is generated from the Middle Campus and the remaining waste is generated equally between the Lower and Upper Campus Labs. Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Report Environmental Data Resources (EDR) performed a records check in March 2006 of federal, state, and county hazardous waste lists compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21092.6, including, but not limited to, the Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) List, the Hazardous Waste Substance List (Cortese list), the Emergence Response Notification System (ERNS), and registered small or large hazardous waste generators. The records check was done for the approximate address of "1000 Grandview Drive", however was reviewed for the following addresses that were a part of the EIR Study Application (filed in September 2005 with the City of South San Francisco): 1 DNA Wa~~ 2. 342 Allerton Avenue 3. 410 Allerton Avenue 4. 444 Allerton Avenue 4'~~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Non-waste Materials Reported* 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5. 400-428 Grandview Drive 6. 448 Grandview Drive 7. 425 Grandview Drive 8. 560 Forbes Boulevard 9. 301 East Grand Avenue 10 .345 East Grand Avenue According to the EDR, the Genentech, Inc. property located at 460 Point San Bruno Boulevard is included on the following lists: (1) federal list of RCRA large quantity generator of hazardous wastes; (2) the California Water Resources Control Board's list for having a waste discharge system; (3) the California Facility Inventory Database, which lists active and inactive UST locations; and (4) the Air Resources Board's Emissions Inventory Data list for sites with topics and criteria pollutant air emissions. Additionally, the portion of the Genentech facility located at 1 DNA Way was listed as having registered above ground storage tanks (AST). The portion of the Genentech facility located at 1200 Grandview Drive was listed by San Mateo County as being a hazardous waste generator. Overall, the EDR Report identified the following as being located within '/s-mile of 1000 Grandview Drive: ^ 1 RCRA Large Quantity Generators (LQG) of hazardous wastes ^ 8 RCRA Small Quantity Generators (SQG) of hazardous wastes ^ 6 Emergency Response and Notification System (ERNS) sites ^ 521 Hazardous Materials Incident Report System (HRMIS) sites ^ 1 To.~zc ,SuU.rtance.r Control Act (TSCA) list ^ 9 Facility Indel System (FIS) list ^ 2 California Water Resources Control Board's list ^ 2 Cortese list ^ 3 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) list ^ 2 California Facility inventory Database (FID) for USTs ^ 4 Historical Registered UST Database ^ 3 Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System (SWEEPS) UST list ^ 6 California Hazardous Material Incident Report System ^ 23 San Mateo County Hazardous Waste Sites list ^ 14 HANET list ^ 5 Air Resources Board's Emissions Inventory Data EMl list The following three LUST cases located within '/s-mile of the proposed project site have all been closed: (1) Tornberg Enterprises located at 1776 Grandview Drive; (2) United Parcel Service located at 657 Forbes Boulevard; and (3) Yellow Freight System, Inc. located at 201 Haskins Way. More generally, based on the historical industrial use of the area, it is possible that soil and/or groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, solvents, or other industrial materials could be encountered during construction activities. ILnown historical contamination includes leaks from underground storage tanks, which have been managed effectively in accordance with regulatory requirements. Low concentrations of ammonia were discovered in soil and groundwater under a building on lower campus, for which the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a "No Further Action" letter in 2003. Naturally occurring asbestos in serpentine rock is known to be present in the middle Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls campus area, and possibly other areas on campus. If any contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered during construction, it will be managed in accordance with mitigation measure 4.6-1 and all applicable regulatory requirements Emergency Response Genentech's Emergency Response Procedures Genentech emergency response procedures are outlined in Genentech's Integrated Contingency Plan, incorporating the Core Plan: Emergency Response Procedures at Genentech's South San Francisco Site. This document outlines reporting, assessment, commencement of the Incident Command System, Plan implementation, training, clean-up, decontamination, and follow-up actions in the event of an accidental release or other emergency involving hazardous materials. This document is maintained on file at the San Mateo County Health Department-Environmental Health Division (SMCEHD). Principal responsibility for emergency response at Genentech lies with the First Alert Team (FAT). The FAT is staffed by members from the Corporate Facilities Services, Securit}~, EH&S, and Occupational Health Ser~~ices groups. South San Francisco Fire Department Emergency Response According to the City of South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), the CitS~ does not have anv specific emergency responses unique to Genentech. The SSFFD responds to emergencies based on incident type and adjusts response depending on the circumstances on the scene at the time of the incident. 4.6.2 Regulatory Framework The management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, including chemicals, radioactive materials, and biohazardous materials, is subject to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government. These laws apply to research activities, operations and maintenance work, and other activities at the Genentech site. Summaries of federal and state laws and regulations related to hazardous materials management are presented below. California law allows for certain hazardous materials regulatory programs, including those pertaining to USTs, hazardous materials storage, and hazardous materials management, to be delegated to local agencies. Federal Federal and state laws require detailed planning to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of, and, in the event that such materials are accidentally released, to prevent or to mitigate injury to health or the environment. Primary federal agencies with responsibilit~~ for hazardous materials management include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor (Federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration [OSHA]), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Major federal laws and issue areas include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated thereunder): 4.6-14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ^ Resource Conservation and Kecovery Act (RCRA) ^ Hazardous anti Solirl lYlasteAmendmentsAct (HSWA) ^ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, anti Liability Act (CERCLA) ^ .S~uperfund Amendments and Keauthori~ation Act (SARA) ^ Emergence Planning and Community Right-to-Know (SARA Title III) State Primary state agencies with jurisdiction over hazardous chemical materials management are the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Other state agencies involved in hazardous materials management are Cal/OSHA, the Department of Industrial Relations (State OSHA implementation), State Office of Emergency Services (OES-California Accidental Release Prevention implementation), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Air Resources Board (GARB), California Highway Patrol (CHP), State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA-Proposition 65 implementation) and California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Hazardous chemical and biohazardous materials management laws in California include the following statutes (and regulations promulgated there under): ^ Hazardous Waste Control Law ^ .Safe Drznking Dater ana' Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 ("Proposition 65") ^ Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Ha~ar~lous ,Substances Account Act ^ Hazardous Waste Management Planning and Facility Siting ("Tanner Act") ^ Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) ^ California Medical I~aste Management Act Local The primary local agency, known as the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), with responsibility for implementing federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials management is San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division. The Unified Program is the consolidation of six state environmental regulatory programs into one program under the authoring of a CUPA. A CUPA is a local agency that has been certified by Cal EPA to implement the six state environmental programs within the local agency's jurisdiction. This program was established under the amendments to the California Health and Safety Code made by SB 1082 in 1994. The six consolidated programs are: ^ Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory (Business Plans) ^ CaIARP ^ Hazardous Waste (including Tiered Permitting) ^ Underground Storage Tanks ^ Above Ground Storage Tanks (SPCC requirements) ^ UFC Article 80 HMMP and HMIS As the CUPA for the County of San Mateo, the San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division maintains the records regarding location and status of hazardous materials sites in the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6.15 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysts county and administers programs that regulate and enforce the transport, use, storage, manufacturing, and remediation of hazardous materials. By designating a CUPA, San Mateo County has accurate and adequate information to plan for emergencies and/or disasters and to plan for public and firefighter safety. A Participating Agency (PA) is a local agency that has been designated by the local CUPA to administer one or more Unified Programs within their jurisdiction on behalf of the CUPA. The City of South San Francisco Fire Department maintains a special program that regulates hazardous materials through disclosure and risk management plans as well as above ground storage tank referral in cooperation with the County of San Mateo. Thus, the City of South San Francisco Fire Department is a PA with the San Mateo Count}' Health Department, Environmental Health Division as the CUPA. Regulations Medical Waste Regulations The United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health prescribe containment and handling practices for use in microbiological, biomedical, and animal laboratories. All Genentech laboratories follow the mandated hygienic practices. Based on the potential for transmitting biological agents, the rate of transmission of these agents, and the quality and concentrations of biological agents produced at a laboratory, Biosafety Levels are defined 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. Federal and state laws, such as the Animal lYlelfare Act, specifyT standards for record keeping and the registration, handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals. Such laws are enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Department of Health Services (DHS). Further, Genentech programs, practices, and procedures previously described for monitoring, routine inspection, reporting, and waste management have been developed to reduce potential community and worker exposure to hazards associated with the use of animals in research. Medical wastes must be managed as a biohazardous material, in accordance with Section 117635 of the California Health and Safety Code. The management of biohazardous materials must comply with USDHHS guidelines and DHS regulations pertaining to such materials. Biohazardous medical waste is generally regulated in the same manner as hazardous waste, except that special provisions apply to storage, disinfection, containment, and transportation. The DHS Medical Waste Management Program enforces the Medical baste ManagementAct and related regulations. 4.6-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Radioactive Materials Regulations The Ato~reic Eraer~~ Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 2011-2259) (AEA) ensures the proper management of source, special nuclear, and by-product material. The AEA, and the statutes that amended it, delegate the control of nuclear energ~~ primarily to the Department of Energ}~, the Nuclear Regulator~~ Commission, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The California Radiation Control Law (California Health & Safety Code Sections 1 1 4960-1 1 4985) 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. The program regulates sources of ionizing radiation and establishes procedures for performance of certain regulatory responsibilities with respect to the use and regulation of radiation sources. 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 general public from radiation hazards. The use of radioactive materials 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 radioactivit}~ 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. Operational and Disposal Regulations Worker Safety The California Occupational Safett~ and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration are the agencies responsible for ensuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. In California, Cal/OSHA assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing standards for safe workplaces and work practices. Hazardous Waste Handling Cal-EPA and DTSC regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste under RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law. Both laws impose "cradle-to-grave" regulatory systems for handling hazardous waste in a manner designed to protect human health and the environment. Asbestos Regulations The Clean Air Act regulates asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant, ~~hich subjects it to regulation by BAAQMD under its Regulation 11, Rule 2. OSHA also regulates asbestos as a potential worker safett~ hazard. These rules and regulations prohibit emissions of asbestos from demolition or construction activities, require medical examinations and monitoring of emplo}'ees engaged in activities that could Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Matysis disturb asbestos, mandate precautions and safe work practices to reduce the potential for release of asbestos fibers, and require notice to federal and local government agencies prior to renovation or demolition activities that could disturb asbestos. Lead Regulations Because of its toxic properties, lead is regulated as a hazardous material. Lead is also regulated as a toxic air contaminant. State-certified contractors must perform inspection, testing, and removal (abatement) of lead-containing building materials in compliance with applicable health and safety and hazardous materials regulations. Hazardous Materials Transportation The USDOT prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including requirements for hazardous waste containers and licensed haulers who transport hazardous waste on public roads. Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents California has developed an Emergency Response Plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local government and private entities. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one component of this plan. The State Office of Emergency Services administers the plan, which coordinates the responses of other agencies, including Cal-EPA, CHP, California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RW'QCB), and the Radiologic Health Branch of the DHS. Genentech will continue to implement the plan at the site, in cooperation with the South San Francisco Fire Department. 4.6.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Methodology The analysis in this section focuses on the use, generation, disposal, transport, or management of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials at the Genentech Campus. The volume of hazardous waste generated by various Genentech activities is quantified for the year 2005, as described in Table 4.6-3. Disposal options, the probability for risk of upset, and the severity of consequences to people or property associated with the increased use, handling, transport, and/or disposal of hazardous materials associated with implementation of the proposed project are analyzed. In order to determine if implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in development of a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites, EIP staff reviewed the EDR Report. 4,~~,g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials if the project would result in any of the following: ^ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. ^ Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions invoking the release of hazardous materials into the environment. ^ Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. ^ Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. ^ For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. ^ For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. ^ Impair implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. ^ Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Impact 4.6-1 Implementation of the proposed 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). This is considered aless- than-significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project will result in the development of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials. While the amount and type of hazardous materials may vary over time with changes in research and additions to hazardous materials lists, the general range and type of hazardous materials used on-site is not expected to substantially change upon implementation of the project. Genentech will continue to use materials, some of which are considered hazardous, during the course of daily operations. These hazardous materials include many of the inorganic and organic chemicals, chemical reagents and reaction products, solvents, mercury, lead, asbestos, radioisotopes, biohazards, fuels, oils, paints, cleansers, and pesticides that are currently used in laboratory research, building and grounds maintenance and vehicle Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.Fr19 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis maintenance. In addition, the proposed project would result in an increase in the number of individuals that work and visit the facility, which would increase the number of individuals potentially exposed to hazardous materials. The individuals most at risk due to increased hazardous materials use associated with implementation of the proposed project would be those employees who work at locations where hazardous materials are found, such as laboratories, production and maintenance facilities, or construction sites. Whether a person exposed to a hazardous substance at one of these locations would suffer adverse health effects depends upon a complex interaction of factors to determine the effects of exposure to hazardous materials: the exposure pathway (the route by which a hazardous material enters the body); the amount of material to which the person is exposed; the ph}'sical form (e.g., liquid, vapor) and characteristics (e.g., toxicity) of the material; the frequency and duration of exposure; and the individual's unique biological characteristics, such as age, gender, weight, and general health. Adverse health effects from exposure to hazardous materials may be short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic). Acute effects can include damage to organs or systems in the body and possibly death. Chronic effects, which may result from long-term exposure to a hazardous material, can also include organ or systemic damage, but chronic effects of particular concern include birth defects, genetic damage, and cancer. Off-site hazardous materials exposure would only reasonably occur through limited circumstances such as accidental spill or release during transport or use. Use of Chemical Materials State, federal, and local regulations and Genentech programs, practices, and procedures, including the use of safety equipment, ensures that the potential for worker and/or public exposure to hazardous materials from improper or unsafe activities, or from accidents, is less than significant, as demonstrated in the following discussion. To reduce the potential for exposure to airborne chemicals, workers 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 the possible harmful affects of chemicals. Laboratory fume hoods are generally a box- like structure open on one side. Air is drawn through the fume hood and discharged to an exterior exhaust system through the roof of the facility. In addition, some fume hoods are equipped with air cleaning devices. Proper use of fume hoods keeps indoor laboratory toxic air contaminants below the suggested guidelines of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (Threshold Limit Values) and OSHA legal limits (Permissible Exposure Levels). To prevent exposure through skin contact, Genentech requires that protective clothing, such as laboratory coats, gloves, and safety glasses be worn while handling hazardous materials. In addition, 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 an individual to be 4.6-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazanis and Hazardous Materfals exposed to a hazardous material, required emergency equipment, including fire extinguishers, eyewashes, and safety showers, are also available. Cal/OSHA requires all institutions that use hazardous materials to implement a Hazard Communication Program and 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 procedures are consistently followed. Genentech will continue to implement these (or equivalent) programs, practices, and procedures and, as needed, these programs could be expanded. 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. Use of Radioactive Materials Radioactive materials use at Genentech is monitored to ensure consistency with the requirements of the radioactive materials license, which articulates standards to maintain exposure levels below applicable legal standards, thereby protecting users of radioactive materials. 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, which would reduce the likelihood for accidental exposure through improper handling techniques. Furthermore, 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 will not be exposed to potential sources of radiation until the monitor indicates that safett~ levels can be maintained. In accordance with strict regulatory guidelines, Genentech collects, prepares, and packages its radioactive waste which is then transported by Philotechnics to a regulated radioactive waste disposal facility. The two primary disposal facilities used by Genentech are the Energy Solutions facility in Salt Lake Cit<~, Utah and the Pecos facility located in Richland, Washington. Genentech's programs, practices, and procedures for handling radioactive materials in compliance with all established regulatory requirements would ensure that the potential for significant health and safety hazards remains less than signif2cant. Use of Biohazardous Materials In handling biohazardous materials, Genentech follows guidelines promulgated by the USDHHS 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. Biosafery Level 1 agents pose minimal or ~no known Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.fr21 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls potential hazard 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 more substantial risks, and work with these agents must be conducted in contained facilities for which air flow is directed into the laboratory and access is controlled separately from public areas. Occupational and public safety is protected by selecting the appropriate biological and physical containment levels for each biological material handled. As discussed in "Use of Chemical Materials," standard microbiological practices, such as limiting facility access, washing hands after handling, decontaminating work surfaces, wearing gloves and other safety equipment, using biosafety cabinets, and proper disposal, reduce risks resulting from exposure to biohazardous materials. Current state testing, monitoring, and disposal regulations and EH&S programs pertaining to the management of biohazardous materials, including infectious agents, would further ensure that the risks associated with the use of biohazardous substances remain less than signaf2eant. Disposal of Hazardous Materials Genentech disposes of hazardous wastes in compliance with Titles 8, 14, 17, and 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which ensures that impacts remain less than significant. Spent hazardous materials generated on a daily basis in research, production, and maintenance facilities are placed in special containers and are kept in ventilated accumulation areas out of normal use patterns. These hazardous wastes are collected and accumulated in designated, 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 Integrated Contingency Plan. Biohazardous wastes are managed in the same way, though separately. Radioactive waste is collected, prepared, and packaged by Genentech, then transported by a radioactive waste broker to a licensed radioactive waste disposal facility. Summary While the proposed project would result in the development of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as a limited increase in the average population that could be exposed to hazardous materials risks, compliance with Genentech programs, practices, and procedures and safety standards related to the use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes, and the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (RCRA, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and principles prescribed by the USDHS would ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than significant. In addition, safety programs reduce the risk of exposure to biohazardous and chemical hazardous materials by establishing protocols to safely handle and store hazardous substances, which ensures that a less-than-significant impact would occur. Genentech ensures that their facilities are in compliance with 4.Fr22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials the California Code of Regulations (Title 17) and conditions of the radioactive materials license, and the utilization of radiation use authorizations and ongoing training regarding radiation safety also reduce the risks from radiation-related use or disposal on-site, thereby ensuring that ales-than-significant impact would occur. In addition, the CHP and USDOT strictly regulate hazardous materials transportation to and from the site. Although implementation of the proposed project would expose more people to potential hazards, safety procedures mandated by federal and state laws and regulations, as previously described, as well as the continuation of existing (or equivalent) Genentech programs, practices, and procedures would 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. As part of implementation of the proposed project, federal 'and state law, as well as all Genentech procedures for handling hazardous wastes, would be extended to all new facilities developed under the proposed project. The potential impact of increased hazardous chemical, radioactive material, and biohazardous material use at Genentech would remain less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 4.6-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not 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. This is considered aless-than- significantimpact. Demolition of existing buildings could release hazardous materials if lead-based paint or asbestos- containing materials are present in the structure(s). Any activit~~ that involves cutting, grinding, or drilling during building renovation or demolition, or relocation of underground utilities, could release friable asbestos fibers and/or lead dust unless proper precautions are taken. As noted in Section 4.6.3 (Existing Conditions), all applicable federal and state rules and regulations must be followed when asbestos- containing materials are disturbed during construction or renovation. The notification of federal and local government agencies is required prior to beginning any renovation or demolition that could disturb asbestos, as well as the use of precautions and safe work practices to eliminate or reduce the potential for release of asbestos fibers, and medical examinations and monitoring of employees engaged in activities that could disturb asbestos. Similarly, there are programs directed at reducing lead exposure to a less- than-significant level through education, inspection, testing, and removal. Genentech has a comprehensive asbestos management program that includes regular surveys, annual notifications, and signage in appropriate locations, as well as making information regarding the locations of asbestos on its campus available to all employees through the company's Intranet. Buildings demolished during construction activities could also contain biohazardous materials, including medical wastes. Genentech's programs, practices, and procedures and current state testing, monitoring, and disposal regulations pertaining to the management of biohazardous materials, including medical waste, eliminate or reduce the potential for biohazardous substances to be present in fixtures or building materials removed during demolition. In addition, the 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 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls demolition. Compliance with federal and state health and safety laws and regulations, as well as following existing (or equivalent) Genentech programs, practices, and procedures, would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. No mitigation is required. Threshold Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impact 4.6-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. The precise increase in the amount of hazardous materials transported to or from the Genentech facility as a result of implementation of the 2006 FMPU cannot be definitivel}~ predicted due to varying research needs over time, which cannot be anticipated as part of this programmatic document, and changes in the classification of hazardous materials. Nonetheless, the following discussion focuses on the potential nature and magnitude of risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials typically used on site. Off-Site Transportation of Hazardous Materials While Genentech programs, practices, and procedures specifically govern receipt of hazardous materials at Genentech, 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. 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). The transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. Licensed vendors bring hazardous materials to and from the Genentech facility, and manifests are completed and maintained by Genentech for all hazardous waste that is transported in connection with Genentech activities. The DTSC also maintains copies of Genentech's waste manifests. In conformance with legal requirements, incoming radioactive material is monitored and recorded for each acquisition. Genentech's Shipping & Receiving Department processes and delivers all incoming radioactive materials to users. Hazardous waste shipments could occur as frequently as several times per week, barring unusual circumstances, such as laboratory demolition. As previously mentioned, Section 31303 of the California Code of Regulations requires that when hazardous materials are transported on state or interstate highways, the highway(s) that offer the shortest overall transit time possible shall be used, and as required by federal and state laws, all other all hazardous materials transportation regulations must be followed, such as 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 4,24 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazanis and Hazardous Materials Genentech programs, practices, and procedures related to the transportation of hazardous materials will continue to reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents during transit, thereby ensuring that aless- than-significant impact would occur. On~ite Transportation of Hazardous Materials In addition to transport of hazardous materials to and from the Genentech facility, the movement of hazardous materials also occurs among Genentech facilities (within buildings, from room to room, within hallways, and up and down stairwells and elevators). Accidents could occur as these materials are moved about the facilit~~, and exposure of employees could occur through fire or explosion. Genentech's various business units exercise appropriate practices to prevent against the risks of accidental spills or releases of hazardous materials during internal transfers and movement of these materials. If a spill occurs, the Genentech First Alert Team (FAT) would be immediately notified. If required, the area of potential affect would be isolated and evacuated as appropriate in accordance with the Integrated Contingency Plan to reduce the potential for human exposure and to allow for prompt and effective cleanup by the Genentech FAT, an emergency response contractor, or the appropriate regulatory agency. The consequences of spills as a result of a fall or dropping a container would depend on whether the hazardous material was released, the specific hazards associated with the material, the facility design, and the availabilit~~ of emergency response equipment. In addition to health impacts associated with direct contact from an accidental spill, indirect impacts could also occur. Spills that occur on permeable surfaces may be difficult to decontaminate and ma~~ require complete removal of the surface. In areas without adequate ventilation, including partially enclosed outdoor areas, such as walkways, stairwells, or courtyards, vapors from released volatile materials could be trapped in stagnant air pockets, and persons entering these areas after such a spill could be subject to health hazards associated with such vapors. In these instances, all individuals would be evacuated from the affected area until the vapors dissipate to safe levels as determined by the Genentech FAT. To reduce the likelihood and severit<~ of accidents during on-site transit, all applicable federal and state laws and existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures related to the transportation or cleanup of hazardous materials (in the event of an accidental release) will continue to be implemented to ensure that aless-than-significant impact would occur. These laws, regulations, programs, practices, and procedures include training regarding the handling of hazardous wastes and fully developed emergency response programs. In summary, Genentech facility plans outline the procedures to follow in case of an emergency involving hazardous materials. Hazardous Materials Storage Most hazardous materials stored on-site present little risk of upset. Hazardous materials are stored in laboratories in designated secured areas designed to prevent accidental release to the environment. Hazardous materials used for research are generally stored in laboratories in small, individual containers. In the unlikelti~ event of an accidental release, these small storage volumes limit potential consequences to the individual laborator~~ in which they are stored. Compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures related to the storage of hazardous materials Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.Fr25 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts will continue to be implemented to maximize containment (through safe handling and storage practices described above) and to provide for prompt and effective clean-up if an accidental release occurs, thereby ensuring that aless-than-significant impact would occur. Hazardous Materials Use Hazardous materials use would present a slightly greater risk of accident than hazardous materials storage. However, for those employees that work with hazardous materials, the amount of hazardous materials that are handled at any one time is relatively small, reducing the potential consequences of an accident during handling. Further, Genentech would continue to comply with federal and state laws and existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures to eliminate or reduce the consequence of hazardous materials accidents. For example, staff who work around hazardous materials will continue to wear appropriate protective equipment, and safety equipment is routinely available in all areas where hazardous materials are used. Major hazardous materials accidents are extremely infrequent, and additional emergency response capabilities are not anticipated to be necessary to respond to the potential incremental increase in the number of incidents that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Continued compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, and handling of hazardous waste, as well as following Genentech programs, practices, and procedures, would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. No mitigation is required. Impact 4.6-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant risk of exposure of Genentech employees and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater. Implementation of mitigation measure, MM 4.6-1 would ensure this impact remains less than significant. While some Genentech facilities are included on lists and databases compiled by applicable federal, state, and local agencies pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, these sites consist of registered active or inactive USTs and hazardous materials storage locations, rather than contaminated sites (e.g., soil or groundwater). All on-site USTs conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations and are registered and permitted by the SSFFD. In the event that USTs are uncovered or disturbed, they would be closed in place or removed. While removal could pose health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, tank handling personnel, and the public to tank contents or vapors, the potential risks, if any, would be reduced by managing the tank according to established guidelines for investigation and closure of USTs, as well as cleanup of sites contaminated by leaking USTs, to ensure that aless-than-significant impact would occur. Based on the historical industrial use of the area, it is possible that soil and/or groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, solvents, or other industrial materials could be encountered during construction activities. Known historical contamination includes leaks from underground storage tanks, which have been managed effectively in accordance with regulatory requirements. Low concentrations of ammonia were discovered in soil and groundwater under a building on lower campus, for which the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a "No Further Action" letter in 2003. Naturally occurring 4.6-26 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials asbestos in serpentine rock is known to be present in the middle campus area, and may be present in other locations as well. It is possible that contamination could exist in localized areas as the result of pesticide or herbicide use during routine landscape/turf maintenance practices or in association with the removal or disturbance of older underground utilities or unidentified buried debris. The use of pesticides is governed by the State Department of Pesticide Regulation. With respect to other potential sources of soil contamination, such as underground utilities or other unidentified buried debris, specific procedures would be followed in the unlikely event that contaminated soil is discovered during construction activities to ensure that the risk of exposure to Genentech employees or construction workers remains less than significant. If required during construction activities, dewatering could result in the withdrawal of contaminated groundwater. If the groundwater contains contaminants above regulatory levels, the water could present a hazard to people or the environment unless properly managed. However, contractors would implement best management practices during construction dewatering to avoid exposure of Genentech employees or construction workers to potentially contaminated groundwater, such as groundwater testing, containment of contaminated groundwater in storage tanks for subsequent treatment and/or disposal, and/or the provision of release response information. In addition, subject to Section 13263 of the California Water Code, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issues Waste Discharge Requirements to control discharges (including groundwater) to land or water, and MM 4.6-1 would require that Genentech follow specific procedures in the unlikely event that contaminated groundwater is discovered during construction activities to ensure that the risk of exposure to Genentech employees or construction workers remains less than signif cant. The following mitigation measure shall be implemented throughout the proposed project planning horizon: MM 4.6-7 I~hile not expected to occur on-.rite, if contaminated .roil and/or groun~lia~ater i.r encouratered during the removal of on-,rite debris or during excavations and/or grading activities, the construction contractor(s) shall stop work and immediately inform the appropriate Genentech representative. An on-site assessment shall be conducted to determine if the discovered materials pose a significant risk to the public or construction workers. If the materials are determined to pose such a risk, a remediation plan shall be prepared and submitted to comply with applicable legal requirements to assure the proper handling and management of contarreinated soil and/or debris, and the protection of human health and the environment for the new building. ,Soil remediation methods could include, but are not necessarily limited to, excavation and on-site treatment, excavation and off-site treatment or disposal, and/or treatment aanthout excavation. Kemediation alternatives for cleanup of contaminated groundwater could include, but are not necessarily limited to, on-site treatrreent, extraction and off-site treatment, and/or disposal. The construction schedule shall be modified or delayed to ensure that construction will not inhibit remediation activities and will not expose the public or construction workers to sign fcant risks associated with hazardous conditions. Following MM 4.6-1 would ensure that this impact remains Zess than significant by providing specific procedures to follow in the event that contaminated soil and/or groundwater is discovered. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR q,.6-27 Chapter 4 Env-ronmental Anatysls Threshold Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Impact 4.6-5 The proposed project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. There would be no impact. There are no existing schools within one-quarter mile of the MEIR Study Area. There are existing and planned child centers within the MEIR Study Area, but no schools. The MEIR Study Area is located in an area zoned for industrial uses onl}'. Thus, no school can be proposed within one-quarter mile of the MEIR Study Area. There would be no impact. No mitigation is required. Threshold Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Impact 4.6-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in construction of facilities on a site containing hazardous materials, and thus would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Following MM 4.6-1 would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. The EDR Report identifies the locations of known hazardous materials sites on-site based upon a review of federal, state, and county hazardous waste lists and databases pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The lists and databases include, but are not limited to, the Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List), the Kesource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database, and the California Hazardous Material Incident Report System (CHMIRS). These lists and databases contain information about asbestos waste, underground storage tanks, photoprocessing chemicals, PCBs, unspecified solvent and organic mixture wastes, unspecified aqueous solution, metal sludge, other hazardous materials monitored by statute or regulation, known releases of hazardous substances, and locations where radioactive or other hazardous materials are stored or used. There are no listed contaminated soil or groundwater sites on-site; however, there are on-site active or inactive USTs included on the lists and databases, as well as locations where hazardous materials are stored and/or used. These USTs conform to applicable federal, state, and local regulations and are registered and permitted by the SSFFD. If future UST-related cleanup were determined to be necessary, all work would be performed in accordance with appropriate guidelines of the regional Underground Storage Tank Program. All non-UST hazardous waste storage locations are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, such as RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, as well as with all existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures described in Section 4.6.3 (Existing Conditions) and Section 4.6.4 (Regulatory Framework). Following MM 4.6-1 would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. No mitigation is required. 4,6..28 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impact 4.6-7 The proposed project is located within an airport land use plan; however, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. There would be no impact. The MEIR Stud}' Area is located within two miles of the SFIA. Both the existing and the proposed Genentech R&D Overla}~ District areas are within the San Francisco International Airport Flight Zone and are subject to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport Height Limits established in the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Plan. In addition to FAA standards, the 2006 FMPU keeps a maximum building height limitation of 150 feet above ground level on buildings within the MEIR Study Area, which is in compliance with the FAA standards. There would be no impctet. No mitigation is required. Threshold For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impact 4.6-8 The proposed project is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. There would be no impact. No private airstrips are located in the vicinit}' of the MEIR Study Area. There would be no impact. No mitigation is required. Threshold Impair implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impact 4.6-9 Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.6-2(a) and 4.6-2(b) would ensure this impact remains less than significant. Construction and operation activities associated with development under the proposed project could potentially affect emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access on-site. However, through implementation of MM 4.6-2(a), multiple emergency access or evacuation routes would be provided on-site to ensure that in the event one roadway or travel lane is temporarily blocked, another may be utilized. Furthermore, ongoing coordination between Genentech and local agencies pursuant to MM 4.6-2(b) would ensure that roadway or travel lane closures will be coordinated with emergency response personnel to ensure that individual development projects under the 2006 FMPU would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, emergency response and evacuation efforts. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis The following mitigation measures shall be implemented throughout the 2006 FMPU planning horizon: MM 4.6-2(a~ 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 tra~c signal, signal carizers (i. e., flagpersons), or other appropriate tra~ic controls 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. MM 4.6-2(b~ To enslere adequate access for emergency vehicles when construction projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures, the project applicant shall consult with the .South .S'arr Francisco Police and Fire Departments to disclose temporary lane or roadway closures and alternative travel routes. Following MM 4.6-2(a) and MM 4.6-2(b) ensures that impacts associated with emergency response or evacuation would remain less than significant by providing multiple emergency access or evacuation routes and coordinating roadway or travel lane closures with emergency response personnel. Threshold Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including where wild lands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wild lands. Impact 4.6-10 The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires. There would be no impact. The MEIR Study Area is highly developed, and no wildlands are intermixed within this urbanized area. The MEIR Study Area is bordered by developed land to the north, east, and south. To the west is the San Francisco Bay. No wildlands are directly adjacent to the MEIR Study Area. The closest wildlands area, San Bruno Mountain Count}' Park, is located approximately one mile away. There would be no impact. No mitigation is required. 4.6.4 References Dyett & Bhatia, 2005. Draft Genentech Central Campus Ten-~ ear EIK Study, November. Environmental Data Resources. Inc. 2006. EDR Historical Topographic Map Report, y ears 1913 through 1993, March 22. . 2006. The EDK Aerial Photo Decade Package, Years 1946 through 1998, March 22. . 2006. The EDR-City Directory Abstract, years 1990 through 2005, March 23. 2006. The EDK Radius Map with GeoCheck, March 22. Genentech. n.d. Core Plan: Emergence Response Procedures at Genentech's South S'an Francisco .S'ite. . 2004. Genentech's Corporate Environmental Performance Report. http://www.gene.com/gene/about/environmental/pdf/environ-report.pdf, Accessed March 2006. 4.6-30 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials . 2006. Website: http://www.gene.com. Accessed March 2006. Harnish, Jim. 2005. Written communication from Mintier & Associates to EIP Associates, Memorandum dated December 22. Marshall, heith. 2006. E-mail communication between City of South San Francisco Fire Department and EIP Associates, March 3. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.6-31 4.7 Transportation and Clr~culatfon 4.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This section describes the existing transportation and circulation facilities and services in the vicinity of the MEIR Study Area and describes whether implementation of the proposed project would have' the potential to cause adverse impacts to existing and future transportation and traffic conditions. One comment letter related to transportation and circulation vas received from the California Public Utilities Commission regarding Rail Safety in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of the MEIR. 4.7.1 Existing Conditions This section provides an assessment of existing conditions (as of December 2005) in the MEIR Study Area, including a description of the street and highway system, existing traffic conditions, operating conditions of the selected study intersections, transit service, and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Roadway Network The MEIR Study Area would be served primarily by Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, with connections to Gull Drive, Forbes Boulevard, and Grandview Drive. Regional access would be provided by US 101. Figure 4.7-1 displays the existing roadway network in the vicinit<~ of the MEIR Study Area, as well as the intersections studied in this traffic analysis. Figure 4.7-2 displays the freeway mainline segments studied in this traffic analysis. Regional Access Regional access to and from the MEIR Study Area is provided primarily by US 101. In the vicinity of the project, US 101 is an eight-lane freeway, with auxiliary lanes north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard in the northbound direction, and in the southbound direction north of Oyster Point Boulevard. US 101 is a major north/south highway through the state of California, extending from San Francisco to Los Angeles. US 101 sere=es as a major commuter route between San Francisco and South Bay/Peninsula. In the vicinity of the MEIR Study Area, US 101 has southbound on-ramps from Dubuque Avenue and Produce Avenue, and off-ramps to Oyster Point Boulevard, Miller Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. Access to and from northbound US 101 is provided with on-ramps from Dubuque Avenue, Airport Boulevard, and South Airport Boulevard, and off-ramps to Dubuque Avenue, East Grand Avenue, and South Airport Boulevard. Average daily traffic along US 101 in the MEIR Study Area is approximately 200,000 vehicles.s ~ Caltrans 2005 Traffic T'olunrer on California Higlnvay.r (Cakrans 2005). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Local Access Oyster Point Boulevard is a two- to six-lane arterial running in the east/west direction. Serving as a connector to US 101, this roadway is the primary source of local access to and from the northern portion of the MEIR Study Area. In the City of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan), Oyster Point Boulevard is classified as a major arterial between US 101 and Marina Boulevard and as minor arterial west of Marina Boulevard. Within the MEIR Study Area, Oyster Point Boulevard has six lanes west of Gateway Boulevard, four lanes between Gateway and Marina Boulevards, and two lanes east of Marina Boulevard. Bicycle lanes are provided in both directions along the length of this roadway. Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane arterial running in a north/south direction. This roadway serves as a primary linkage between Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue. South of Mitchell Avenue, Gateway Boulevard merges with South Airport Boulevard. In the General Plan, Gateway Boulevard is classified as a major arterial. Grand Avenue runs across the City of South San Francisco in an east/west direction. Grand Avenue is a six-lane arterial east of Airport Boulevard, and a two lane arterial west of Airport Boulevard. To the east of US 101, Grand Avenue is called East Grand Avenue. This roadway serves as one of the two connectors providing access in South San Francisco between areas east and west of US 101. This roadway also functions as a primary commuter route for the East of 101 Area. According to the General Plan, Grand Avenue is classified as a major arterial to the east of US 101 and as a minor arterial to the west of US 101. Airport Boulevard is a four-lane arterial running along the west side of US 101 in a north/south direction. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard merges with Produce Avenue. In the General Plan, Airport Boulevard is classified as a major arterial. East Grand Avenue is a four- to six-lane arterial running across the City of South San Francisco in an east/west direction. This roadway serves as one of the two connectors providing access in South San Francisco between areas east and west of US 101. To the west of US 101, East Grand Avenue is called Grand Avenue and the connection across US 101 is provided by the East Grand Avenue over-crossing. This roadway also functions as a primary commuter route for the East of 101 Area, and provides the primary access to and from the southern portion of the MEIR Study Area. East Grand Avenue has six lanes between the US 101 northbound off-ramp and the East Grand Avenue over-crossing, and four lanes extending east from the East Grand Avenue over-crossing. According to the General Plan, East Grand Avenue is classified as a major arterial to the east of US 101 and as a minor arterial to the west of US 101. San Mateo Avenue is a two-lane roadway running across the City of South San Francisco in a north/south direction. San Mateo Avenue travels from Airport Boulevard near US 101 in the north to State Route 82 (El Camino Real) in the City of San Bruno to the south. 4,7.2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~. i--~-i w ~ '~A ~, ~i • o '`~ III , ,I -1 ~i •~ ~~ ~~` • N ~,b r ~~0~ ~ M s~ ~ ~`~, ~'$ i ~ ~vr ~5, r r l~ I / 1 I ' `~ _ '~ '1 `~ ~~.. o, ,1 ~ ~ ~,\ v a ~ I o u a ~ d v ' °~' ~' r_n 3 ~ ~ 3 s ~ v a ~ 'c ~ L ~ ~ u ,i ~ a °' o C v ~ C G N v a c v c Q ~ v l7 ~ l7 ~~ _~J ~ ~~ d on o0 c c c v a O m m ~ v v ~ c b O O J U a~i s .c ~ C V V ~ T u N C ~ C C ~ ~ G1 GJ ~ ~ C OJ 61 ~ ~_ ~ C7 U ° w a 0 1'7 ~1 O :~ 0 m 0 0 U 3~V t.3IMS N N r ~ • oa~aisvw.aoeavH ;~ ~ ~,-_ • M N ~ i, r a~b ~4 o • • ~~ -/ r • ~ • ~ • ~ 0 :~ U O J a C 0 C 0 V d ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~, ~ ~ ~ N C m ~I~ E U m r C N 3 0 0 0 ice' i~ ~ ~-~ i~ i i r~ . ` '~M -_r: "Yv I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 en~~no . ~ / t( ~ ~~b ~ '"p. \~. 1 ~ ~a ~~ 1 1 1 f~~~l 1 ~~; 1 1 t 1 1 1 /' 1 ~~~; `~Nr;b~ _ ~ ~~ ~i LEGEND ~lrrMb glut ~? ~~ Mainline Locations ~~ ~~© :. ~~ , l"-"1 BtNSbane ~~ 2*B}YCt C~ ~~ San 8re~rAZa Alit~tizniaSn St~de ;'ark -~ :±' ~brFa ~~d~t ~kY Cs `Q~ s~ ~o ~t`S~de 8t~,d . y i cry ~~ ~~~~ac~ q ~~ ~~~ ,„ to ~„ ~ PS ~ /~~ J -'» ~iC~Yi $~#~II ~'~r~. ¢i ~ .. ~'U#(1t Ci{yt't 4~+~ er ,~ P ~`k x 5 ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~~? 4`t ~ 4t1~ ~~ ~ e aye pie ~~' ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ dill ~ L`' ~ `U` ~~~~~'~VC? ~~~~~` ~ F4'7i1C1 CD 'tQ1 ~ ~Cit~S B~VC1 ~r,~j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~Qt ~" ~btlftlg ~ ~` Avg ~ ~ ~~~'~rY .8` ~°~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~Yf~ir ~ q (_ s e } 4:~~~ ~ ~ ~ tP ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~a~1a1 ~~ ~ ~'~ ~` Y c ~~'.~ rs Swift Ave ~~:~ ~F~a~c~;~ ,~ ~~,a ~ ~. -~ ~ ~' ~ r ~ ~ ~"~ ^ ~,~ GJ ,~ ~y ~~ t ~ 2+ . C ~ „J .1 ~ ~~ ~ t~ ~ ~54.~ Lti~ / Y q1~': . ~ ~ ~ ~t C~ ~~, St,aw ~r~ ~ ~~ ~~~ dE ~ ~~. ~; G ` ~. 82~ ~~ ~'~ . _ VNatn~t St y ~~' co ~ <, :~ ~ cs; San Sruno ~ ~~ ~ ~ fi San Bruno Avg E ,_,d~ `~~ ~, ,. ~,' Psi ~ ~ ~~ Y' ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 -r•nSti ~3~ ~ 0 mi 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 ~ Acs~ss C2d .,'r`is2;'(fdCwiS~^3:i :"!'7h~t~.::,.~.'I?C4ft San Francisco FIGURE 4.7-2 Scale In Miles Study Mainline Locations E T P .~...~ .... ......... 1 11717-00 Source: Microsoft Streets and Trip, basemap, 2006; EIP Associates, 2006 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway traveling from the Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue/Produce Avenue intersection in the north near US 101 to the San Bruno Avenue East/North McDonnell Road in the south. Most of South Airport Boulevard runs parallel to US 101 near its northbound lanes Dubuque Avenue is a two- to four-lane roadway running east of and almost parallel to US 101 in a north/south direction. Extending from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard, this roadway functions as a connector street for the traffic traveling between US 101 and Oyster Point Boulevard. Dubuque Avenue has two lanes south of the Dubuque Avenue/US 101 Ramps and four lanes north of this location. According to the General Plan, Dubuque Avenue is classified as a collector. Sister Cities Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway, extending from the Hillside Boulevard Extension at Hillside Boulevard to Airport Boulevard. Sister Cities Boulevard follows an east/west course and connects the Genentech site near US 101 to Colma, allowing vehicles to bypass the residential neighborhoods of South San Francisco. Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway following an east/west course on the east side of South San Francisco. Forbes Boulevard extends from East Grand Avenue in the west to DNA Way at its east end. Miller Avenue is a two-lane local roadway running in an east/west direction, extending from Chestnut Avenue in the west to Airport Boulevard in the east. The eastern end of Miller Avenue is also the location of the US 101 southbound off-ramp. Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane roadway running in an east/west direction. Mitchell Avenue connects Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard in the west to Harbor Way in the east. Gull Road is a two-lane local roadway running in a north/south direction. This roadway connects the Genentech site with Oyster Point Boulevard. The General Plan classifies this roadway as Other Street (Local Street). Allerton Avenue is a two-lane local roadway running in a north/south direction. This roadway connects Forbes Boulevard on the north with East Grand Avenue on the south. Grandview Drive is a two-lane local roadway, cutting through the Genentech site and winding a primarily east/west course. Grandview Drive stretches from East Grand Avenue in the west and becomes DNA Wa~> at its eastern end. DNA Way is a two-lane local street, running from Forbes Boulevard on the northeast to where it becomes Grandview Drive at its western end. 4.7-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Circulation Study Intersections A total of nineteen intersections were evaluated within and surrounding the MEIR Study Area as part of the traffic analysis conducted for this proposed project (Figure 4.7-1). The study area intersections include the following: 1. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard; 2. Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 Ramps; 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue; 4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard; 5. Ouster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive; 6. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard; 7. Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue; 8. Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp; 9. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue; 10.Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue; 11.Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp; 12.East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing 13. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard; 14.East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard; 15.East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue; 16.East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive; 17.Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue; 18.South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard; and 19.South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On- and Off-Ramps. Study Freeway Segments Freeway mainline, freeway on-ramp, and freeway off-ramp operating conditions during the weekday r~.t1. and P.~t. peak hours were also evaluated as part of the traffic analysis conducted for this proposed project. The existing mainline volumes were taken from other sources (including Caltrans and recent approved transportation studies within the Cite). Ramp volumes were taken from existing traffic counts. The freeway mainline segments, on-ramps, and off-ramps studied in this report include the following (Figure 4.7-2): Mainline Segments: ^ US 101 northbound, north of Sierra Point Parkway ^ US 101 southbound, north of Sierra Point Parkway ^ US 101 northbound, north of I-380 ^ US 101 southbound, north of I-380 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4,7.7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts On-Ramps: ^ US 101 northbound from Oyster Point Boulevard ^ US 101 southbound from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue ^ US 101 northbound from Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard ^ US 101 northbound from South Airport Boulevard ^ US 101 southbound from Produce Avenue Off-Ramps: ^ US 101 southbound to Airport Boulevard ^ US 101 southbound flyover to Oyster Point Boulevard ^ US 101 northbound to Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue ^ US 101 southbound to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue ^ US 101 northbound to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive ^ US 101 southbound to South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue ^ US 101 northbound to South Airport Boulevard Existing Intersection Conditions Traffic counts used for the analysis were collected between December 13 and December 15, 2005.`' Intersection operating conditions were evaluated for the weekday A.~t. peak hour (generally between 7:45 and 8:45 r1.l~l.) and for the P.i\t. peak hour (generally between 4:45 and 5:45 P.M.). It should be noted that these existing conditions do not include approved planned or programmed projects in the area (including approved future Genentech development). The existing weekday A.1~1. and P.1\7. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections are provided in the appendix. Both signalized and unsignalized intersections in the MEIR Study Area are assessed through the evaluation of peak hour Levels of Service (LOS), using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operations methodology and the TRr~FFIt software. The LOS concept qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions associated with varying levels of traffic. An LOS determination is a measure of congestion, which is the principal measure of roadway service. Levels of Service for signalized and unsignalized intersections are illustrated in Table 4.7-1. These range from LOS A, which indicates a free-flow condition, to LOS F which indicates a jammed condition. LOS A, B and C are generally considered to be satisfactory service levels while LOS D is marginally acceptable, LOS E is undesirable and LOS F conditions are unacceptable. The City= of South San Francisco's threshold of significance is LOS E for signalized intersections. "' At two-wa}~ stop controlled intersections, the average delay per vehicle for its worst minor street approach are provided. The worst minor approach to a two-way stop controlled intersection is the stop-controlled approach to the intersection that experiences the most average delay. The contribution from uncontrolled approaches to the total average delay for the intersection as a whole is irrelevant due to the fact that these approaches would not experience delay. The City= of South San "These counts were conducted after the new US 101 flyover to Ouster Point Boulevard was opened and operational. "' Source: Citt• of South San Francisco General Plan. 4.7,8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Circulation Francisco's threshold of significance for the worst minor street approach to unsignalized intersections is LOS F." .. - ~ A~r~eTda1 D~el~y - i - (seoond~ehkale) LerelofServbe DesafpOfon U~aiaedi~de~sea7ors Si~aiaedi~rsectlar~s A Little or no delay < 10.0 <_ 10.0 B Short traffic delay > 10.0 and <_ 15.0 > 10.0 and _< 20.0 C Average traffic delay > 15.0 and <_ 25.0 > 20.0 and <_ 35.0 D Long traffic delay > 25.0 and <_ 35.0 > 35.0 and <_ 55.0 E Very long traff c delay > 35.0 and _< 50.0 > 55.0 and <_ 80.0 F Extreme traffic delay > 50.0 > 80.0 avuK~t: z~w rngnway capacrcy nnanuai, i ransportatlon Research eoaro Table 4.7-2 presents the results of the traffic analysis of existing conditions for the nineteen stud}~ intersections. As shown in Table 4.7-2, all of the study intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better). Only one intersection (Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue) operates at LOS D (during the weekday A.~t. peak hour); all other intersections operate at LOS A, B, or C during both analysis periods under current conditions. Existing US 101 Mainline Conditions US 101 existing traffic conditions were evaluated for the weekday r1.Ai. and P.~1. peak hour. Existing traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from Caltrans 2005 Traffic Volumes on California Highways (Caltrans 2005). Freeway mainline analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for freeway mainlines. A description of HCM analysis methodology is provided in Appendix E. Table 4.7-3 shows the freeway segment existing traffic volumes and corresponding levels of service. A Level of Service (LOS) standard of "E" for freeway segments in the study area has been established by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. Currently, all US 101 freeway segments operate at acceptable LOS E or better during the weekday A.~t. and P.~1. peak hour. As the table indicates, conditions are generally worse along US 101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, and peak in the southbound direction during the A.~t. peak hour and in the northbound direction in the P.~l. peak hour. ~ ~ Source: Citt' of South San Francisco General Plan. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Analys-s _• - ~ - • •.- • ~ • • ~ • ~ - - ~- t1 hRiarsecNbn Uonnhol Aikl LaIS AA4 Delay i°M L06 PM Olefay 1. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard Signal C 30.0 C 31.0 2. Oyster Point Boulevard/US 101 Ramps Signal B 12.2 B 16.6 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Signal C 24.8 C 27.8 4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Signal C 29.4 C 27.8 5. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Signal C 32.7 C 29.8 6. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard Signal C 24.1 B 13.8 7. Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue TWSC B 13.6 B 10.3 8. Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp Signal C 25.4 C 24.5 9. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Signal D 35.7 C 34.6 10. Dubuque AvenuelGrand Avenue Signal A 7.9 A 6.9 11. Industrial Drive/East Grand Avenue/US 101 NB Off-Ramp TWSC A 0.0 B 10.0 12. East Grand Avenue/East Grand Overcrossing Signal B 20.0 B 15.7 13. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard Signal C 25.9 B 18.9 14.. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard Signal C 21.8 C 29.9 15. East Grand AvenuelAllerton Avenue TV11SC B 12.6 C 15.0 16. East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive TWSC B 14.8 C 17.7 17. Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard I San Mateo Avenue Signal C 28.6 C 30.2 18. South Airport BoulevardlGateway Boulevard Signal C 26.9 C 33.2 19. South Airport Boulevard/US 101 On-and Off-Ramps Signal C 26.9 C 30.7 avunu~. nurve uigmeenng woo LOS =Level of Service TWSC =Two-Way Stop Controlled Delay indicates Average Vehicle Delay in seconds. BOId indicates unacceptable intersection operating conditions. Northbound Direction ~ 5,366 ~ C I 20.5 I 5,484 ~ C 20.9 Southbound Direction 6,567 C 25.6 6,294 C 24.4 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 LOS =Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph. Bold indicates unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. 4.7-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound Direction 7,129 D 28.6 8,374 E 37.8 Southbound Direction 8,246 E 36.6 6,802 D 26.8 North of I-380 4.7 Transportation and ClrCUlatlon Existing US 101 On-Ramp Conditions US 101 on-ramp conditions were evaluated for the weekday A.~i. and P.ti1. peak hours. The existing on- ramp volumes were taken from the existing traffic counts at the adjacent study intersections, and the freeway counts were derived from Caltrans 2005 Traffic Volumes on California Highways (Caltrans 2005). Freeway on-ramp analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon the HCM methodology for freeway/ramp junctions. A description of HCM analysis methodology is proeided in Appendix E. Table 4.7-4 shows the freeway on-ramp volumes and corresponding levels of service. As shown, all on- ramps currently operate at LOS C or better during the weekday A.1~t. and P.Af. peak hours. AA4FhekHar PMAeekFbur U5101 orrRerrp IAo4me i? 06 Dis-r~y bbkme IA6 Qens~ US 101 NB from Oyster Point Boulevard 632 A 9.2 1,235 B 15.0 US 101 SB from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue 653 A 7.7 1,113 B 10.2 US 101 NB from Grand Avenue/Airport Boulevard 512 B 15.8 622 B 17.2 US 101 NB from South Airport Boulevard 291 B 16.5 498 B 19.5 US 101 SB from Produce Avenue 958 B 15.2 1,880 C 20.4 ....... ... ~. ....~.., ~,.6.. ~...,~~~.b cvvv LOS=Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph. BOId indicates unacceptable freeway on-ramp operating conditions. NB=Northbound S6=Southbound Existing US 1O1Off--Ramp Conditions US 101 off-ramp conditions were evaluated for the weekday A.~i. and P.~t. peak hours. The existing off- ramp volumes were taken from the existing traffic counts at the adjacent study intersections and the freeway counts were derived from Caltrans 2005 Traffic Volumes on California Highways (Caltrans 2005). Since the HCM does not include amethodology- for the analysis of off-ramps, for the purpose of this study, the freeway off-ramp analysis was performed by analyzing the level of service of the approach at the downstream intersection, as well as evaluating the 95`h percentile queue lengths. Table 4.7-5 shows the freeway off-ramp volumes, corresponding levels of service, and the ramp capacity utilizations. As shown, all off-ramps currently provide sufficient capacity for queued vehicles during the weekday A.~i. and P.~t. peak hours; therefore, all study off-ramps would be considered to operate acceptably under existing conditions. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls .~ - ~ i • . ••- • • • • • . ~- - • - ~~ aNi~ekl~bur PMABa kHar US1010ff~ta-np L06 (Approach Delay Rgnp (~ryadb' Wbatlcn LOS G'~-~ DekM Ramp a~Padb~ UE~atbrt US 101 SB to Airport Boulevard C (34.8) 11.6% C (26.9) 20.0% US 101 SB flyover to Oyster Point Boulevard E (65.5) 27.2% D (35.4) 2.4% US 101 NB to Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue B (11.0) 29.5% C (32.0) 29.5% US 101 SB to Airport Boulevard I Miller Avenue B (19.7) 34.7% C (21.8) 34.7% US 101 NB to East Grand Avenue I Executive Drive A (0.0) 0% A (0.0) 0% US 101 SB to South Airport Boulevard I Produce Avenue C (22.7) 24.4% C (29.7) 21.7% US 101 NB to South Airport Boulevard B (19.7) 49.1 % D (36.5) 31.3% SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 LOS=Level of Service NB=Northbound S6=Southbound Bold indicates unacceptable freeway off-ramp operating conditions. Existing Transit Services The MEIR Study Area is currently served by both local and regional public transit service. Local transit service is provided by SamTrans (operated by San Mateo Count}' Transit District) while regional transit service is provided by Caltrain (operated by the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board) and BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit). In addition, Genentech is served by employer shuttles run by the 2006 Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (ALLIANCE). The ALLIANCE Shuttles connect the Genentech campus with the South San Francisco Caltrain and South San Francisco BART stations. Figure 4.7-3 illustrates the existing transit routes serving the MEIR Study Area. The frequency of transit service in South San Francisco and the location of transit stop locations are shown in Table 4.7-6. Figure 4.7-3 identifies the transit routes in the MEIR Study Area. SamTrans SamTrans is a primary provider of local and regional bus transit service for the Ciry of South San Francisco. Presently SamTrans does not provide service in the East of 101 Area. The closest SamTrans bus service to and from the Genentech Central Campus area is provided by SamTrans bus routes 130, 132, and 133. The SamTrans bus terminal located at Airport Boulevard and Linden Avenue is the nearest to the Genentech Central Campus, at a distance of about one mile. Regional SamTrans bus service for Genentech is provided by SamTrans bus routes 390 and 391. The nearest regional bus stop to the MEIR Study Area is located at the San Bruno BART Station. 4.7-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Tiansnnrtatlnn an.~ r±t...,dflw, .• ~ ~ Y • SeMoe Roude Airport/Linden-Daly City and Colma BART stations (130) ~~ f~k 20/20 Mldd+ay 30 S16opLooaHonsPlea-estBDdieA~S~K/yNee Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue South SF Bart Station (132) 30/30 60 Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue SamTrans Airport/Linden-Serramonte (133) 30/30 60 Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue Palo Alto-Daly City (390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3 Redwood City-Colma BART Station (391) 15/30(a) 15(a) EI Camino Real/ South SF BART Station San Mateo-SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport BoulevardlBaden Avenue Caltrain Gilroy-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station BART Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station Richmond-Daly City 15/15 - Daly City BART Station Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station Gateway Area 30/30 - Genentech Bldgs B9, B5 Caltrain Shuttle to SSF St ti Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) - Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point a on Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) - 5000 Shoreline Ct. Utah-Grand Area 30/30(a) - Cabot/Allerton Sierra Point Area 35/35 - 5000 Shoreline Ct. BART Shuttle to Gateway Area 20/20 - 1000 Gateway SSF Station Genentech 15/15 - Genentech Bldgs B9, B54 Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) - Gull/Oyster Point and 384 Oyster Point Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) - Cabot/Allerton - -~-.._...,...,.,,.,,,,,,,,.,,, ,.,~l.~~s~, Dail rviaieo ~ounry q~unNGt (COmmute.org). Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes. SF=San Francisco a=average frequency period Caltrain The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) provides passenger rail service, with a combination of express and local service between Gilroy and San Francisco. It connects the City of South San Francisco with Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and San Francisco. Caltrain offers transit service in the MEIR Study Area during peak hours every thirty minutes and during off peak hours every hour. The South San Francisco Caltrain station located closest to the MEIR Study Area is near the intersection of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue, at a distance of approximately one mile from the Genentech Central Campus. BART BART provides regional rail. transit service within the San Francisco Bay Area. It connects the East Bav (Pittsburg, Richmond, Dublin, and Fremont) and San Mateo County (Millbrae and San Francisco Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-15 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysts International Airport) with San Francisco. The BART stations nearest to the MEIR Study Area are the San Bruno Station located at Huntington Avenue near the Tanforan Shopping Center and the South San Francisco Station located on Mission Road near El Camino Real. Both these stations are approximately two miles from the Genentech Central Campus. It should be noted that three of the four BART lines (Richmond, Pittsburg/Bay Point, and Fremont) travel as far south as the Daly City= BART station; only the Dublin/Pleasanton line provides service through the nearby stations. In general, service on this line is every fifteen minutes throughout the day. Genentech Campus Shuttles The Genentech Campus Shuttles provide the following high frequency service between the ~=arious parts of the campus and to the local/regional transit operators: ^ Off-campus shuttles access the South San Francisco BART station, Glen Park BART station, and the South San Francisco Caltrain Station. These shuttles are provided by Genentech and the San Mateo County Transit Authority, and operate on 30 minute headways during the peak hours. ^ Genentech provides shuttles to the other Genentech campuses in Vacaville and Redwood City=. These shuttles operate three times a week (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday), and once per day. ^ Internal shuttles are provided by Genentech to serve employees within the various campus areas. The Gateway Express shuttle provides service from the Gateway Campus to the Central Campus with 7.5 minute headways all day. The DNA shuttle provides service throughout the northern half of the Central Campus with five minute headways all day=. The South Campus shuttle provides service from the southern half of the Central Campus to South Campus with 15 minute headways all day. Other Area Shuttles To improve the accessibility of Caltrain and BART stations in South San Francisco, ALLIANCE shuttles run between the stations and major employment centers during the morning and evening commute hours. These are free and open to the public. Shuttles are financed by SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), and participating employers. In addition to the Genentech service, three shuttles are available from the Caltrain station and four shuttles are accessible from the BART station. The peak hour frequency of ALLIANCE shuttles serving Caltrain and BART stations and the location of shuttle stops that are nearest to the MEIR Study Area are shown in Table 4.7-7. 4.7-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Tiansportatfon and Clrculat/on .. SlsOfats ~ • • Sixrftle Saved byre ~~~ Oyster Point BART eight A.M. & nine P.M. trips Oyster Point Boulevard Gull Dr Eccles Avenue Forb B l d Caltrain seven A.M. & seven P.M. trips , , , es ou evar , Veterans Boulevard Utah-Grand BART nine A.M. & nine P.M. trips Caltrain seven A.M. & seven P.M. trips E Grand Avenue, Utah Avenue, Harbor Way, Littlefield Avenue Gatewa Area BART ten A.M. & twelve P.M. trips Gateway Boulevard-BART Gatewa Boulevard Ge t h Off y Caltrain six A.M. & five P.M. trips y , nen ec ice- Caltrain Sierra Point BART four A.M. & four P.M. Sierra Point Shoreline Caltrain four A.M. & four P.M. , -__.._- ,,.,~~ ~.... «,., ~,vu~iiy /'1LUMlVI.C (l.V 1Il RIUL@Argf Each shuttles alternates between 15 and 30 minute headways during both peak hours Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Numerous bicycle facilities are available in the study area. Bike lanes are available along Sister Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Drive, and Gateway Avenue (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are available on South Airport Boulevard, and on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike Paths are available along side Executive Drive, and along shoreline.l' Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway Avenue, East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue). Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue). Future bike paths are planned along side Caltrain, and off-street through the Genentech Central Campus. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the General Plan Transportation Element. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and resting areas. In the MEIR Study Area, primar~~ on-street paths exist along Forbes Boulevard, DNA Way, Grandview Drive, Cabot Road, and Allerton Avenue. Additionally, the "Campus Loop" provides an off- street path that includes the major circulation routes within each neighborhood Central Spine, as well as the connective elements between them. In general, the sidewalks provided throughout the study area provide connections to areas west of the Genentech area for both bicyclists and pedestrians. ~~ Bike Lanes provide preferential use of the paved area of roadway for bicyclists by establishing specific lines of demarcation between areas reserved for bicycles and motorists. Bike Routes are shared facilities with automobiles and other vehicles (roadways are demarcated bi signage). Bike Paths pro~~ide exclusive rights-of-way for bic~•clists with cross flows b~• motorists minimized. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-17 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysts Existing Parking Conditions Currently, there are approximately 5,525 parking spaces within the main Genentech campus. Parking lots are provided for each section of the Genentech campus, as detailed in Table 4.7-8. Within the majority of the parking lots, separate spaces are designated for visitors. Par~tocaHcn Pedai~g9rpP~Y F~rldggDemard Lower Campus 2,224 1,918 86% West Campus 136 0 0% Mid Campus 1,436 876 61 Upper Campus 1,729 1,657 96% Total 5,525 4,451 81% According to parking demand rates provided by Genentech (based on land use categories), the average peak hour parking demand is approximately 4,451 spaces, which represents approximately eighty- one percent of the total available parking supply. Detailed information on parking demand is provided in Appendix E. It should be noted that supplementary parking supply is provided at the Gateway Campus, which is located west of Gateway Boulevard, between Oyster Point Boulevard and Corporate Drive. Currently, there are about 2,040 spaces which are generally fully occupied by Genentech employees. These employees are able to access the main campus via one of the Campus shuttles. 4.7.2 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations regarding transportation effects that apply to the project. State There are no state regulations regarding transportation effects that apply to the project. Local San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan Roadway System The San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Roadway System designates various roadways and segments of the county roadway system for use in annual monitoring of level of service standards, and identifies potential street segment and intersection candidates for the capital improvement program. Near the MEIR Study Area, the CMP roadway system includes the US 101 segments only. 4.7-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Tians~-ts~tlnn and /`l~rv.~nti, The level of service (LOS) standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county border, the LOS standard was set as LOS E, in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the neighboring counties. If the existing LOS in 1991 baseline was F, the standard was set to LOS F. If the existing or future LOS in the 1991 baseline was predicted to be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the year 2000. The CMP standard for the US 101 study segments in the MEIR Study Area is LOS F (C/CAG 2005). City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management The City of South San Francisco (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management) (refer to Appendix F) requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate one hundred or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDl~1) measures to reduce vehicle traffic. The purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows: ^ Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development, pursuant to the city's police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. ^ Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the city of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated. ^ Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services, incentives, and facilities. ^ Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage. ^ Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development. ^ Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter. ^ Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are implemented. The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing traffic generation rates. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. South San Francisco has a "menu" of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points that relate to the programs' effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities. Genentech is required to implement sufficient programs to achieve a target mode shift of 30 percent. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-19 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysts In an effort to minimize the traffic associated with this new development as well as the costs of building new parking structures, Genentech is currently exploring the following new TDM strategies as integral to its Master Plan: ^ Shuttle Service Improvements. Genentech plans to improve the efficiency of its existing intra- campus shuttle, and it is exploring expansion of its connections to BART, Caltrain and potentially Muni. ^ Shuttle Facility Improvements. Genentech is exploring improvements to shuttle stops, including new shelters and signs, and improved pedestrian connections to its buildings. ^ Parking Cash-Out. As Genentech puts buildings on its existing parking lots, it must build costly parking structures. It is now exploring whether it would be more cost effective to pay its employees not to drive, rather than provide them with ever-more-expensive structured parking. Similar strategies have worked for a variety of other employers, and they have produced significant traffic reductions. ^ Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. As its shifts from being more of an industrial facility to more of apedestrian-oriented campus, Genentech is considering significant improvement to its overall bicycle and pedestrian networks. It should be noted that these programs are not assumed to be in place with the proposed project. 4.7.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method The impacts evaluation presented below includes traffic impacts on study area intersections and regional freeway segments, site access, parking, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. For this analysis, proposed project traffic impacts have been evaluated and compared with 2005 existing conditions for the following scenarios: ^ 2015 Future Without Project ^ 2015 Future Plus Project Year 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed development projects in the greater East of 101 Area (as provided by the City of South San Francisco) to the existing traffic network. The number of trips generated by future developments is provided in Table 4.7-9 (Table 5-1 identifies the land uses by Campus and type of use). Overall, there is anticipated to be a growth of over 4.6 million sf by year 2015, primarily office/R&D space. It should be noted that these background growth values do not include any planned or programmed projects within the Genentech Campus. The 2015 Future Plus Project scenario, thus, isolates Genentech growth, so that the proposed project impacts can be clearly identified. AMFbeicHoir PMABekHoir hbovxl outband raay r~bormd a~Gtov~d ram- East of 101 Area Grand Total 2,108 786 2,894 1,150 2,371 3,521 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 4.7-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and CI-~culat/on Freeway segment traffic volumes for 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all approved development projects and by applying an annual 0.5 percent growth rate to existing volumes (as documented in approved transportation studies). The growth in freeway on- and off-ramp volumes was based on the anticipated traffic increases generated by the approved development projects. The tables which detail the development of 2015 peak hour US 101 segment volumes are provided in the Appendix E. Project Trip Generation Trip generation rates for the proposed project land uses were developed from the recent East of 101 Study~j, adjusted to reflect the modal split characteristics of current Genentech employees. As part of the East of 101 Study, daily and peak hour vehicular activities were counted at several existing buildings within the area, and trip generation rates were developed based on the size of the proposed buildings and the land uses (office, lab, and manufacturing/warehouse). These rates were reduced to account for the percentage of employees and visitors that do not travel by private vehicles. The East of 101 Study determined that approximately 9.5 percent of the employees and visitors would arrive and depart the buildings not by single-occupancy autos (i.e., transit, walk/bike, or other modes). However, since mode split rates for current Genentech employees was available (based on surveys conducted by Genentech), the reported East of 101 Study trip generation rates were modified to reflect the travel characteristics of Genentech employees (including carpool rates and average vehicle occupancy, and use of transit/shuttles). In general, the resulting specific Genentech trip generation rates are slightly higher than the East of 101 Study rates, as a lower percentage of non-auto use is demonstrated by current Genentech employees (about 7.5 percent), as sho~~n in Table 4.7-10. The Genentech employee modal split is provided in Table 4.7-10. .. ~ ~ _ •~- • • . tibde ~K1MndeSpR Drive Alone 79 2% Carpool 13.3% Transit 5.3% Walk/Bike 0.6% Other 1.6% Total 100% ~~-~~,~.~. ~amien~ecn, norve tnglneering 2006 Trip generation rates for the proposed project land uses are presented in Table 4.7-11. It should be noted that Genentech provides the following services on-site, all of which considered "amenities": ATMs, credit union, barber shop, dental facility, video rentals, film developing and dry cleaning. Since these ~~ T.Y. Lin International/CCS, 2003. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-21 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysis amenities would be used by Genentech employees, the trips generated by each amenity can be seen as an intexnal trip to the Genentech campus. Thus, trip generation specific to each amenity would not be applicable. .• - ~ AINPhekHotr • PMAeakHour Land Lie Mbomd Outbarxi Tafaf Niband Outbomd Tafal Office 0.83 0.12 0.95 0.12 0.60 0.72 Lab 0.49 0.10 0.59 0.07 0.38 0.45 ManulWare 0.42 0.06 0.48 0.05 0.40 0.45 Amenity 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 All rates are shown in Trips per 1,000 sf The proposed project land uses are presented in Table 4.7-12. As part of the proposed project, some existing land uses within the MEIR Study Area would be displaced and replaced with new Genentech land uses. These displaced uses are represented by negative values. Overall, the proposed project would contain approximately 3.2 million sf of new Genentech-related land uses and the elimination of about 0.8 million sf of existing uses, for a net increase of 2.4 million sf of development. gRce Lab MarNiac~ri~g AmenRies Tafal Lower Campus A 5,108 169,108 -153,113 31,000 52,103 Lower Campus B 85,000 320,000 -53,500 25,000 376,500 Lower Campus C -28,114 150,000 150,000 0 271,886 Lower Total 61,994 639,108 -56,613 56,000 700,489 West Campus A 0 0 0 52,000 52,000 West Campus B 630,000 0 -234,004 55,000 450,996 West Campus C 150,000 200,000 -27,158 0 322,842 West Total 780,000 200,000 -261,162 107,000 825,838 Mid Campus -25,900 302,000 0 95,000 371,100 Mid Total -25,900 302,000 0 95,000 371,100 Upper Campus A 150,000 0 0 0 150,000 Upper Campus B 405,000 -58,000 -86,370 20,000 280,630 Upper Campus C 249,500 -93,300 -36,400 -25,500 94,300 Lower Total 804,500 -151,300 -122,770 -5,500 524,930 Total 1,620,594 989,808 -440,545 252,500 2,422,357 SOURCE: Genentech, Korve Engineering 2006 All values are shown in square feet Table 4.7-13 shows the estimated peak hour vehicle trips generated by the proposed project. These trips represent the net-new trips that would be generated by the new Genentech uses (a credit was taken, via 4 7.22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Clrculatlon the negative growth numbers presented in Table 4.7-11, for the trips that would be eliminated with the proposed project). • ^ AklFbekHov AMPbekhlour '~'b°-t'°°d rntio~nd ouobo~r~d raa- Inbound Outband rofal Lower Campus A 33 5 38 6 29 35 Lower Campus B 237 32 270 35 214 249 Lower Campus C 112 17 129 13 107 121 Lower Total 383 54 437 53 350 404 West Campus A 116 17 133 14 111 125 West Campus B 550 63 614 95 467 562 West Campus C 275 36 310 41 245 286 West Total 941 116 1,057 150 823 973 Mid Campus 158 24 181 20 148 168 Mid Total 158 24 181 20 148 168 Upper Campus A 131 15 146 23 111 134 Upper Campus B 290 32 321 53 240 293 Upper Campus C 155 16 171 29 126 156 Upper Total 576 63 639 104 478 583 Total SOURCE: Knnia Fnainco.~..n ~nnc 2,057 257 2,314 328 1,800 2,128 Because Table 4.7-13 presents the net-ne~v Genentech growth, in some cases there would be a decrease in square footage or a downgrade in intensit~~ with the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project may result in a decrease in the number of trips being generated in a certain area. Overall, the proposed project would generate approximateh~ 2,314 new vehicle trips during the weekday t1.i~i. peak hour (89 percent inbound and 11 percent outbound) and 2,128 new vehicle trips during the weekday P.~i. peak hour (15 percent inbound and 85 percent outbound). As shown in Table 4.7-11, approximately 5.3 percent of the current Genentech employees use transit to access the campus. As such, the proposed project would generate about 135 new transit trips during the r1.~t. peak hour (89 percent inbound and 11 percent outbound) and 125 new transit trips during the weekday P.~1. peak hour (15 percent inbound and 85 percent outbound). Project Trip Distribution/Assignment Table 4.7-14 presents the trip distribution patterns for the proposed project land uses (see Figure 4.7-4). Project vehicle trips were distributed to the study area network based on the place of residence of existing Genentech employees (as provided by Genentech). This origin/destination data was then used to assign the trips to the regional (LJS 101) and local roadways. As shown, there are approximately equal amounts of current Genentech employees that utilize US 101 to the north and south of the MEIR Study Area, with a smaller percentage of employees that utilize local roadways. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis . • - ~ plaoeofTi~at~r~/Desti'reflon . ~ . • 7tipDlstrd~f/a- Peninsula 39.6% San Francisco 25.0% North Bay 4.4% East Bay 18.9% South Bay 6.9% Other 5.2% Total 100% A~rne-~ Points north via US 101 41.8% Points south via US 101 45.8% Points west via Oyster PointlSister Cities 4.1 Points west via Grand Avenue 8 3% Total 100% SOURCE: Genentech, Korve Engineering 2006. Project trips which travel from points north via US 101 are likely to use the US 101 southbound flyover off-ramp to the Oyster Point Boulevard flyover to enter the MEIR Study Area (Figure 4.7-5). The project trips would then travel along Oyster Point Boulevard to Gull Drive, then on to Forbes Boulevard, where the Genentech parking lots can be accessed. A small percentage of these trips may also use the US 101 southbound off-ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue to enter the MEIR Study Area. These trips would then travel south along Airport Boulevard, east along Grand Avenue, and finally north along Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, or Grandview Drive, depending on which parking lot they intend to park in. Project trips departing to points north via US 101 are likely to travel north along Gull Drive, and west along Oyster Point Boulevard to leave the MEIR Study Area. The project trips would then use the US 101 northbound on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard to access US 101. A small percentage of these trips may also use East Grand Avenue to leave the MEIR Study Area. These trips would then use the US 101 northbound on-ramp from Grand Avenue to access US 101. Project trips which travel from points south via US 101 will use either the US 101 northbound off-ramp to South Airport Boulevard or the US 101 northbound off-ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive to enter the MEIR Study Area. From either off-ramp, the project trips would eventually travel to East Grand Avenue, where they turn north along Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, or Grandview Drive, depending on which parking lot they intend to park in. Project trips departing to points south via US 101 will travel west along East Grand Avenue, south along Gateway Boulevard, West along South Airport Boulevard, and finally south along Produce Avenue to leave the MEIR Study Area. The project trips would then use the US 101 southbound off-ramp from South Airport Boulevard/Produce Avenue access US 101. Project trips which travel from points west via Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard will travel east along Oyster Point Boulevard to Gull Drive, then on to Forbes Boulevard, where the Genentech parking lots can be accessed. These trips would use the same roads to return to their place of origin. 4.7-24 Genentech Corporate Facil'dies Master EIR ----~ w ~--_~ ~_ N C L., ~ v I _ _ I' d ~ ~~~ `~ ~ ~ ~~ J 1 i v v_ ~i 1 ~ c ~ c cn i~ i~ 1 ~ 3 3 i~ ~ ~ 1 ~y ~ a ~ 'c ~I i~~ l 1 r o t es i 1 .ice" ~ ~ v c a _i ~\ ~~~ 4 '~ _ ~~` 1~~~~~~~~~~ J- va 1 ~ ~ 1...1 a - f 1 \° ~ ~ 1 ~ / ~ c c ~ N 1 1 v ~o .4 I 1 1 1 ~ "~ v ~~1 m m 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ d c 1 0 jr o ~ U ~ f v ~ ~ as nn, ~ ~ 1 v v c i 1 °J l9 l7 ° f ~ ~~d °p'~~a, 1 ~ Ea m ~ •1 D 1 1 °, `,I~~~ ~` 1 o ~~ 1~ ~ 1'~ c ~ ~~~ 1: M °o. E ~` ~r 1% i ~ " o 1 ~ U 1 N c ~ ~ ~ ~ Q U o _~r~ ~ ~~~~ anv ieinnc ~ e O ''~~ i ~ E ~ ~ m m a~ o w cn o %i ~ ~ ,mi ~--~ .. N o U ~ O N N o i~ Q "~r M w s ~ C (O ~~d ~y(~~y,~~r ~~~ ~ ~~ ., '` G \ \ as a3isvrv aoeada ~ N N ca ~ ~n~~' ~" ~ ~~ ~ m o ,: ~~ U U ~ ~ ~~- L ~~ m ~~f' a .. '~. ~..~ < c v ,, O t b U is ~~ _N 7 _ N O n4~ ~ 'L C ~~ ~ ~ _~ w W 0 L.1 G ~ .~ ~ ~ LL H N 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ F---~+ w ~~~ i~ I~ / ,/~ I / I / j i / ~~ ~_, ,/ ~~ f 1 1 1 1 1 1 C ~9b ~` /~~ 1 •~~"~~• ~~ o~a~o ~~ \ ~bs ~~ ~~ ,. i'I~\ ~ \, ~ rl :~~ U / ~, . n r orb ,_ "i/y J,\ ~\` Y~ ` ~\\\ GIB ~ ~,\ 1 ~~~~~~~~ i~~~l .~~~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~~ 1 1 ~~~; 1 1 ~~_•1 L a; ~ a y ~ o a d ~ ~ k C ~ ~ N ~ ; ~ v O a O c , r O .t ~ el' I l V L V V ~ N C ~ C d v v v a v ~ v O l7 J C7 ~f~ .. J i d c~ ~ c ~ ~ O v m m ~ v ~ N C C ~ ~ V O J s r `w u u v v a~ c C C d d ~ C C c y N O ~ ~ ~ o Q 1 I ~ y I QI d N Q ~ -d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ 7 ~ ~W O C . ; ~~ a~ d 7 NNo I.f. N N d ~ U V ~ Q w ~C C ~L ~a a a U C U C OJ d L 0 0 4.7 Transportation and Cin;ulatlon Project trips which travel from points west via Grand Avenue will travel east along Grand Avenue, and then north along Forbes Boulevard, Allerton Avenue, or Grandview Drive, depending on which parking lot they intend to park in. These trips would use the same roads to return to their place of origin. Trip distribution percentages are shown in Figure 4.7-4. Measures Incorporated from the East of 101 Study As shown in Table 5-1, the City of South San Francisco has approved over 4.5 million sf of new office/R&D space and 2,000 new hotel rooms in the East of 101 Area. The City retained T.Y. Lin International/CCS to prepare the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan (East of 101 Study), which evaluated potential improvement needs at various intersections to accommodate such a build out in the East of 101 Area. Consequently, the East of 101 Study identified mitigation measures at several of the study intersections that were analyzed for this proposed project. These measures were assumed in the analysis only when warranted by poor operating conditions. Mitigation measures from the East of 101 Study are identified below for each impact to which they apply. The final step after identification of the "mitigated" scenario (scenario with application of East of 101 mitigation measures) was identification of new mitigation measures. Thresholds of Significance Applied Criteria The following significance criteria were obtained from the San Francisco General Plan and the San Mateo County Congestions Management Plan Standards, and used for the analysis of the proposed project'': Intersections An adverse effect would occur if the proposed project would do any of the following: ^ Degrade a signalized intersection to LOS E or worse. ^ Cause the level of service at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E under future baseline conditions to deteriorate to LOS F. ^ Increase the average critical movement vehicle delay by five or more seconds (attributable to Project-generated traffic) at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions. ^ Degrade an unsi~malized intersection at one or more approaches to worse than LOS D as a result of Project-generated traffic, and if Caltrans signal warrants are met (i.e., if traffic volumes along the major and minor streets require a signal). ~~ All applied criteria are consistent with Cite of South San Francisco standards, and have been used for projects throughout the area. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls ^ Increase the average vehicle delay by five or more seconds at the worst approach of an unsignalized intersection that operates at LOS E or F under existing or future baseline conditions, and if Caltrans signal warrants are met. Freeway Mainlines and On-Ramps An adverse effect would occur if the proposed project would do any of the following: ^ Degrade a freeway mainline or the on-ramp/freeway junction to worse than LOS D as a result of Project-generated traffic. ^ Cause the level of service at a freeway mainline or on-ramp operating at LOS E under future baseline conditions to deteriorate to LOS F as a result of Project-generated traffic. ^ Cause an increase (attributable to Project-generated traffic) in volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.05 or more at freeway mainlines and increase the densit~~ (passenger cars per mile per lane) by at least four at on-ramp/freeway junctions operating at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions. Parking An adverse effect would occur if the proposed project would do any of the following: ^ Substantially reduce parking supply such that parking demand cannot be accommodated. ^ Cause an unmet parking demand that would result in other significant physical effects, such as a substantial alteration of neighborhood character or creation of hazardous conditions caused by illegally parked vehicles, or would result in secondary traffic impacts due to vehicles circling and looking for parking spaces in areas of limited parking supply. Transit An adverse effect would occur if the proposed project would do any of the following: ^ Substantially increase transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing or planned transit capacit~~, resulting in unacceptable levels of transit service. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities An adverse effect would occur if the proposed project would do any of the following: ^ Result in substantial overcrowding on public sidewalks. ^ Create potentially hazardous conditions for pedestrians. ^ Interfere with pedestrian accessibility to adjoining areas. ^ Create potentially hazardous conditions for bicyclists. ^ Substantially interfere with bicycle accessibility to the MEIR Study Area and/or adjoining areas. Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2015 Conditions at Intersections-With and Without Project As stated earlier, Year 2015 peak hour Future Without Project conditions were developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed development projects in the greater East of 101 Area (as provided by the City of South San Francisco) to the existing (December 2005) 4.7-3o Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Clrculatlon traffic network. It should he noted that these background growth values do not include any planned or programmed projects within the Genentech Campus. The 2015 Future Plus Project scenario, thus, isolates Genentech growth, so that the proposed project impacts can be clearly identified. Table 4.7-15 presents the Year 2015 Future Without Project and Year 2015 Future Plus Project traffic conditions at study intersections with and without the applicable East of 101 mitigations, discussed above. Intersection LOS calculations are provided in Appendix E. The year 2015 intersection turning movement volumes for the weekday A.~i. and P.~t. peak hours with Project-generated traffic are provided in Appendix E. As shown in Table 4.7-15, under the 2015 Future Baseline conditions, the intersections of Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue (P.~z. peak hour), Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (P.~t. peak hour), and East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive (both peak hours) would operate at LOS E. With implementation of the relevant East of 101 Study mitigation measures (as documented in the previous section), the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive intersections would improve to LOS C or better conditions. However, the East of 101 Study does not identify a mitigation measure for the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection; therefore, this intersection would be considered to operate with unacceptable conditions during both analysis periods. .• - ~ • ••- • • • ~ • • - • 1 ~ - • • • 201.5 (IMRho~tR~) 2015 Fi~Gee Pis Rt~eCC w/oEastd201 M-~ w/EastaF101 w/oF~d101 ~y/Eastcf101 N~Oe-seotlor~s AM PM AM PM AM PI4! AM PM 1. Airport Boulevard /Sister Cities Boulevard (32.5) (40.1) NIA NIA (32 7) (4D2) NIA (37D2) 2. Oyster Point Boulevard / US 101 Ramps B (14.8) C (26.1) _ _ B (15.7) C (30.1) _ 3. Oyster Point Boulevard /Dubuque Avenue (27.4) (75.7) N/A (31.9) (29.8) (>80) N/A (47D.1) 4. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard (48.1) (56.1) (68.7) (>80) 5. Oyster Point Boulevard /Gull Drive (33.3) (30.0) NIA N/A (>80) (>80) (>80) (48.3) 6. Gull Drive / Forbes Boulevard (24.4) (14.6) (27.4) (76.3) 7. Forbes Boulevard I Allerton Avenue' C (22.4) B (12.1) _ _ F (79.7) C (16.0) 8 Airport Boulevard I Miller Avenue I US 101 SB Off- C C N/A NIA C C N/A NIA Ramp (25.6) (24.2) (25.9) (24.5) 9. Airport Boulevard /Grand Avenue (40.7) (37D.4) NIA N/A (58.5) (39.0) (33.1) NIA 10. Dubuque Avenue /Grand Avenue (~ ) (8 ) NIA N/A ( ~) (8 ) N/A N/A Industrial Drive /East Grand Avenue I US 101 NB 11 A B _ _ A B . Off Ramp (0.0) (10.4) (0.0) (10.7) Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-31 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls - • - • • • a01.5(WlfhoutJ 2015FudiePMsRajea w/oEaetof101 w/~of101 w/oEastof101 w/Eestd101 ~ AM PM AM PM A141 PM AM PM 12. East Grand Avenue /East Grand Overcrossing (19 1) (14.5) (3D3) (14 0) 13. East Grand Avenue I Gateway Boulevard (28 0) (19.6) N/A N/A (4D0) (25 7) N/A NIA 14. East Grand Avenue I Harbor Master Road I Forbes C D N/A N/A F F E D Boulevard (34.3) (44.0) (>80) (>80) (61.1) (49.0) 15. East Grand Avenue /Allerton Avenue (16.7) (22 3) N/A N/A (62.5) (>80) (10 2) (158) 16. East Grand Avenue / Grandview Drive E (42.5) E (47.5) B (16.2) C (31.4) F (>80) F (>80) B (18.6) F (>80) 17. Produce Avenue /Airport Boulevard /San Mateo C D N/A N/A C F N/A D Avenue (29.4) (37.4) (30.1) (>80) (36.0) 18. South Airport Boulevard I Gateway Boulevard (27.5) (38.3) NIA NIA (27.6) (63.5) N/A (34.3) 19 South Airport Boulevard / US 101 On-and Off- C C _ _ C C Ramps (27.9) (31.2) (30.1) (31.6) _ _ ovunu~. rwivc uiguiccnngtwo LOS =Level of Service Delay indicates Average Vehicle Delay in seconds. Bold indicates unacceptable intersection operating conditions. N/A indicates that East of 101 Mitigation would not be needed. Dashed line indicates that no East of 101 Mitigation is available. * Intersection would not meet the Caltrans Peak Hour Warrant. The East of 101 Study does not identify a mitigation measure for the Oyster Point Boulevard /Gateway Boulevard intersection. Under the 2015 Future Plus Project conditions, the following 11 study intersections are projected to operate unacceptably (i.e., from LOS E to F, or increase of delay of five seconds or more at LOS E or F intersection) during either the A.~7. or P.~1. peak hour without implementation of the applicable East of 101 Study improvements: ^ O~~ster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue ^ Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard ^ Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive ^ Gull Drive/Forties Boulevard ^ Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue ^ Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue ^ East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forties Boulevard ^ East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue ^ East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive ^ Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue ^ South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard After implementing the applicable East of 101 Study mitigation measures, the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive (;~.i~i. peak hour), East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forties Boulevard 4.7,32 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Circulation (A.~1. peak hour), and East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive (P.~t. peak hour) intersections would continue to operate with unacceptable conditions. As stated earlier, the East of 101 Study does not identif}~ a mitigation measure for the Oyster Point Boulevard Gateway Boulevard intersection. It is important to note that although the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour, it would not meet the Caltrans peak hour signal warrant. Therefore, the intersection would not be considered to operate unacceptablti~. This section presents the significant impacts created by the addition of Project generated trips to the surrounding traffic network. For each significant impact, a corresponding mitigation measure is identified. Figures 4.7-6A and 4.7-6B illustrate the pre- and post- mitigated intersection geometry. Table 4.7-16 summarizes operating conditions for intersections after the implementation of mitigation measures in the Year 2015 Future Plus Project conditions. Threshold Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). Specifically, the project would create a significant impact if it would cause the Level of Service at a signalized intersection to degrade to LOS E or worse, or cause the Level of Service at an unsignalized intersection to degrade to LOS F. Impact 4.7-1 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F conditions at Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection during the P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-1 (East of 101) would reduce this impact to less than significant. L~estbound right-turn volumes at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue intersection are expected to increase significantly with the addition of project-generated traffic. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, the East of 101 Study mitigation measure for this intersection should be implemented. MM 4.7-1 Oyster Point Boulevara'/Dubuque Aveyaue (East of 10 ~''): ^ Ike-.rt~zpe and .rh ft median of ave.rtbocrnrl Oyster Point Boulevard to a~ld one right turn lane making it a total of tzvo 650 foot right-turn lanes to the northbound 101 onramp ^ Ea~zsting signal mo~'ification By applying the mitigation measure previously identified by the East of 101 Study, the proposed project's impact would be reduced to less than significant. As such, Genentech shall be responsible for funding its fair share to the implementation (including design, approval, and construction) of this measure. ~' l~Iitigauon measures that are taken from the East of 101 Stud~• have "East of 101" in parentheses. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-33 Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque Avenue Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry t~ L '~' ~_ ~ ~_ _ ~- r~ ~~rr ~ ~~rr Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry .Ill. ~ .I Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ Gull Drive/Forties Boulevard Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry Jl I. Jl I~ ~ ~ -r Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry t- ~. ~- I l ~l ~ ~li l ~ . . . . ~ ~ttr ~~ ~Iirr ~~ FIGURE 4.7-iiA Mitigated Intersection Diagrams ~ ~ T m . _ ~ _ _ lJ 11117-00 Source: City of South San Francisco - ~ ' East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry .ICI. ~ .I.11~ ~~ ~~r ~~ ~ttrr -~ ~~ ~~ East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry ~- I ~ .~ I ~I East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry 'I~~f' ~r ~' r ~ f -- I ~ ~ Produce Avenue/South Airport BoulevardlSan Mateo Avenue Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry ~ ~~ ~f' .I1 11 . ~= .I ll ~ ~~. South Airport BoulevardlGateway Boulevard Existing Geometry Mitigated Geometry L.j~. ~ C ~'~ '~E' - I I I ~ ~ ~E i .1.i i ~~ trr ~ ~ ~~ ttr ~~ FIGURE 4.7-6B Mitigated Intersection Diagrams .. _EIP 11117-00 Source: City of South San Francisco , :. < Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Impact 4.7-2 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E conditions at Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection during the A.1~1. peak hour, and LOS F during the P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-2 (new) would reduce this impact to a less-than- significantlevel. The addition of over 800 Project vehicles in both the A.l~t. and P.l~t. peak hours would cause the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection to operate at unacceptable conditions. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, a new mitigation measure for this intersection should be implemented. MM 4.7-2 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (1Vew): ^ The southbound approach to the intersection must be reconfigured to only allow right tunas. Additionally, the southbound right-turn shoulel have an overlap phase with the eastbound ~yover) phase. After implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, the impact at the East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive intersection would be reduced to less than significant. During the A.~f. peak hour, this intersection would operate at LOS D with an average delay of 49.6 seconds. During the P.I. peak hour, this intersection would operate at LOS D with an average delay of 51.0 seconds. Genentech would be solely responsible for the implementation of this measure. Impact 4.7-3 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F conditions at Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive intersection during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-3 (new) would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Northbound left-turn and eastbound right-turn volumes at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive intersection are expected to increase significantly with the addition of project generated traffic. The East of 101 Area Plan identifies the following measure for Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive: ^ Widen northbound Gull Drive to provide two left-turn lanes and one through/right-shared lane ^ Existing signal modification However, in order to restore acceptable operating conditions, an alternate mitigation measure must be implemented. MM 4.7-3 Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive (New): ^ The e,~isting northbound shared throng/~lrzght--turn lane shall be reconfigured to be an all- movement lane; ^ The northbound and southbound phasing shall be changed to split pha.ring,• ^ The eastbound right-turn movement shall have an overlap phase with the northbound phase. 4.7,36 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Clrculatlon After implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, the impact at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive intersection would be reduced to less than significant. During the A.~t. peak hour, this intersection would operate at LOS C with an average delay of 31.7 seconds. Genentech would be solely responsible for the implementation of this alternate measure. Impact 4.7-4 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E conditions at Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard intersection during the P.1vt. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-4 (new) would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Eastbound left-turn and westbound right-turn delays at the Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard intersection are expected to increase significantly with the addition of Project generated traffic. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, a new mitigation measure for this intersection should be implemented. MM x.7-4 Gull Drivel Forbes Boulevard (Nezv~: ^ The enzsting westbound shared through/right-turn lane shall be reconfigured to be a right- turn only lane; ^ The westbound right-tu1~a movement shall have an overlap phase with the southbound movement; ^ The southbound right-turn movement shall have an overlap phase with the eastbound left- turn phase. After implementation of the proposed mitigation measure, the proposed project's impact at this location would be less than significant. As such, Genentech would be solely responsible for the implementation of this measure. Impact 4.7-5 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E conditions at Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection during the P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-5 (East of 101) would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Eastbound left-turn and southbound left-turn volumes at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection are expected to increase significantly with the addition of Project generated traffic. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, implement the East of 101 Study mitigation measure for this intersection. MM 4.7-5 Airport Boulevard/GranrlAvenue (East of 101): ^ Ke-stripe e.~isting southbound Airport Boulevard right turn large to a shared through-right lane and southbound shared through/left lane to a left turn lane ^ l~iden eastbound Grand Avenue to add two left turn lanes; re-stripe the eastbound through/left shared lane to a through lane and eastbound rzght turn lane to shared through/right lane Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4,77 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatys-s ^ Provide a third left-turn in the avestbound approach and restrict truck traffic on westbound Grand Avenue ^ Exiting signal modification By applying the mitigation measure previously identified by the East of 101 Study, the proposed project's impact would be less than significant at this location. As such, Genentech would be responsible for funding its fair share to the implementation (including design, approval, and construction) of this measure. It is important to note that this mitigation requires major reconfiguration of the intersection. Impact 4.7-6 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F conditions at East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard intersection during the A.M. and P.M, peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-6(a)(East of 101) and 4.7-6 (b)(new) would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. At the East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard intersection, eastbound volumes are expected to exceed capacity with the addition of Project generated traffic. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, the following additional mitigation measure-in conjunction with the mitigation measure proposed in the East of 101 Study-would need to be implemented: MM 4.7-6(a) East Granrl Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard (East of 101: ^ Wliden westbound Grand Avenue to add one additional through lane and one additional left turn lane. ^ 1~i~len southbound Forbes Boulevard to a~lrl one through lane anti change the existing shared through-right lane to a right turn only lane ^ lYlirlera northbound Harbor lay to arld one through lane, one right turn lane grad change the existing shared through-right turn lane to a right turn lane to a through lane ^ New signal installation ^ Signal interconnection installation MM 4.7-6(b) East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard (New): ^ The eastbourad approach to this intersection shall be widened to allow the existing shared through/right-turn lane to be reconfigured into separate through and right-turn lanes. After implementation of the both the East of 101 Study mitigation measure and the new mitigation measure, the impact at the East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard intersection would be reduced to less than significant. During the A.M. peak hour, this intersection would operate at LOS D with an average delay of 40.1 seconds. Genentech would be solely responsible for the implementation of the additional measure, and would be expected to pay its fair share towards the implementation (including design, approval, and construction) of the East of 101 Study mitigation measure. 4.7-38 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Cfrculatlon Impact 4.7-7 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F conditions at East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue intersection during the A.M. and r.1~. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-7 (East of 101) would reduce this impact to less than significant. Increased eastbound and westbound volumes at the East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue intersection would cause delays at the stop-controlled southbound approach to reach unacceptable levels. This intersection would meet the Caltrans peak hour volume signal warrant. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, implement the East of 101 Study mitigation measure. MM 4.7-7 East Granrl Avenue/Allerton Avenue (East of 701): ^ Nezv signal installation ^ .Signal interconnection installation By applying the previously identified East of 101 Studv mitigation measure, the proposed project's impact would be less than significant at this location. As such, Genentech would be responsible for funding its fair share to the implementation (including design, approval, and construction) of this measure. Impact 4.7-8 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F conditions at East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive intersection during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measures MM 4.7-8(a)(East of 101) and 4.7-8(b)(new) would reduce this impact to less than Significant. At the East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive intersection, even after the implementation of the East of 101 Study mitigation measure, delays at the southbound right-turn and eastbound left-turn movements would be unacceptabl`~ high. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, the East of 101 and a new mitigation measure must be implemented: M1ti7 4.7-8(q) East Grand Avenue/Granrlvie~a~ Drive (East of 10f~: ^ New signal installation ^ Aeld one soutbboun~l Granrlvieu~ Avenue right tarrn lane; a~ld one no~~l~bound Gran~lvieav Avenue thru lame (merging back to one lane after 770 feet); re-stripe eastbound East Grand Avenue to provide one left tarn lane and one shared left/through lane. ^ .S'i~nal interconnection installation. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4 7-39 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis MM 4.7-8(b) East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive (neav): ^ The ave.rtbound .shared through/right-turn lane shall be reconfigured into aright-turn only lane. The southbocrncl right-turn lane avoukl then be able to become a free right tuna, anti shall be .rtripe~l as such. These reconfigurations avouhl cause the southbound approach to rewire less green time,' creating more available green time for the eastbound approach. After implementation of the both the East of 101 Study mitigation measures and the new mitigation measure, the impact at the East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive intersection would be reduced to less than significant. During the P.~1. peak hour, this intersection would operate at LOS B with an average delay of 14.4 seconds. Impact 4.7-9 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS F conditions at Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue intersection during the P.M. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-9 (East of 101) would reduce this impact to less than significant. Westbound left-turn and southbound through delays at the Produce Avenue/South Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue intersection are expected to increase significantly with the addition of project generated traffic. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, implement the East of 101 Study mitigation measure. MM 4.7-9 Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San Mateo Avenue (East of ~ 101): ^ I~iden avestbound Airport Boulevard to arkl one additional left-turn lane anti re-stripe the e.~isting throughlleft shared lane to a left-turn lane to make it a total of three left-turn lanes. ^ Mod northbound Produce Avenue to bring the southbound 101 to eastbound Airport Boulevard traffic to stop at the intersection to eliminate the meting and aveaving conflicts on eastbound Airport Boulevard ^ Neav signal installation By applying the previously identified East of 101 Study mitigation measure, the proposed project's impact would be less than significant. As such, Genentech would be responsible for funding its fair share to the implementation (including design, approval, and construction) of this measure. Impact 4.7-10 Implementation of the proposed project would result in LOS E conditions at South Airport/Gateway Boulevard intersection during the P.N1. peak hour. This would be a significant impact. However, implementation of the identified mitigation measure MM 4.7-10 (East of 101) would reduce this impact to less than significant. ~~ "Green time" is the amount of green light allotted to ant' given phase at a traffic signal. 4.7-40 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 TransportatJon and CI-~culatlon Southbound right-turn delays at the South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection are expected to increase significantly with the addition of proposed project generated traffic. In order to restore acceptable operating conditions, implement the East of 101 Study mitigation measure. MM 4.7-70 Soarth Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard (East of 707): ^ i~iden eastbound Airport Boulevard to add one additional right-turn large; re-stripe the existing through/left shared large to a through lane ^ i~iden Mitchell Avenue to add two additional through lanes and aright-turn large ^ I~iden southbound Gateway to add one right turn lane and change the e.~isting shared through-right lane to another right-turn large ^ New signal installation By applying the mitigation measure previously identified by the East of 101 Study, the proposed project's impact would be less than significant at this location. As such, Genentech would be responsible for funding its fair share to the implementation (including design, approval, and construction) of this measure. Table 4.7-16 summarizes operating conditions for intersections after the implementation of mitigation measures in the Year 2015 Future Plus Project conditions. Table 4.7-17 outlines who is responsible for funding the proposed mitigation measures throughout the MEIR Study Area. It should be noted that at intersections where an "X" is only present in the "2015 Future Without Project Mitigations" column, the East of 101 Study has identified a mitigation measure at an intersections where the proposed project would not create an impact. In these cases, Genentech would not be responsible to pay a share of the cost of implementing the proposed improvements. In cases where an "X" is present in both the "2015 Future Without Project Mitigations" and "2015 Plus Project Mitigations (per East of 101)" columns, the implementation of the East of 101 mitigation measures is recommended to mitigate cumulative impacts created by the proposed project. In these cases, Genentech may be responsible to pay its share of the cumulative growth in traffic volumes at the intersection in question. However, if the intersection is projected to operate at unacceptable conditions prior to the addition of proposed project generated trips, Genentech would not be responsible to pay for improvements to the intersection. In cases where an "X" is present in both the "2015 Future Without Project Mitigations" and "2015 Plus Project Mitigations (Genentech Only)" columns, the implementation of the East of 101 mitigation measures is not recommended, as it would not mitigate cumulative impacts created by the proposed project. Instead, the implementation of an alternate mitigation measure would be required to mitigate the cumulative impacts created by the proposed project. In these cases, Genentech would be solely responsible for the funding of the alternate mitigation measure. In cases where an "X" is present in all three columns, not only is the implementation of the East of 101 mitigation measures is recommended, but the implementation of an additional mitigation measure would be required to mitigate cumulative impacts created by the proposed project. In these cases, Genentech would be responsible to pay its share of the cost of the East of 101 mitigation measure, as well as fully funding the additional mitigation measure. Lastly, in cases where an "X" is only present in Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-41 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls the "2015 Plus Project Mitigations (Genentech Only)" column, the proposed project would be solely responsible for the funding of the necessary improvements. 2b1.5 Fuhre Plus Rgeci wRh 2015 iFUhre PNus Reject wti- £~st Al~er--ebg/AddCa~el Asian af101A~atbn Measlres hbBrsedia~ Albl PM AM PM 1. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard NIA (3D2) NIA NIA 3. Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue NIA (4D1) N/A NIA 4. Oyster Point BoulevardlGateway Boulevard - - (49.6) (51D.0) 5. Oyster Point BoulevardlGull Drive (>80) (48.3) (3A7) NIA 6. Gull DrivelForbes Boulevard - - N/A D (48.7) 8. Airport BoulevardlMillerRvenue/US 101 SB Off-Ramp NIA NIA NIA NIA 9. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue (33.1) N/A N/A NIA 10. Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue NIA NIA NIA NIA 13. East Grand AvenuelGateway Boulevard N/A NIA NIA NIA 14. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master RoadlForbes Boulevard (61.1) (49.0) (40.1) NIA 15. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue (10.2) (1 Bg) NIA NIA 16. East Grand AvenuelGrandview Drive (18.6) (>80) NIA (14.4) 17. Produce AvenuelAirport BoulevardlSan Mateo Avenue N/A ~~Dm N/A NIA 18. South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard I NIA I (34.3) I NIA I NIA SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 LOS =Level of Service Delay indicates Average Vehicle Delay in seconds. Bold indicates unacceptable intersection operating conditions. N/A indicates that a mitigation measure would not be needed. Dashed line indicates that no East of 101 Mitigation is available. As shown in Table 4.7-17, Genentech would be solely responsible for paying for improvements at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. At the Oyster Point Boulevard/Gull Drive intersection, the proposed East of 101 Study mitigation measure would not mitigate the proposed project's impact. Thus, Genentech would be responsible for providing an alternate mitigation measure and the payment thereof. At the East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive intersections, the proposed East of 101 mitigation measure, in conjunction with an additional mitigation measure, would mitigate the project's impact. As a result, 4.7-42 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Circulation Genentech would be responsible for contributing its fair share towards the cost of implementing the East of 101 mitigation measure, as well as fully funding the proposed additional measure. ~~~'~ 20].5 Ftidre VVRho~d Ro/ectAo~ns f~~PeoU 2015 Pws Pta,~ed A~Ik~tions (QenenBeahl~FSi~are) 2015 Alus Plgect Ammons NGener+oed-ONYI 1. Airport Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard X - - 3. Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque Avenue X X - 4. Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard ---- - X 5. Oyster Point BoulevardlGull Drive X - X 6. Gull Drive/Forbes Boulevard X - - Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue/US 101 SB 8. Off-Ramp X - - 9. Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue X X - 10. Dubuque Avenue/Grand Avenue X - - 13. East Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard X - - 14. East Grand Avenue/Harbor Master Road/Forbes Boulevard X X X 15. East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue X X - 16. East Grand Avenue/Grandview Drive X X X Produce Avenue/Airport Boulevard/San 17. Mateo Avenue X X - 18 South Airport BoulevardlGateway Boulevard X X - __ _. ...-. ..... ... ~~.g.. ~....~ ~~.6 cvvv X indicates responsible party Threshold Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Impact 4.7-11 The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. This would be aless-than-significant impact. The MEIR Study Area is located approximately 1.5 miles north of SFIA. The entire MEIR Study Area is within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limits for the SFIA. The proposed project does not propose any changes that would affect the SFO airport or flight operations and does not propose any structures of substantial height to interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. This is a less- than-significant impact. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4,7-q,g Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Threshold Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Specifically, the project would create a significant impact if it would cause the Level of Service at a freeway segment or freeway ramp to degrade from LOS D to LOS E or worse, from LOS E to F, or cause an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.5 or more and cause an increase in density by four passenger cars per lane per mile. Impact 4.7-12 Implementation of the proposed project would result in a volume-to- capacity increase of 0.05 or more along the already deficient (LOS F) US 101 segment north of Oyster Point Boulevard in the southbound direction during the A.M. peak hour, and in the northbound direction during the P.M peak hour. This would be a significant impact. As potential mitigation measures to reduce this impact would require approval from outside agencies, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. 2015 Conditions at US 101 Mainline-With and Without Project Table 4.7-18 presents the 2015 Future Without Project and 2015 Future Plus Project traffic volumes and levels of service for US 101 study segments (the HC,S' freeway segment calculation sheets are provided in Appendix E. North of Oyster Point Boulevard Northbound Direction D 32.4 F NIA D 33.0 F NIA Southbound Direction F NIA D 31.2 F N/A D 32.0 North of I-380 Northbound Direction D 26.1 C 24.5 D 30.5 C 25.1 Southbound Direction D 29.5 D 32.6 D 30.1 E 38.2 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 LOS =Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph. Under LOS F conditions, free-flow speed drops to below 55 mph. Bold indicates unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions. As noted in Table 4.7-18 above, in the 2015 Future Without Project conditions, the US 101 segment north of I-380 is expected to operate at LOS D or better in the 2015 Future Without Project conditions during both peak hours. The segment north of Oyster Point Boulevard would operate at LOS F in the southbound direction during the A.1~1. peak hour, and in the northbound direction during the P.l~i. peak hour. In the 2015 Future Plus Project conditions, the US 101 segment north of I-380 are expected to deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E in the southbound direction during the P.1~i. peak hour with the 4.7-44 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Circulation addition of Project generated traffic. However, as stated earlier, the LOS standard for these freeway segments has been established as LOS E by the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program. Conditions at the US 101 segment north of Oyster Point Boulevard would continue to operate at LOS F in the southbound direction during the t,.t1. peak hour, and in the northbound direction during the P.`i. peak hour with the addition of Project generated traffic. Thus, the project would contribute to cumulative impacts at these locations. The 2015 Future Plus Project A.~i. peak hour traffic volume for this segment in the southbound direction (10,008 vehicles) would be greater than the A.~t. peak hour traffic volume for this segment (9,280 vehicles) in the 2015 Future Without Project condition. The Project would add about 728 vehicles to the southbound direction of US 101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard during the A.1~t. peak hour. During the P.l~f. peak hour, 2015 Future Plus Project traffic volume for this segment in the northbound direction (10,093 vehicles) would be greater than the Year 2015 Future Without Project condition traffic volume for this segment (9,490 vehicles). As such, the proposed project would add about 603 vehicles to the northbound direction of US 101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard during the P.~i. peak hour. Cumulative impacts to this freeway segment could be considered potentially significant for both peak hours. According to the significance threshold criteria listed in the Environmental Criteria section, the proposed project would cause a significant cumulative impact if it would do the following: Cause an increase (attributable to Project-generated traffic) in volume-to-capacit<> (v/c) ratio of 0.05 or more at freewa~> mainlines and increase the density (passenger cars per mile per lane) b~~ at least four at on-ramp/freeway junctions operating at LOS E or F under future baseline conditions According to the 2015 Future Without Project traffic conditions noted in Table 4.7-17, during the A.~t. peak hour, the segment of US 101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard in the southbound direction would operate with a v/c ratio of 1.16. With the addition of Project-generated traffic, the v/c ratio is expected to increase to 1.25, which represents an increase of 0.09. Therefore, the proposed project would create a significant cumulative impact along the southbound direction of US 101 north of Ouster Point Boulevard. Likewise, the addition of Project-generated traffic to the northbound direction of US 101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard in the P.~t. peak hour would create a significant impact because it would cause an increase in the v/c ratio of 0.07. Therefore the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact. 2015 US 101 On-Ramp Conditions-With and Without Project Table 4.7-19 shows the 2015 Future Without Project and 2015 Future Plus Project freeway on-ramp densit~>, and the corresponding levels of service. As shown, all off-ramps would operate at LOS D or better during the weekday r1.A4. and P.~t. peak hours under both scenarios. Although the addition of the Project-generated vehicle trips to the freeway mainlines and on-ramps would result in an increase in the density at the freeway mainline/on-ramp junctions, all locations would continue to operate with acceptable conditions. The project would have aless-than-significant impact. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-45 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts . • - ~ • 1 • . • • • ~ - 20]S Fudge • - • • WRl-outRo~eCt • • - • ~ • 2015 FuU~e Pws AMF~alciiar PMFlaetcHour AlblFbekHour PMF1sekHbur US101S~r~erK L06 Dd~y !A6 L06 ' L06 ' US 101 NB from Oyster Point Boulevard B 11.3 B 19.7 B 11.7 C 23.3 US 101 SB from Oyster Point BoulevardlDubuque Avenue B 10.4 B 15.3 B 10.5 B 16.5 US 101 NB from Grand AvenuelAirport Boulevard B 17.8 B 21.3 B 18.1 C 22.5 US 101 NB from South Airport Boulevard B 19.1 C 21.7 B 19.1 C 21.7 US 101 SB from Produce Avenue B 17.2 C 25.2 B 17.9 D 29.1 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006 LOS =Level of Service Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile. Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph. BOId indicates unacceptable freeway on-ramp operating conditions. 2015 US 1010ff--Ramp Conditions-With and Without Project Table 4.7-20 shows the freeway off-ramp levels of service, and the ramp capacity utilizations for the 2015 Future Without Project and 2015 plus Project conditions. As shown, all off-ramps provide sufficient capacity for queued vehicles during the weekday A.~t. and P.1~1. peak hours under both scenarios. Although the addition of the project-generated vehicle trips to the freeway off-ramps and the adjacent local intersections would result in an increase in the queues along the off-ramps, all locations would continue to operate with acceptable conditions and the off-ramps would be long enough to accommodate the projected queues. It should be noted that although the approach to the intersection of Ouster Point and the US 101 flyover would operate at LOS E and F in the future, the off-ramp operations would not be substantially affected. One method to try to minimize the proposed project's effect on freeway segrr~ent operations would be to implement a more aggressive TDM program. Although the TDM program in place for Genentech can be seen as aggressive due to the availability- of transit throughout the area, 92.5 percent of trips are still via automobile. It is possible to reduce this number by implementing the programs discussed in the Regulatory Framework (Section 4.7.2): shuttle service improvements, shuttle facility improvements, parking cash-outs, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. This aggressive TDM program would assume that transit and carpool usage would double. Although this method would reduce the proposed project's effect on freeway segment operations, the increase in the v/c ratio would remain above 0.05 during both peak hours. Other mitigation possibilities include a ramp metering program, widening of the freeway, the addition of auxiliary travel lanes, or the improvement of parallel local roadways. However, any of these possibilities would require approval from outside agencies. Therefore, feasible mitigation measures cannot be developed. The proposed project's impact at the US 101 segment north of Oyster Point Boulevard in both the r~.i~1. (southbound) and P.~t. (northbound) peak hour is s2gnificant and unavoidable. 4.7-46 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Transportation and Clrculatlon • • • • ~ 2Qt5 Fud.e WRhoutRoject 2015 Aiwre Pl>/s lfiyect AMIPoekt~our PMf~eklfar AMPoakHa~ PMF1~kHbur l06 ! Ramp CgaeaX LD6 (4 o h Ramp C p 106 Ramp LO6 Ramp 1151D1Sl~nerrt Dewy) y txia~Obn ppr ac Delay s acKy U~atian (,gpproaci- Delay) Csro~acJly Utimtlar (App-oact- D~ CtvpeccK-~ tR~stlnn US 101 SB to Airport Boulevard D (36.9) 15.7% D (35.9) 32.6% D (36.9) 15.7% D (37.3) 32.6% US 101 SB flyover to Oyster Point Boulevard E (76.1) 31.2% D (37.0) 5.6% F (> 80) 53.6% D (37.0) 5.6% US 101 NB to Oyster Point/Dubuque g (13.3) 55.1 % D (37.1) 49.2% B (14.5) 65.0% D (43.6) 55.1 US 101 SB to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue g (18 7) 48.6% C (24.6) 39.3% B (17.7) 57.9% C (24.5) 41.7% US 101 NB to East Grand/Executive Drive A (0.0) 0% A (0.0) 0% A 0.0 ( ) 0% A (0.0) 0% US 101 SB to South Airport/Produce Avenue C (22.7) 24.4% C (27.0) 21.7% C (22.7) 24.5% C (24.9) 21.7% US 101 NB to South Airport Boulevard cn~ ionr. g (18 9) 69.2% D (37.0) 33.5% B (19.8) 87.1 % D (37.3) 37.9% .._.... _..e.. ~........b ~vvv LOS=Level of Service BOId indicates unacceptable freeway off-ramp operating conditions. Threshold Substantially increase transit demand that could not be accommodated by existing or planned transit capacity, resulting in unacceptable levels of transit service Impact 4.7-13 Implementation of the proposed project would not cause an increase in transit use that is substantial in relation to existing transit conditions. This impact is less than significant. 2015 Transit Conditions-With and Without Project Based on the Genentech mode split surve~~ results, about 5.3 percent of all trips generated b~~ Genentech developments use transit and the associated shuttles to travel to and from work (Table 4.7-1). Based on the amount of development proposed as part of the proposed project, there would be an increase of about 135 transit trips during the A.i~t. peak hour (120 inbound and 15 outbound), and 125 transit trips during the P.~t. peak hour (20 inbound and 105 outbound). Assuming the same trip distribution used for automobile trips, these neap transit trips would be spread throughout the various local and regional transit operators within the area, including SamTrans, Caltrain, BART, and the proposed new WTA ferry service to Oyster Point. SamTrans would be likel}' to carry the bulk of transit trips to and from the Peninsula, which would represent up to 53 trips during the A.1~t. peak hour (47 inbound and 6 outbound), and up to 50 transit trips during the P.nt. peak hour (8 inbound and 42 outbound). Since SamTrans runs 17 buses during the r~.A1. peak hour and 16 during the P.~i. peak hour, the average load per bus would increase by no more than 3project-generated transit trips in any Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR q.7-47 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls given direction during either peak hour. Caltrain would carry passengers to and from the South Bay, which would represent up to 9 trips during the A.~t. peak hour (8 inbound and 1 outbound), and up to 9 transit trips during the P.bt. peak hour (2 inbound and 7 outbound). Caltrain runs two trains per hour to the South San Francisco BART Station during both peak hours, so the average load per train would increase by no more than 4project-generated transit trips. BART can be expected to carry the vast majority of the remainder of transit trips, which could represent as many as 73 trips during the A.tii. peak hour (65 inbound and 8 outbound), and up to 66 transit trips during the P.~1. peak hour (11 inbound and 55 outbound). Since BART runs four trains during either peak hour to the South San Francisco BART Station, the average load per train would increase by no more than 16 project-generated transit trips in any given direction during either peak hour. As such, the addition of the Project-related transit trips would not result in a substantial increase in transit ridership for any one provider. It is anticipated that the majority of these transit riders would use the Genentech shuttle or one of the other shuttle systems to travel between the campus and the nearby transit stations. Genentech is currently undergoing a review, reorganization, and expansion of their shuttle system. As part of this effort, new shuttle vehicles and increased service levels are being proposed. When implemented, the enhanced shuttles should be sufficient to address the future ridership demand. In addition, the shuttle program would allow for expansions to meet demand levels, so that all riders could be accommodated. This impact is less than significant. Threshold Reduce parking supply such that parking demand cannot be accommodated. Cause an unmet parking demand that would result in other adverse effects, such as hazardous conditions caused by illegally parked vehicles, or secondary traffic impacts due to vehicles circling and looking for parking spaces. Impact 4.7-14 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. This impact is less than significant. 2015 Parking Conditions-With and Without Project As part of the proposed project, the number of parking spaces serving Genentech will increase from 5,525 to 10,874. Parking demand for the 2015 Future Plus Project condition was calculated using rates provided by Genentech (based on land use categories), described earlier. Using the calculated parking demand, the expected parking lot occupancy associated with the buildout of the project was determined and is presented in Table 4.7-21. As shown in Table 4.7-21, Genentech is expected to create a daily parking demand of approximately 10,204 spaces in the 2015 Future Plus Project condition, which represents approximately 94 percent of the total available parking supply. Thus, the number of parking spaces made available as part of the buildout of the proposed project would accommodate the expected increase in peak hour parking demand. At specific locations, such as Mid Campus and Upper Campus, the projected parking demand would exceed capacity. As a result, the excess vehicles would be expected to either park in less utilized lots, or park in the Gateway Campus lot and access the main campus via one of the Campus shuttles. 4,~-4g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 Tiansaortation and Circu-at-nn -~rlai~gt:oaation ~-~-1li' -~irfd-IgOemand (~peaAyUnimUon f~rld-~gSi~pfy Pl9r-dr~gp~~ 'IJG~Ban Lower Campus 2,224 1,918 86% 5,318 2,877 54% West Campus 136 0 0% 2,736 2,646 97% Mid Campus 1,436 876 61% 1,100 1,310 119% Upper Campus 1,729 1,657 96% 1,720 3,371 196% Total 5,525 4,451 81% 10,874 10,204 94% Neither the proposed project buildout nor the proposed improvements to the surrounding traffic network would increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Thus, the impact is less than significant. Threshold Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Impact 4.7-15 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). This impact is less than significant. Design Impacts The development of the proposed project uses would be similar uses which are compatible and complimentary to the existing surrounding uses on the Genentech campus. The proposed development would not include any uses that would be hazardous to existing uses. The MEIR Study Area would be served primarily by Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, with connections to Gull Drive, Forbes Boulevard, and Grandview Drive. During morning and evening peak commute periods, the MEIR Study Area and local access roads would likely experience a concentration of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle activin~. The design of MEIR Study Area access points and on-site roads and circulation system is not anticipated to include any design features that would result in a substantial increase in vehicular or pedestrian hazards. Pedestrian corridors would be provided throughout the campus and designated parking areas. Proper design of parking facilities would seek to separate and control potential conflicts and to reduce possible congestion and areas of constraint. Well-designed crosswalks, traffic calming measures (speed reducing strategies) and secure bicycle parking facilities would be provided as part of the design to ensure overall access and circulation operational safety. Genentech will have overall responsibility for the design and construction of the proposed project, and will ensure conformance with traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle safety City standards. The project design plans would be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineering Department to ensure compliance with all vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle accessibility and design requirements. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4 7-49 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts In consideration of the project's compatibility with surrounding uses and the incorporation of design features to ensure traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle safety, the project impact would be less than significant. Threshold Result in inadequate emergency access I Impact 4.7-16 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. This impact is less than significant. Emergency Access Emergency vehicle access to the MEIR Study Area would be from Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue, with connections to Gull Drive, Forbes Boulevard, and Grandview Drive. The onsite roadway infrastructure and parking areas are currently and would continue to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Vehicle access drives to/from and within the MEIR Study Area are currently and would continue to be designed to meet the City of South San Francisco design requirements for emergency vehicle accessibility. Genentech will have overall responsibility for the design and construction of the proposed project, and will ensure conformance with Cit<~ standards. The project desigm plans would be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineering Department to ensure compliance with all accessibility and design requirements. In consideration of the incorporated design features to ensure adequate emergency access, the project would have aless-than-significant impact upon emergency access.. Threshold Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) Impact 4.7-17 Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). This impact is less than significant. Conflicts with Adopted Alternative Transportation Policies, Plans, or Programs Based on the Genentech mode split survey results, bicycles and pedestrians trips currently make up less than 1 percent of the current mode share. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Project would not substantially increase bicycle and pedestrian travel in the area. There are currently (and proposed) pedestrian and bicycle facilities on the major streets that serve the Genentech campus (such as Oyster Point Boulevard and East Grand Avenue). As such, the new activity generated by the Project could be accommodated without resulting in significant impacts to operations. In consideration of the fact that the project would include TDM, would be designed to accommodate and encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections and access/use throughout the Genentech Campus, the project would result in a less than significant effect upon these alternative transportation modes. Since the City has a TDM ordinance and requires implementation of TDM programs, development of 4.7-50 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7 T/Ancnnrtatinn nnrl !`IM~~Iflttnn the project would result in a Zess-than-significant impact on alternative transportation as the project is expected to exceed the City's TDM requirements. 4.7.4 References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2005. Traffic Volumes on California Highways. Website source: www.dot.ca.gov/hp/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm. City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. Final Congestion Management Program for 2005. 2005. Dyett & Bhatia. 2003. Transportation Element. City of South San Francisco General Plan. Adopted October 13, 1999. Updated and amended December 2003. South San Francisco, City o£ 2003. East of'707 Tran.rportatior~ Im~rove~nefzt Plan. City of South San Francisco Amended General Plan Policy 4.2-I-6. Updated and amended December 2003. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.7-51 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8 LAND USE AND PLANNING This section of the MEIR describes existing land uses in the project area and the surrounding area and evaluates the potential for land use impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the 2006 FMPU, Citt~ of South San Francisco General Plan (1999), the City of South San Francisco General Plan EIR Amendment (2001), the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan (1994), Chapters 20.39 (R&D Overlay District Regulations), 20.40 (Genentech R&D Overlay District) and 20.32 (Planned Industrial Zoning District) of the SSFMC, San Francisco International Airport Master Plan, and photographs of the MEIR Study Area. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.8.4 (References) of this section. No comment letters related to land use and planning were received in response to the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions Project Location The existing Genentech Campus is located within the East of 101 Area. The Genentech Campus is bounded by the San Francisco Bay in the north and east, connected by Oyster Point/Forbes Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Genentech Campus, and is roughly one mile south of the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). The Genentech Campus is built on and around the San Bruno Hill, which is the highest point in the East of 101 Area. The Genentech Campus is visible from downto~~n South San Francisco and has many views overlooking the Bay and landmarks in the Bay Area. The MEIR Study Area is within the regulators- jurisdiction of other agencies, in addition to the City of South San Francisco. Along the Genentech Campus shoreline, the Bay Trail which connects the Genentech Campus to the San Francisco Bay regional park system is located within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction. In addition, the entire MEIR Study Area is subject to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height limits for the SFIA. No natural community plan, applicable habitat conservation plan or significant biological resources are located within the MEIR Study Area (see Section 4.1, Biological Resources, for a discussion.) Permitted land uses, policies, standards and regulations that are applicable to the proposed project are contained within the South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan), East of 101 Area Plan, and the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). The General Plan currently designates two land use categories within the MEIR Study Area: (1) Business and Technology Park and (2) Park and Recreation. The majority of the MEIR Study Area is designated as Business Technology Park, with a narrow strip of Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-1 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysts land in the Southern Campus that extends south along the coastline is designated as Park and Recreation. This small area includes the Bay Trail and coastal beach areas. The South Campus which is within the MEIR Study Area but not part of the proposed project, but includes buildings leased by Genentech, is designated Coastal Commercial/Business and Technology (Figure 4.8-1). The Land Use Concept Plan contained within the East of 101 Area Plan designates the majority of the Genentech MEIR Study Area as Planned Industrial. Existing uses within the East of 101 Area generally consist of warehouse, industrial and research and development activities. An Open Space land use is also designated. This designation rims the MEIR Study Area along the coast and hilltop areas. A portion of the South Campus is designated Light Industrial/Coastal Commercial. However, land use policies within the General Plan supersede the East of 101 Plan land use designations. At present time, and as a separate action from the proposed project, the 101 Area Plan will need to be updated to become internally consistent with the General Plan (Figure 4.8-2). Under the City's existing zoning regulations, the MEIR Study Area is contained within Chapter 20.39 (R&D Overlay District Regulations), Chapter 20.40 (Genentech R&D Overlay District) and within Chapter 20.32 (Planned Industrial District), of the SSFMC, as illustrated in Figure 4.8-3. Additionally, SSFMC Chapter 20.120 (Transportation Demand Management) also applies to the MEIR Study Area. Genentech is the largest employer in South San Francisco. Currently, it has approximately 6,658 employees in its Genentech Campus on Point San Bruno. A fully integrated biotechnology company, Genentech employs a wide range of functions at its Campus, which include research and development, manufacturing and distribution, marketing and administration. These activities are consistent with other surrounding land uses within the East of 101 Plan. In 1995, the City of South San Francisco adopted the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (1995 Master Plan) to provide an integrated framework for development of Genentech-owned properties into a corporate campus, at the City's eastern bayshore. The 1995 Master Plan provided a framework for Genentech Campus building and ensured/assured that Genentech's growth would fit within a city-wide development context, adopted in the South San Francisco General Plan to minimize future impacts and conflicts or policy inconsistencies. The Genentech R&D Overlay District, Chapter 20.4() of the SSFMC was established at the same time as the 1995 Master Plan. The Genentech R&D Overlay District specifies Floor Area Ratio (FAR), parking and other standards, and review and approval procedures for development within the district. Currently, Genentech owns a greater area than it did in 1995 (124 acres as compared to approximately 72 acres). In addition, the larger context has also evolved: the City adopted the General Plan Update in 1999 and the General Plan Amendment in 2001. The East of 101 Area transformed rapidly from manufacturing and warehousing into a business and biotechnology center; and the SFIA developed a new master plan, and made changes in allowable heights in the aircraft approach zones. In addition, the transportation context of this region has changed. To facilitate new pedestrian and shuttle access, South San Francisco and San Bruno have new BART stations and the relocation of South San Francisco Caltrain Station is underway. Also, in 2001, the City adopted an East of 101 Area Transportation improvement Plan and Transportation Improvement Strategy, to ensure that roadway and transit improvements kept pace with development. 4.8-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning Description of the Master Plan The "2006 Genentech Facility Master Plan Update" (2006 FMPU) is the long-range plan for the growth and development of the Genentech facility= which will be submitted to and reviewed by the Planning Commission and Cin~ Council in accordance with Section 20.39.040(b)(4) of the SSFMC as part of the application for reclassification of additional properties to the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The 2006 FMPU growth strategy aims for expansion and redevelopment throughout the Genentech Campus, concentrating on more intense administrative and office development in the Upper Campus and West Campus. Research and development will continue to expand in the Mid and Lower Campuses. The Lower Campus will also support product development and related functions. In addition the amenities will continue to be distributed throughout the Genentech Campus. The expected growth of the Genentech Campus to 6 million sf of building space on 160acres will result in an overall Genentech R&D Overlay District FAR of 0.69. Within the Genentech Campus, development intensity will vary in each neighborhood in response to available land. Maximum FARs of each neighborhood will not exceed 2.0 with a Genentech R&D Overlay District overall FAR maximum of 1.0. Building typology will further dictate the development intensities throughout the Genentech Campus. The 2006 FMPU is organized into five chapters and covers concepts regarding overall land use and development intensity, urban design issues of massing, scale and views; utilities; transportation and parking. Land Use and Structure Concepts The 2006 FMPU focuses on five design and development concepts: 1. Foster development of distinct yet interconnecting neighborhoods, to ensure a sense of communitt~ 2. Maintain and create balance between open space and built environment 3. Maximize use of views by careful siting and massing of buildings 4. Create a network of pedestrian and campus shuttle connections to facilitate movement between buildings and neighborhoods 5. Foster neighborhood spines concept to connect employee amenities and activity centers Urban Design Sections within the urban design chapter of the 2006 FMPU will be organized by urban design elements including connections, views, open space, central spines and building massing and scale. 1. Maximize waterfront and hilltop setting of the Genentech Campus by emphasizing connectivity through circulation and view corridors 2. Facilitate pedestrian connections and accessibility along major Genentech Campus corridors 3. Foster vital and active pedestrian-oriented central spines within each neighborhood 4. Build upon emblematic site elements to create a distinct Genentech Campus identity 5. Ensure that development relates to preserned view corridors and human scale of the Genentech Campus Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-9 Chapter 4 EnWronmental Anatys-s 6. Promote a flexible environment for development to achieve desired facility needs and intensities within the Genentech Campus 7. Provide the basis for specific architectural, open space, and site design guidelines Transportation and Parking The Transportation and Parking chapter within the 2006 FMPU will outline several initiatives to promote alternatives to automobile use, an efficient use of parking, expand transit and shuttle services, and integrate the Genentech Campus using various modes of transportation. 1. Develop a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program to minimize single-occupancy vehicles traveling to Genentech Campus 2. Streamline Genentech Campus circulation and connectivity of all neighborhoods in the East of 101 Area for shuttle bus, service and goods movement 3. Minimize intercampus traffic b}~ strategically locating parking areas 4. Create a flexible parking supply infrastructure and implementation plan that responds to development and parking demand needs 5. Accommodate multiple modes of transportation on the existing Genentech Campus street network Ut1lItleS Genentech Campus growth will necessitate expansion of utilities. Strategies in the 2006 FMPU will be structured as follows; 1. Ensure infrastructure availability to serve Genentech Campus growth and expansion needs 2. Emphasize conser~ration and recycling to the extent feasible and practical Design Guidelines The purpose of the design guidelines is to create a comprehensive set of regulations through which development will follow. Genentech has identified specific set of design concepts consistent with the East of 101 Area Plan, that permeates the design standards and that reinforce its identity; 1. Ensure that development relates to preserved view corridors and preserve the human scale 2. Design built and open spaces with consistent building systems, site elements in order to convey a singular and unified corporate Genentech Campus 3. Utilize materials, colors, and composition to create a cohesive, distinctive Genentech Campus that is sensitive to the natural environment of the site 4. Focus on ease of access and visibility along roadways and major pathways 5. Enhance employee safety and security using appropriate building systems and site design 6. Provide a physical environment that supports employee creativity and innovation, and fosters productivity 4.8-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning 4.8.2 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal land use regulations applicable to the proposed project. State There are no state land use regulations applicable to the proposed project. Local The South San Francisco General Plan The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999) provides long-term guidance and policies for maintaining and improving the quality of life in, and the resources of, the community, both man-made and natural. The General Plan provides direction for the Cin~'s growth and development. As a police document, the General Plan serves as a guide to the adoption of laws necessary to execute its intent. The South San Francisco General Plan contains the following chapters: ^ Land Use ^ Planning Sub-Areas ^ Transportation ^ Parks, Public Facilities, and Services ^ Economic Development ^ Open Space and Conservation ^ Health and Safety ^ Noise These chapters include six of the seven elements required by state law and other optional elements that address local concerns and regional requirements. The seventh required element is the Housing Element, which is published under a separate volume. The General Plan currently designates two land uses within the MEIR Study Area: 1) Business and Technology Park and 2) Park and Recreation. The majority of the MEIR Study Area is designated as Business and Technology Park, with a narrow strip of land in the Mid Campus that extends south along the coastline is designated as Park and Recreation. This small area includes the Bay Trail and coastal beach areas. The South Campus which is not part of the proposed project, but includes buildings leased by Genentech, is designated Coastal Commercial/Business and Technology. The Business and Technology Park land use category is designated for campus-style development for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. Permitted uses include incubator-research facilities, testing, repairing, packagring, publishing and printing, marinas, shoreline- oriented recreation, and offices, and research and development facilities. Warehousing and distribution facilities and retail are permitted as ancillary uses. All development is subject to high design and landscape standards. The maximum Floor Area Ratio is 0.5, but increases may be permitted, up to a total Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts FAR of 1.0 for uses such as research and development establishments, or for development meeting specific transportation demand management (TDM), off-site improvement, or specific design standards. Uses permitted under the Park and Recreation land use categorti~ are parks, recreation complexes, public golf courses, and greenways (Figure 4.8-1) The General Plan governs the amount and intensity of development within the East of 101 sub-areas and establishes specific policies and goals for the area, including the Genentech Facilities. City of South San Francisco General Plan Amendment, East of 101 Area Transportation Improvement Plan and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (2001) The 1999 General Plan identified the need to study the traffic in the East of 101 Area and to implement a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) Ordinance. In April of 2001, a traffic study of the East of 101 Area was completed. The results concluded that both physical improvements and a TDM program would need to be implemented to reduce congestion during peak periods and improve mobility in the East of 101 Area. The results were consolidated in a 2001 General Plan Amendment which contains policies that implement the East of 101 Area traffic study and TDM Ordinance. The TDM Ordinance is incorporated into the SSFMC. East of 101 Area Plan The East 101 Area Plan is one level below the General Plan in the South San Francisco land use hierarchy and sets forth additional and more specific land use policies for the East 101 Area, in addition to those in the General Plan, which continue to govern. The East 101 Area Plan was adopted five years before the 1999 adoption of the General Plan and the City continues to rely on the East 101 Area Plan to the extent that it does not conflict with the General Plan. If there is a conflict between the East of 101 Area Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan controls. The Land Use Concept Plan contained within the East of 101 Area Plan designates the majority of the MEIR Study Area as Planned Industrial. An Open Space land use is also designated. This designation rims the MEIR Study Area along the coast (Figure 4.8-2). A portion of the Mid Campus is designated Light Industrial/Coastal Commercial. City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan A southern portion of the MEIR Study Area is within the Downtown Central Redevelopment project boundary. The Downtown Central Redevelopment Area is an older redevelopment project boundary established in 1989, and as such has not had recent redevelopment activity within the existing Genentech properties. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Policies set forth with the General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan are implemented through enforcement of the City's zoning regulations. Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specified zoning districts and impose standards on those uses. Under the City's existing zoning 4•$-~ Genentech Corporate Fac111ties Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning regulations, the MEIR Study Area is subject to the provisions of the SSFMC, Chapter 20.39 (R&D Overlay District Regulations), Chapter 20.40 (Genentech R&D O~=erlay District), and Chapter 20.32 (Planned Industrial District) of the SSFMC. Currently, approximately 124 acres of the Genentech property is within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Genentech does not propose to include Bay West Cove South Campus, and Gateway Campus properties into the overlay district. This District was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1995 concurrently with the 1995 Genentech Master Plan, to provide greater flexibility for campus-style development for research and development activities, support implementation of the 1995 Master Plan and create a more streamlined permitting process by establishing development standards on a Genentech Campus-wide basis rather than on a parcel specific basis. All of the Genentech property is within the boundaries of the Planned Industrial District (P-I District). One of these properties includes atriangular-shaped parcel encompassing 36 acres owned by Genentech, located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Allerton Avenue and west of Forbes Boulevard. This parcel is identified in the 2006 FMPU as the planned West Campus. An additional 2 acres, part of the "Keeco" site is located south of Forbes Boulevard. This propert<= is also owned by Genentech and is identified as part of the Lower Campus in the 2006 FMPU. Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District) SSFMC, Chapter 20.40 The Genentech R&D Overlay District prescribes planning and design principles for facility'-wide development in accordance with the 1995 Master Plan. The establishment of the Genentech R&D Overlay District was intended to achieve the following outcomes: ^ Establish a facility-wide architectural character, a system of open space elements and a pedestrian and vehicular circulation plan linking buildings and uses together in a flexible, logical and orderly manner for the Genentech facility ^ Increase the flexibilitt~ of the City's land use regulations and the speed of its review procedures to reflect the quickly changing needs of a research and development focused corporation ^ Establish facility-wide development standards and design guidelines consistent with the City's General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan ^ Define a baseline of existing conditions for each lot reclassified to the Genentech R&D Overlay District Specific development standards and requirements for development within Genentech R&D Overlay District must comply with standards set forth in the underlying zoning District. However the following standards must be applied on a facility-wide basis: ^ Lot coverage ^ Floor area ratio ^ Off-street parking and loading requirements ^ Building height ^ Landscape buffering ^ Growth and development projections. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Lot Coverage.• The maximum lot coverage is established as 60 percent of the total area of the lots within the District. Floor Area Ratio: The maximum floor area ratio (FAR) is established as 1.0 of the total area of the lots within the District. Off=Street Parking Requirements: Off-street parking requirements are established at a rate of 1.6 parking spaces per 1000 sf of gross floor area for all buildings. For short-term parking operations in construction areas for up to two years, a .095 factor could be applied to the 1.6 ratio. Off-.S'treet Loading Requirements: Off-street loading requirements are established at a rate of one loading space per 100,000 sf of gross floor area for all buildings. Building Hiight.• The maximum building height is established at one hundred fifty feet above the average finished grade as measured on the perimeter of the subject building. Parking Lot Landscape Bt~erirag.• A landscaped parking lot buffer strip not less than 6 feet wide shall be required only for properties within the Genentech R&D Overlay District that are located along a public street frontage or adjacent to properties outside the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Groavth and Development Pr jection.r.• Consistent with the projections analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the South San Francisco General Plan and the East of 101 Area Traffic Improvement Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, development of the Genentech Campus shall be consistent with the General Plan development standards and floor area ratio in the Business and Technology Park land use classification, the East of 101 Area Plan Design Element, and the growth and development projections analyzed in General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Any significantly greater level of development within the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District would require additional area-wide environmental review and possibly reclassification and zoning map and text changes in SSFMC. Handicap Parking Kequirement.• Handicapped parking requirements consistent with the California Accessibility Regulation and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, must be incorporated as a facilitt~-wide standard. The remainder of the Genentech property lies in the Planned Industrial District (I'-I). This includes 36 acres of the future West Campus property located north of East Grand Avenue, east of Allerton Avenue and west of Forbes Boulevard and the 2 acre parcel located south of Forbes Boulevard. This property is also owned by Genentech and is identified as part of the Lower Campus in the 2006 FMPU (Figure 4.8-3). Planned Industrial (P-I District) The P-I District implements policies prescribed by the General Plan Planned Industrial land use category. Specific development standards and requirements for development within the P-I District are contained within the District and within other regulatory Chapters of the SSFMC. Uses permitted in the P-I 4.8-14 Genentech Co rporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Plannln~ District include various civic uses, commercial and industrial uses such as administrative, community education, safet<~, libraries, financial, eating and drinking establishments, personal services, repair services, and research and development activities, light manufacturing, and general industrial activities. Specific development standards and requirements for development within P-I District include: Building Heigbt.• Maximum building heights for main structures are 65 feet, with 20 feet maximum for accessory structures. Additional height may be permitted if a use permit is first procured. Mid- and high- rise office buildings are permitted east of the Bayshore Freeway and along the east slope of the San Bruno Mountains. Lot Coverage: The maximum lot coverage is established as 60 percent of the total area. The minimum lot size is 5,000 sf. FloorArea Ratio.• According to Table 20.66.in Chapter 20.66 of the SSFMC there is no FAR maximum for the P-1 District. Off-.S'treet Parking Kequirement.• Industrial uses in the P-I District: one space for each 1,500 sf of gross floor area, plus one for 300 sf of office uses. Research and Development Manufacturing lndustrial uses: one space for every 300 gross sf floor area up to 50,000 sf, plus one space for every 400 gross sf of floor area over 50,000 sf. A reduction from this standard may be granted in certain circumstances, subject to approval of a use permit and with a parking demand analysis approved by the Ciry Engineer. 4.8.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method The analysis in this section focuses on the compatibility of land uses identified in the proposed project with existing and planned land uses adjacent to the MEIR Study Area, as well as consistency with any applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts from land use and planning if the project would result in any of the following: ^ Physicalh~ divide an established community? ^ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ^ Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Analys-s Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~ Threshold Physically divide an established community ~ Impact 4.8-1 The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. There would be no impact. Existing and future uses within the MEIR Study Area include commercial, manufacturing and research and development activities. These uses are consistent with existing land uses in the surrounding area which include industrial, warehouse, commercial and research and development activities. No residential structures currently occupy the existing project site, and are not permitted in the East of 101 Area. No existing business or residential community would be displaced by the proposed project. Therefore there would be no impact. No mitigation required. Threshold Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect Impact 4.8-2 The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. Although the majority of the Genentech Campus is located within the Genentech R&D Overlay District, a portion of the Campus is located within the P-I zoning district, and within the area for which R&D Overlay Zones are authorized. Thus that portion will be covered by the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District concurrently with implementation of the proposed project. Implementation of the portions of the proposed project not currently within the Genentech R&D Overlay District would conflict with development standards within the SSFMC Chapter 20.32: Planned Industrial District. Development standards relating to building height, Floor Area Ratio and parking regulations within the proposed project are not consistent with the Planned Industrial District (P-I District) standards. Development standards such as building height and FAR contained within 2006 FMPU are consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District regulations and standards. The parking standard for the 2006 FMPU is 1.8 and the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District standard is 1.6., and thus, is not consistent. However, it is anticipated that the Genentech R&D Overlay District will be expanded and amended as part of approval of the proposed project to include the Genentech property not currently within the boundaries of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Therefore, impacts of the proposed project would be less than significant. As required by Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, this MEIR discusses any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional and local plans. A hierarchical scheme of Cit<~ 4.8-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning plans and ordinances determine what development is permitted in the Project Area. The local plans relevant to the proposed project, and for which a consistency analysis is also provided, include the CitS~ of South San Francisco General Plan (Cite of San Francisco 1999), the East of 101 Area Plan (Cin~ of South San Francisco 1994) and the CitS~ of South San Francisco Municipal Code (Cite of South San Francisco 1986). Specifically, the proposed project would include reclassification and zoning map changes of Genentech owned land from the P-I Zone to the Genentech R&D Overlay District, zoning text changes, adoption of the TDM plan; therefore, the proposed project must meet the requirements of the Cit<~ of SSFMC Chapter 20.39, which governs procedures for all projects in the R&D Overlay District including design review and administrative review procedures. Consistency of the proposed project with applicable regional and local plans is provided in the following sections below. Consistency with Applicable General and Local Plan Policies Local Plans City of South San Francisco General Plan Land Use Chapter Policy 2-G-2 Maintain a balanced land use program that provides opportunities for continued economic growth, and building intensities that reflect South San Francisco's prominent inner bay location and excellent regional access. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project would provide an expansion of the existing Genentech Campus facility that could provide an additional 6,661 professional bio-technology, research and development, administrative, and construction-related jobs to the community and help to stimulate new development, economic growth, and contribute revenue to the City. The 2006 FMPU identifies a variety of measures within the Land Use and Structure, Urban Design, and Transportation and Parking Chapters to integrate the Genentech Campus with the surrounding regional transportation system using a variety of transit modes. In addition, overall building intensity will remain similar to current (2005) densities and would not exceed the building intensities for the East of 101 Area set forth in the Genentech R&D Overlay District of the SSFMC Chapter 20.40. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy 2-G-2. Policy 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased accessibility that will result from BART extension to the City and adjacent locations. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project identifies the future growth and development of the Genentech Campus. Genentech manufactures and commercializes biotechnology products and employs a wide range of functions at its existing Genentech Campus including research and development, manufacturing, and distribution, and marketing and administration. As of the December 2005 baseline, Genentech employs 6,658 people. Up to 13,319 employees are projected to be located on the Genentech Campus by 2016. The creation of an expanded Genentech Campus will provide a large employment center near transit routes including the existing and future BART Caltrain, SamTrans service routes as Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis well as the proposed San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (W'TA) ferry terminal. This would help improve mobility access, bridge the geographic distance between housing and jobs, and supports compatible land uses within the East of 101 Area. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 2-G-3. East of I O I Sub-Area Chapter In addition to overarching citywide polices articulated in the Land Use Chapter of the General Plan, the General Plan contains specific goals and policies that direct planning and development decisions within several sub-areas of the City. Policies for sub-areas are designed to complement citywide policies included in the Land Use Element. The following guiding and implementing policies pertaining to land use for the proposed project are articulated in South San Francisco General Plan Sub-Area Chapter for the East of 101 Area: Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses. Consistence Analysis: The proposed project guides development for proposed office, laboratory, manufacturing, amenities, and research uses within a campus style environment and does not include a residential land use component. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 3.5-G-1. Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses. Consistency Analysis: Founded in 1976, Genentech is one of the leading biotechnology companies in the world. Headquartered in South San Francisco, Genentech employs a wide range of functions at its existing Genentech Campus including research and development, manufacturing, and distribution, and marketing and administration. Future growth of the Genentech Campus outlined in the 2006 FMPU will continue to emphasize office and biotechnology research and development uses. The proposed project is consistent with Police 3.5-G-3. Policy 3.5-I-4 Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. Consistency Analysis: The development within the proposed project is consistent with Policy 3.5-I-4. The 2006 FMPU requires that new and existing building in the West Campus have a maximum height limit of 150 feet above ground, complying with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77. The San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission height contours for structures located in the East of 101 Area range from 160.9 to 360.9 feet above sea level within the proposed project area. Building heights within the proposed project area would be within these maximum height limits. Policy 3.5-I-5 Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size. Consistency Analysis: As described in the Land Use and Structure Chapter of the 2006 FMPU, the maximum FAR of each neighborhood will not exceed 1.0, with an overall campus FAR of 0.69. The 4.8-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Plannln~ FAR is calculated as part of the total area of the Genentech Campus buildout, not on aparcel-by-parcel basis. The proposed project is therefore consistent with Polic}= 3.5-I-5. Policy 3.5-I-8 Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments such as dr<~ cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technologS' campuses. Con.ri,rtenc~~ Analysis' The proposed project is structured to provide guidance for future growth while providing flexibilit<~ for long-term planning. The 2006 FMPU builds upon the concept of planned neighborhoods that were a major guiding theme of the 1995 Master Plan. Each neighborhood is designed to have distinct characteristics, but will be connected to the Genentech Campus through a network of open spaces and circulation. Existing neighborhoods include the Lower, Mid and Upper Campuses. The 2006 FMPU identifies opportunities for development/ redevelopment within these existing Campuses as well as provides a framework for the new West Campus as a future addition to the Genentech Campus. Various existing and proposed employee serving amenities such as full-sen=ice cafeterias, child care centers, health-club facilities, banking centers, dry cleaner pick-up service, stores, and concierge services are identified within the 2006 FMPU. These amenities are located centrally and within each neighborhood to minimize the need to go off-campus or out of the East of 101 Area. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy 3.5-I-8. Parks and Recreation Chapter Policy 5.I-G-3 Provide a comprehensive and integrated network of parks and open space; improve access to existing facilities where feasible. Cosr.ri.rterlcy Analysis: Park and open space areas are located within the MEIR Study Area. Existing facilities within the project site include the Bay Trail and the Wind Harp Park. The Genentech open space network as identified in the 2006 FMPU, consists of multiple open space designations including public spaces (Bay Trail), passive (non-developable bluffs), connective spaces (landscaped pedestrian connections between major open spaces), and neighborhood-oriented spaces (plazas, courtt~ards). The main public open space area is adjacent to the Central Campus that includes the Genentech waterfront areas, the Bay Trail and the Wind Harp Sculpture and Park. Internal connections will be provided to the public open space areas, views will be preserved, and public access will be preserved and enhanced. No facilities would be built on the existing Bay Trail or public open park areas. Physical and visual access to the Bay Trail or public parks would not be hindered or altered by the proposed project. Passive and connective open space areas are proposed to be integrated throughout the Genentech Campus, including bluffs and ridges along San Bruno Hill within the Lower, Mid and Upper neighborhoods. The 2006 FMPU identifies pathways and connections to these areas. Additional connective open space linkages include the Lower Campus to the Upper Campus hillside stair and landscaped pathway and the open space promenade from the Lower Campus Spine to the Bay. In addition, a series of neighborhood-oriented open spaces would be created throughout the Genentech Campus including various outdoor courtyards, plazas, central greens, promenades. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis The proposed project would not impede or block access to the proposed network of park or trail linkages proposed in the General Plan. In addition, Genentech recentlti~ purchased the abandoned UP Rail right of way parcel near Allerton Avenue which offers the opportunity to connect the Genentech Campus with the Caltrain Station and Downtown South San Francisco. The proposed project is therefore consistent with Policy 5.I-G-3. Transit Chapter Policy 4.2-G-5 Make efficient uses of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of land uses, improved, alternative modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle- miles traveled. Consistency Analysis: The 2006 FMPU identifies a variety of measures within the Land Use and Structure, Urban Design, and Transportation and Parking Chapters to create apedestrian-oriented campus, promote alternatives to automobile uses, expand the shuttle program, and integrate the Genentech Campus with the surrounding transportation systems using a variet}' of modes. As discussed in Section 4.7 (Transportation and Circulation), approximately 5 percent of all trips currently generated by Genentech use transit and the associated shuttles to travel to and from work. Based on the amount of development proposed as part of the proposed project, there would be an increase of about 135 transit trips during the A.~i. peak hour and 125 transit trips during the P.~1. peak hour. These new transit trips would be spread throughout the various local and regional transit operators within the area, including SamTrans, Caltrain, BART, and the proposed new WTA ferry service to Oyster Point. It is anticipated that the majority of these transit riders would use the Genentech shuttle or one of the other shuttle systems to travel between the Genentech Campus and the nearby transit stations. In addition, Genentech is currently undergoing a review, reorganization, and expansion of their shuttle system. As part of this effort, new shuttle vehicles and increased service levels are being proposed. Future bike paths area also planned throughout the Genentech Central Campus. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are designated in the City of South .S'an Francisco General Plan Transportation Element. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.2-G-5. Policy 4.3-G-3 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations. Consistency Analysis: Genentech Campus and East of 101 Area shuttle services are presently provided by Genentech and the Congestion Relief Alliance through several contractors. Off-Campus shuttles provide service to the South San Francisco BART station, South San Francisco Caltrain Station, as well as Genentech Campuses in Vacaville and Redwood Ciry. The shuttle system also provides high frequency intra-Campus service connecting the Central Campus neighborhoods with the Gateway Campus. The Genentech Transit and Shuttle Plan within the 2006 FMPU outlines several programs and strategies to improve and enhance existing intra-Campus and off-Campus operations. Identified improvements for the intra-Campus shuttle system include the provision of service to future leased or owned properties, 4.8-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning combined shuttle routes, revised stop locations, expanded service to the South Campus, rerouted service to avoid conflicts with pedestrians and cars, and improved shuttle amenities and ADA access. Identified off-Campus improvements include shuttles to the Glen Park BART station, the future O~~ster Point Ferry Terminal and new service to areas with high employment densities such as San Francisco. The proposed project is therefore consistent with Policy 4.3-G-3. Policy 4.3-I-3 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multi- family residential, commercial, industrial, and office/institutional uses. Consistency Analysis: Existing facilities serving bicyclists at the Genentech Campus include bicycle racks and lockers which are distributed throughout the Genentech Campus. The proposed project includes a bicycle movement strategy that will provide secure bicycle facilities such as racks and secure lockers in all new development areas. In addition, the Bicycle Movement Chapter within the 2006 FMPU identifies several existing and potential future bike vehicle lanes and paths that transverse Genentech Campus and provide connections between the Genentech Campus, transit stations, the Bay Trail and the rest of the City. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy 4.3-I-3. Policy 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco. Consistency Analysisc.• Existing transit service in the East of 101 Area includes Caltrain, BART and SamTrans services. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority ~~'TA) has a proposed new ferry dock and services that will be constructed on the Oyster Point Marina Park area. This service will commence in 2008 and will provide connections to Downtown San Francisco and the East Bay. Existing public and private transit service would be connected to the new ferry terminal. Genentech also provide supplementary shuttle services to connect employees with transit stops or stations and provides subsidized transit passes to employees and various other transit promotional programs (new employee orientation packets, flyers, posters, trip planning assistance). As detailed in MEIR Section 4.7 (Transportation and Circulation), the 2006 FMPU provides an outline of strategies to reduce private automobile transportation and maximize transit access. Genentech currently exceeds the City of South San Francisco Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements. The 2006 FMPU outlines several strategies to continue compliance with TDM requirements to promote and encourage alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. Transit improvements within the MEIR Study Area include providing faster, more frequent and more reliable shuttle services that are accessible within a three minute walk of all buildings and parking spaces on Genentech Campus, providing demand-response shuttles for after hours, increased shuttle service to transit stations, and potential implementation of a dedicated shuttle service to off-campus destinations of high employee populations such as San Francisco. Other improvements include improved promotions, shuttle signage, route branding, improved pedestrian crossings, and ADA accessibility upgrades. The proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4-U-1. Policy 4.4-G-2 Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis Consistency Analysis: The East of 101 Area is well served by regional rail and bus transit services. Caltrain, BART and SamTrans provide transit services that serve a variety of regional communities such as San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Downtown South San Francisco. Currently, Genentech provides supplementary shuttle services to connect employees on Genentech Campus with transit stops or stations off-campus. Genentech also provides inter-Campus shuttle service to different neighborhoods within the Genentech Campus. The 2006 FMPU provides an outline of strategies to reduce private automobile transportation, maximize transit access and integrate various forms of alternative modes of transportation. The proposed project will comply with the City of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management requirements to promote and integrate alternative modes of transportation. Various forms of transit such as rail, bus, shuttle, ferry, bicycling and pedestrian access would be integrated throughout the MEIR Study Area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 4.4-G-2. East of 101 Area Plan Goals Land Use Policy 1.1 Promote planned industrial, office, and commercial uses in the East 101 Area, and discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with these uses. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project would complement existing industrial, office and commercial uses in the East of 101 Area. The 2006 FMPU projects the addition of 3,167,200 sf of office uses, laboratory uses, manufacturing/warehouse, research and amenities uses within a campus style environment. The proposed project does not include a residential land use component which is discouraged in the East of 101 Area. The proposed project is consistent with East of 101 Area Policy 1.1. Policy 1.2 Encourage development that enhances net revenues to the Cit<~. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with this Policy. Genentech stimulates the local economy as one of the largest employers in South San Francisco. Genentech's existing South San Francisco Campus is the corporate headquarters and the research and development center employing approximately 6,658 persons. Genentech employees are engaged in pharmaceutical research, manufacturing, analytical, chemistry and quality control, marketing and sales and general corporate and administrative functions. More than 80 percent of Genentech employees have college degrees, and more than 20 percent hold advanced degrees, including Ph.D.s and M.D.s.'' At 2006 FMPU buildout it is estimated that approximately 6,661 new jobs will be created. As of 2005, approximately 2,200 Genentech employees live in San Mateo County who were in turn provided X211 million in salaries.'s These Genentech employees pay property taxes within the County and purchase goods and services within South San Francisco, providing a customer base for commercial, retail and other services within the community. In addition, Genentech provides private donations to ~~ Gen.com. Compan}~ Fast Facts. November 2005. ~~ Annual Report 2005 Presented to the City of South San Francisco. Genentech, Inc. July 2005. 4,8-22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Planning local charitable organizations and provide care to uninsured and underinsured patients through the Genentech Access to Care Foundation. The proposed project is consistent with this Policti~. Policy 1.3 Promote development that creates qualitS~ jobs for South San Francisco. Consistency Analysis: As described earlier under Policy 1.2, approximately 6,658 persons are presentl}' employed by Genentech within the City= of South San Francisco, expanding to approximately 13,319 persons at 2006 FMPU buildout. These positions are a mixture of high quality scientific, research administrative, marketing or executive jobs that pay upper or moderate income salaries with benefits. The proposed project is consistent with this Policy. Circulation Policy 2.4 Provide for adequate amounts of parking in the East of 101 Area. Consistency Analysis. As discussed in greater detail in Section 4.7 (Transportation and Circulation), the number of parking spaces serving Genentech will increase from 5,525 to 10,874. Genentech is expected to create a daily parking demand of approximately 10,204 spaces by 2015, which represents approximately 94 percent of the total available parking supply. Thus, the number of parking spaces made available as part of the buildout of the proposed project would accommodate the expected increase in peak hour parking demand. At specific locations, such as Mid Campus and Upper Campus, the projected parking demand would exceed capacity=. As a result, the excess vehicles would be expected to either park in less utilized lots, or park in the Gateway Campus lot and access the Genentech Campus via one of the Genentech Campus shuttles. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Circulation Policy 2.4. Policy 2.5 Encourage and support transportation modes other than single-occupancy automobiles including ridesharing, bicycling, walking and transit. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project will provide a variety of provisions, connections, and services to support alternative modes of transportation such as transit, bicycling and walking. The proposed project will comply with the Cin~ of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management requirements to promote and encourage alternative modes of transportation other than single occupancy vehicles. The proposed project is consistent with Circulation Policy 2.5. Transit and S'hcrttle .S'eruices: Genentech is well served by regional rail and bus transit services. Caltrain and BART provide rail transportation services and SamTrans provides bus transit services that serve a variety of regional destinations such as San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and Downtown South San Francisco. However, the nearest stations or stops are several miles from the Genentech Campus. Therefore, Genentech provides supplementary shuttle services to connect employees on Genentech Campus with transit stops or stations off-campus. In addition, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority (~Y~TA) has a proposed new ferry dock and service that will be constructed less than a mile from the center of the Genentech Campus on the Oyster Point Marina Park area. This service will provide connections to Downtown San Francisco and the East Bay. When constructed sometime around 2008, the fern terminal will be connected to the Genentech Shuttle system. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls The Genentech Transit and Shuttle Implementation Plan (GTSIP) for 2006-2016 addresses the need for a streamlined shuttle system that improves rider productivity. The GTSIP provides changes to the existing system that includes combined routes, revised stop locations to improve travel time, and expanded service to the future South Campus. The GTSIP allows for faster, more frequent and more reliable shuttle services that are accessible within a three minute walk of all buildings and parking spaces on Genentech Campus. In addition to local shuttle service, the Plan includes potential implementation of a dedicated shuttle service to off-campus destinations of high employee populations such as San Francisco. In conjunction with these shuttle changes, upgraded shuttle signage, route branding, pedestrian crossings, and ADA accessibility upgrades will improve the quality and accessibilit~~ of shuttle services. Bicycle and Pedestrian Access: The proposed project identifies a pedestrian and bicycle network that provides intra-Campus and off-Campus circulation connections to open spaces, amenities, Campus Neighborhoods, and regional paths, roadways and trails such as the Bay Trail. Presently Genentech has over 100 private bike lockers that can be reserved by employees and additional secured storage facilities would be provided for future buildings. Transportation Demand Management Program (SSFMC, Chapter 20.120) Transportation Demand Management Ordinance: The Ciry of South San Francisco's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 20.120) has a schedule of alternative mode use requirements based on Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for various land uses based on their General Plan classifications. The General Plan land use classifications are (1) office, (2) business commercial/coastal commercial (3) business technology park, and (4) hotel. Genentech fits within the third classification as a business technology park. The alternative mode use requirements for FAR ranges for this land use category are 0.51-0.69: 30 percent mode shift; 0.70-0.80: 32 percent mode shift and 0.81-0.90: 35 percent mode shift. Genentech's current TDM program provides for an alternative mode use of 36 percent mode shift. At a current FAR of 0.61, Genentech presently exceeds the required 30 percent mode shift. According to a 2005 cordon count conducted by Genentech, 23 percent of South San Francisco employees use alternative transportation modes other than driving alone. The proposed project identifies an expanded TDM program to boost the proportion of Genentech employees that participate in alternative transportation. The TDM goal of the 2006 FMPU is to achieve an enhanced reduction of single occupancy vehicles (SO~ uses by Genentech employees of up to 70 percent of commute trips. Policy 2.G Promote the use of public transit to and within the East of 101 Area. Consistency Analysis: As described earlier, the proposed project would promote and provide transit service within the East of 101 Area. Presently, Genentech provides supplementary shuttle services that travels within the Genentech Campus and also to existing transit stops or stations off-campus. The proposed project would expand the existing shuttle program by providing increased stop locations, expanded services to the future South Campus, shuttle rerouting, upgraded shuttle stop amenities, pedestrian crosswalks, ADA accessibility improvements and a potential implementation of dedicated shuttle services to off-campus destinations of high employee concentrations such as San Francisco. This offers the opportunity to promote transit ridership from commuters that currently drive to and from the East of 4.8-24 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Plannln~ 101 Area. Furthermore, when the proposed WTA ferry dock at Oyster Point commences service in 2008, the proposed ferry terminal would be connected to existing ground transit and bicycle routes offering the opportunity to increase ridership on all transit systems through expanded transportation access within the East of 101 Area and the region. Therefore the proposed project is consistent with Policy 2.6 of Chapter 20.120 of the SSFMC. ~ ••• -~ l~-ent7DMMeesrres Ptopc~ec~7DMAafr~ar~sendh~pro~ernenCS Bicycle racks and lockers, showers and Additional bike racks and lockers throughout the Genentech Campus shower changing rooms , facilities and changing rooms at new buildings Shuttles to South San Francisco BART, Shuttles to Glen Park BART, South San Francisco, Caltrain, rerouting of intra- Caltrain campus shuttle, demand-response shuttles for after hours, Genentech extension to areas with high employee densities. Campus shuttle program and stops Routes and frequency improvements. Shelters, schedules, maps, NextBus boards at all shuttle stops Reduced parking Consider monthly incentives Passenger loading zones Same CarpoolNanpool services Dedicates carpool/vanpool parking, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, increasing carpool/vanpool matching services. Promotional Programs (new employee orientation packets, flyers, posters, trip Increased marketin ,installation of TDM information boards at each buildin and g g planning assistance) kiosks at key locations. Information and signage Stop signage, location maps, shelters, automated bus arrival information, and route branding on shuttles. Subsidized transit passes Ecopass and subsidized transit passes TDM Coordinator Transportation Manager Position Flex-time and telecommuting Increase promotion TMA membership Same On-site amenities (including ATM, video rentals, film developing, etc) Same Policy 5.1 Promote high qualitt~ site, architectural and landscape design that increases a sense of identitt~ in the East of 101 Area. Consistency Analysis.• The 2006 FMPU provides an Urban Design Chapter and guidelines that provides a framework for future development and redevelopment within the Genentech Campus. The Urban Design Chapter provides a framework for the following components: Streetscape, Campus Entries, Views, Open Space, Campus Neighborhoods, Building Scale and Massing. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 5.1. Policy 5.2 Improve the streetscape quality of the East of 101 Area through planting of street trees and provision of entr~~ monuments. Consistency Analysis: The proposed project is consistent with Policy 5.2. The two main entrances to the Genentech Campus are located at the intersection of Forbes Boulevard and Gull Drive in the Lower Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-25 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Campus and at East Grand Avenue in the West Campus. Currently, these entryways are devoid of entry monuments or gateway identifiers. The 2006 FMPU indicates several strategies to enhance the main Genentech entry points including the provision of landscaping, signage, and other design elements, as well as the establishment of Visitor Stations and way-finding tools and signs. The proposed project identifies a landscaping and open space program and palette that would be implemented throughout the Genentech Campus along Campus streets, pedestrian walkways, passive and active open spaces and on public streets outside the Genentech Campus at main entryways. Proposed landscaping is a mixture of California native and Mediterranean plants. Additional landscaping along public areas is proposed along Grandview Drive, along Forbes Avenue, at Genentech Campus entry points, and at various Genentech Campus connections that front along the Bay Trail and bayfront. Policy 5.3 Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain. Consistency Analysis: As described in greater detail in Section 4.9 (Aesthetics and Visual Resources), views of significant visual features will be preserved. The 2006 FMPU identifies numerous view corridors along the Campus Loop that are oriented to San Bruno Mountain, San Francisco, Mt. Diablo, San Francisco Bay and the Bay Trail and sets forth appropriate development standards within these areas. Strong consideration of views would be given in the size and location of new/redeveloped buildings and any new/redeveloped outdoor spaces would be aligned and oriented to preserve views. In addition, bridges and obstructive landscaping are discouraged in view corridors. Therefore, as development of the proposed project would not significantly obstruct access to visually significant features, the proposed project is consistent with Policy 5.3. City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Research and Development Overlay District (R&D Overlay District, Chapter 20.39) Section 20.39 of the SSFMC prescribes regulations for reclassifying properties to and from the R&D Overlay District and establishes development standards and requirements within the R&D Overlay District, including but not limited to the development of a facilin~ master plan that must be consistent with the City's General Plan and any applicable Area Plan. The R&D Overlay District is intended to enhance planning and design principles for research and development facilities. Minimum Lot Size Consistency Analysis: Chapter 20.39 requires a minimum area of one or more lot totaling 20-acres or more may be considered for reclassification. The proposed project would reclassify approximately 36-acres of Genentech owned land that is currently classified as P-I land use into the Genentech R&D Overlay District classification. The proposed project is consistent with Minimum Lot Size Requirements. FacilitX Master Plan Consistenc Analysis: Applications for reclassification to an R&D Overlay District shall be accompanied by a facility master plan. The facility master plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine, among other things, that sufficient roadway, intersection and infrastructure capacity exists to 4.8-26 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Plannln~ accommodate facilin~ development proposed by such Facility Master Plan. Any proposed modifications to the standards and regulations of the underlying zoning proposed by any reclassification to the R&D Overlay District are supported by information contained in the Facility Master Plan or other documents. As part of its review, the Planning Commission must find that the Facility Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable area plan, and fulfills the purposes of the R&D Overlay District. The 2006 FMPU will be submitted with the application to reclassify approximately 36-acres of Genentech owned land that is currently classified as P-I land use into the Genentech R&D Overlay District classification. Further, the 2006 FMPU will include, but is not limited to, a description of the facilities; growth and development projections; transportation and parking program; and design guidelines. The 2006 FMPU is consistent with the requirements as put forth in SSFMC Chapter 20.39. Genentech Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech R&D Overlay District, Chapter 20.40) One of the main purposes of the Genentech R&D Overlay District is to prescribe principles, standards and design criteria for facility--wide development. The main standards contained within the Genentech R&D Overlay District such as lot coverage, floor area ratio, off-street parking, building height and growth and development projections must applied and calculated on a facility-wide basis rather than on a parcel specific basis. As identified in the 2006 FMPU, the Genentech Campus development standards are designed to reflect the current Genentech R&D Overlay standards. Floor Area Ratio Consistency Analysis The floor area ratio (FAR) maximum within the Genentech R&D Overlay District is 1.0 which is to be calculated on facility-wide basis. According to the 2006 FMPU, development intensity would vary within each Neighborhood, but the maximum FAR of each proposed Neighborhood would not exceed 2.0. The overall Genentech Campus FAR would be 0.69. The FAR is calculated as part of the total area of the Genentech Campus buildout, not on aparcel-by-parcel basis. The development intensity is consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District standards. Building Heights Consistency Analysis. The maximum building height limit with the Genentech R&D Overlay District is 150 feet above the average finished grade of the subject building. The 2006 FMPU requires that new and existing buildings in the Genentech Campus have a maximum height limit of 150 feet above ground. This height limit complies with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 and the standards set forth within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Lot Coverage Consistency Analysis. The maximum lot coverage for facility wide development within the Genentech R&D Overlay District is 60 percent of the total area of the lots within the District. According to the 2006 FMPU, the maximum lot coverage within the Genentech Campus would be 60 percent. This standard is consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 48-27 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Parking Standards Consistency Analysis: According to the Genentech R&D Overlay District, the standard for street parking is established as 1.6 spaces/1,000 of gross floor area for all buildings. For short-term parking operations in construction areas for up to two years, a .095 factor could be applied to the 1.6 ratio. This ratio was established based on the mixture of land uses identified within the 1995 Genentech Master Plan. The 2006 FMPU provides for a ratio of 1.8 spaces/1,000 gross floor area for all buildings. This standard exceeds the minimum Genentech R&D Overlay District standards. The basis for the higher parking ratio is due to the higher percentage of office uses projected in the 2006 FMPU. While this standard exceeds the Genentech R&D Overlay District standards and would be considered inconsistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District standards the proposed project includes an amendment to the District provisions to permit the 1.8/1,000 ratio. However, the ratio is still below the average for other R&D parks in the East of 101 Area, which range from 2.8 to 3.2. Growth Projections Consistency Analysis: As discussed in Section 4.11 (Population and Housing), the net increase of approximately 6,661 employees resulting from Genentech's growth would exceed the Cit~~'s projected population growth between 2005 and 2015 at approximately 107 percent, and approximately 10 percent of the County's during this time (per ABAG projections in Table 4.11-1). Although Genentech is presently the largest employer in the City, because the anticipated employment growth exceeds the existing forecasts for the City, Genentech's anticipated employment growth is considered substantial. Therefore the proposed project is not consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District standards, and would require, at a minimum, additional area-wide environmental review, an amendment to the General Plan, and an amendment to the zoning ordinance (all of which are the subject of this EIR)'`'. Planned Industrial (P-f District) The main purpose of the P-I District is to implement standards and regulations for development prescribed by the General Plan Business and Technology Park land use category. Specific development standards and requirements for development within the P-I District are contained within the District and within other regulatory Chapters of the SSFMC. Standards relating to uses within the P-I District include permitted uses, lot coverage, floor area ratio, off-street parking, and building height. Building Height: Consistency Analysis Maximum building heights for main structures are 65 feet, with 20 feet maximum for accessory structures (85 feet total). Additional height may be permitted if a use permit is first procured. Mid- and high-rise office buildings are permitted east of the Bayshore Freeway and along the east slope of the San Bruno Mountains. The maximum building height limit with the Genentech R&D Overlay District is 150 feet above the average finished grade of the subject building and is not consistent with the height limits within the P-I District. ~`' Lappen, i~iike. Cit<~ of South San Francisco Senior Planner. Application Review. August 2006. 4.8-28 Genentech (:orporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8 Land Use and Plann-ng Lot Coverage: Consisterac~~ Analysis: The maximum lot coverage is established as 60 percent of the total area with a minimum lot size is 5,000 sf. According to the 2006 FMPU, the maximum lot coverage within the Genentech Campus would be 60 percent applied on a facilin~-wide basis. Although the lot coverage maximum is consistent, the P-I District does not specify that the lot coverage standard can applied on a facility or campus-wide basis and not on aparcel-by-parcel basis. This standard is therefore not consistent with the P-I District and would become consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District approval. Floor Area Ratio: Consistency Analysis. According to Table 20.66.030 within Chapter 20.66 of the SSFMC there is no FAR maximum for the P-I District. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the P-I Zone. Off-Street Parking Requirement• ConsistencyAnalysi.r. Industrial uses in the P-I District: one space for each 1,500 sf of gross floor area, plus one for 300 sf of office uses. Research and Development Manufacturing Industrial uses: one space for every 300 gross sf floor area up to 50,000 sf, plus one space for every 400 gross sf of floor area over 50,000 s£ A reduction from this standard may be granted in certain circumstances, subject to approval of a use permit and with a parking demand analysis approved by the Cit<~ Engineer. According to the Genentech R&D Overlay District, the standard for street parking is established as 1.6 spaces/1,000 of gross floor area for all buildings. For short-term parking operations in construction areas for up to two years, a .095 factor could be applied to the 1.6 ratio. This standard is not consistent with P-I District standards. Overall Consistency: Development standards relating to building height, Floor Area Ratio and parking within the 2006 FMPU are not consistent with the Planned Industrial District regulations. However, as identified in the 2006 FMPU, the Genentech Campus development standards have been designed to reflect the current Genentech R&D Overlay standards. It is anticipated that the Genentech R&D Overlay District will be expanded to include the Genentech property currently within the boundaries of the Planned Industrial District. As such, any future development in the existing Planned Industrial District would be subject to the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District standards. As the proposed project is consistent with the Genentech R&D Overlay District, the fact that potential impacts associated with the proposed projects are not consistent with the P-I District standards would be less than significant. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.8-29 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Threshold Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan Impact 4.8-3 The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. There would be no impact. No natural communing plan or applicable habitat conservation plan are located within the MEIR Study Area and the MEIR Study Area does not contain any critical or sensitive habitat. Impacts to potential biological resources are addressed in Section 4.1 (Biological Resources). Therefore there would be no impact. No mitigation required. 4.8.4 References Dyett & Bhatia, 1999. City of .S'outh S'an Francisco General Plan, 13 October. . 2005. Genentech Central Campus Ten-Year Master Plan. . 2005. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Genentech. 2005. Annual Report 2005 Presented to the City of .S'outh .San Francisco. Prepared by Genentech, Inc. Lappen, Mike, 2006, Cite of South San Francisco Senior Planner, Application Review, August 13. MuniFinanical A Willdan Company. 2005. Tra~c Impact Fee S'turly Update East of 101 Area. South San Francisco, City of. 1986 and amended periodically..S'outh .San Francisco Municipal Code. . 1994. East of~101 Area Plan, July. Prepared by Brady and Associates. . 2001. City of South .S'an Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. 4,~gC Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetlr_c 4.9 AESTHETICS This section of the MEIR describes existing aesthetic and visual resources in the MEIR Study Area and the surrounding area and evaluates the potential for aesthetic and visual impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. In particular, descriptions of existing visual characteristics, both on and in the vicinin~ of the MEIR Study Area are presented and potential project-related impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, such as increased light and glare, or impacts to scenic views, are evaluated based on analysis of photographs, site reconnaissance, and project data. A regulatory framework is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to the aesthetic treatment of the proposed project. Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the proposed 2006 FMPU; Ciry of South San Francisco General Plan (1999); Chapters 20.40 (Overlay District) and 20.32 (Planned Industrial Zoning District) of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC); and site photographs taken by EIP Associates. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.9.4 (References) of this section. No comment letters related to aesthetics were received in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.9.1 Existing Conditions Local Context The Genentech Campus is located along the South San Francisco Bay shoreline within the East of 101 Area, in the Ciry of South San Francisco. Chapter 3 (Project Description) provides a detailed description of the project location. The Genentech Campus is bounded on the north and the east by the San Francisco Bad=, and connected by Oyster Point/Forties Boulevard and Grand Avenue to US 101. It is bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west of the Genentech Campus, and is roughly= one mile north of the San Francisco International Airport. The Genentech Campus is built on and around Point San Bruno Hill, which is the highest point in the East of 101 Area. The Genentech Campus is visible from downtown South San Francisco and offers scenic views of downtown, the East Bay, San Francisco International Airport, and major landmarks in the Bav Area. ' The Genentech Campus is located within and adjacent to the Genentech R&D Overlay District, adopted b~~ the Ciry in 1995. All of the Genentech property is within the boundaries of the Planned Industrial District (P-I District) and includes the Bay West Cove, South Campus, and Gateway Properties. The entire East of 101 Area lies within the FAA Height Limit jurisdiction for the SFIA. Along the Genentech Campus shoreline, the Bay Trail public right of way extends within the Bay Conserc=anon and Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-1 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysis Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction, connecting the Genentech Campus to the San Francisco Bay regional park system. Visual Characteristics of the Surrounding Area Built Environment The Genentech Campus is bordered by a shoreline trail and greenbelt extending north and south along the Bay on the east. The area inland of the Genentech Campus includes primarily low intensity technology parks, warehouses and industrial uses. The MEIR Study Area is also surrounded on the west, north-west, south and southwest by the core of South San Francisco's industrial land uses. The area south and southwest of the Genentech Campus consists primarily of 1 and 2-store industrial buildings and airport-serving land uses, including hotels and fast food restaurants. To the west and north of the Genentech Campus within the East of 101 Area, development is newer, with more modern architecture and building heights ranging from 1 to 12 stories. Landscaping and open space areas are also found in more abundance to the west and north of the Genentech Campus. The East of 101 Area has been transforming for the Development to the south and southwest of the Project last 30 years from meatpacking and heavy Area manufacturing facilities to warehousing, research/ development, and biotechnology establishments. The East of 101 Area has been designated by the South San Francisco General Plan as a key commercial development area. Genentech is one of the largest biotech companies in the area, but there are over sixty other bioscience firms which make the East of 101 Area a world hub for biotech industry. In addition to the industrial/business park land uses `vithin the East of 101 Area, there is a marina, and other coastal and business commercial areas on Oyster Point located to the north and northwest of the MEIR Study Area. Numerous hotels are also found in the project vicinity, including the Inn at Oyster Point, Garden Inn, Courtyard by Marriott/Oyster Point, Residence Inn by Marriott, and Larkspur Landing. A Hilton hotel and some additional office space have been approved for the Marina along Oyster Point Boulevard on the north but have not yet been built. To p ogre p h y/Vege to ti o n The area surrounding the MEIR Study Area is characterized by mostly hilly topography to the north, east, and west, and generally slopes from west to east. From south of the Genentech Campus to the SFIA and beyond to the foothills of the San Mateo County hills is virtually all flat. To the west and north of the Genentech Campus, the topography gradually inclines to the San Bruno Mountains, and to the 4.9-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetlr_s east the campus slopes downward to the Bay. Vegetation in the area is limited to ornamental trees and plants along the perimeter of parking lot areas and framing the streets, landscaped trails with ornamental trees along the Bay, ruderal vegetation over vacant sites, and a 33-acre park with hiking and jogging trails along the west portion of the Oyster Point Marina to the north of the Genentech Campus. Visibility Due to the relatively hilly topography of the area, views of and within the project vicinity are largely restricted to short to mid-range views of nearby business parks, office buildings and industrial structures. Views form the northern portion of the Genentech Campus of the mountains and Bay are more frequent due to larger areas of open space and the upward slope to the San Bruno Mountains. Along the Bay trail to the east of the Genentech Campus, Oakland, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, Hayward, the Hayward and Oakland hills, San Mateo Bridge, Foster City, Coyote Point State Park, and Mt. Diablo are all easily seen on clear days, in addition to long-range views of the San Bruno Mountains and Sierra Point Bay to the northwest. Visual Character As described above, the project vicinity is generally urbanized to the north, south, and west with primarily industrial and business park land uses. The scale of the built environment ranges from one to seven stories, with some larger ten- to twelve-story hotels and buildings in the area. The condition of the structures varies from dilapidated to virtually new. The newer buildings are found mostly to the west and north of the Genentech Campus where new development is occurring and intensifying in the area. To the south and southwest of the Genentech Campus, buildings appear older, utility lines are all above ground, landscaping is minimal, and street paving is in need of renewal. Lighting Ambient nighttime lighting is characteristic of industrial park areas. Light sources include street lighting, as well as outdoor security lighting on the uses north, south, and west of the MEIR Study Area. Visual Characteristics of the MEIR Study Area Built Environment The Genentech Central Campus, an approximately 124-acre site, consists of 3.17 million sf of building area, of which roughly 2.8 million sf are occupied by Genentech within the City's Genentech R&D Overlay District. The remaining properties have tenants with varying lease terms. The Genentech Campus contains several clusters of office, laboratory, manufacturing, and research facilities. As of December 2005, the Genentech Campus had 23 permanent buildings, one office building under construction, and one parking structure under construction. The Genentech Campus properties are organized into four discreet neighborhoods, as described below. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis ^ Lower Campus: The Lower Campus (approximately 55 acres) is located on the northern edge of the MEIR Study Area and is adjacent to the Bay Trail. This area consists of two two-story buildings east of DNA Way that are slated for demolition and redevelopment. West of DNA Way, the Lower Campus includes two large laboratories, three manufacturing buildings, and one office complex, ranging from one to five stories and clustered in generally one central area. Planned changes in 2006 include an interim surface parking lot and the addition of a small manufacturing building. There is an existing parking structure and surface parking lot located along Forbes Boulevard. ^ Mid Campus: The Mid Campus (approximately 25 acres) houses a number of new and modern research facilities, almost all three-stories in height. Located on the eastern slope of a hillside running down to the bay, several buildings on this Campus afford excellent views of the bay. Modern facilities include high-end landscaping and accessible walkways. The Mid Campus includes both structured and surface parking lots. ^ Upper Campus: The Upper Campus (approximately 47 acres) is located along the top of a ridge that drops off sharply to the north and west (Point San Bruno Hill). This Campus consists primarily of new office and laboratory buildings, including several of Genentech's newest facilities, ranging from two to four stories. The western portion of the Upper Campus (Hilltop) has a number of one-story buildings that are slated for redevelopment in coming years. ^ West Campus: The West Campus (approximately 37 acres) comprises an area of approximately 40 acres. This area is a relatively new addition to the Genentech Campus. It is bordered by East Grand Avenue to the South, Alterton Street to the west and Point San Bruno Hill to the east. The only other campus adjacent is the Upper Campus along a relatively steep ascent to Grand View Drive. The West Campus is relatively isolated from the rest of the neighborhoods. However due to its strategic location at the busy intersection of Grand View and East Grand, the West Campus will act as a major point of entry. In addition, due to its geography and location, greater FARs and building heights are possible along the western edge of the neighborhood. 4.9-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR point of Lower Campus Looking towards Mid Campus and coastal bluffs from Lower Campus east point Overlooking West Campus from Upper Campus Grand Avenue. 4.9 A~sthPtlr_c To p ogra p h y/Vege to ti o n The Genentech Campus is built on and around Point San Bruno Hill, the highest point in the East of 101 Area rising 180 feet from the shoreline. Lower Campus is located at Bay level, and slopes upward from the west to the east to Mid Campus and Upper Campus. Upper Campus topography is characterized by steep terrain, dropping off drastically west of Grand View Drive to the Lower and West Campuses below. The highest elevation is approximately 147 feet at Upper Campus, and the lowest is 8 feet at Lower Campus bordering the Bay. Vegetation on the Genentech Campus consists of California native and Mediterranean plants designed both formally at the edges of streets and pathways, and informally at the perimeter of the neighborhoods. Natural vegetation is found along the bay bluffs and on steep slopes in and around the Genentech Campus. VlSlblilty Advantageously located along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and the slopes of Point San Bruno Hill, views of San Bruno Mountain, San Francisco, the San Francisco Bay, and Mt. Diablo are significant assets to the Genentech Campus. Lower Campus: The Lower Campus has direct access to views across the Bay as well as views of the San Bruno Mountains to the northwest. The topography is flat and generally a few feet above sea level. To the southwest, the neighborhood is bordered by the Point San Bruno Hill ridge, atop which sits Upper Campus, preventing views to the south and southwest of the Genentech Campus from the Lower Campus. From the eastern end of the Lower Campus, the Bay to the south is visible. Mil Campus: The Mid Campus neighborhood has unobstructed views across the Bay to the north, east, and south. It sits at a higher elevation than Lower Campus so future development on Lower Campus will not impact views from Mid Campus. Views to the north and west are obstructed, however, by the Upper Campus. Upper Campus: The Upper Campus neighborhood occupies the highest point of development on Point San Bruno Hill and provides expansive views to the San Francisco Bay and beyond, including San Francisco and Mt. Diablo on clear days, as well as San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill to the west. There are three views identified for the analysis of aesthetics in this MEIR; these are identified in Figure 4.9-1 (Viewpoint 1), Figure 4.9-2 (Viewpoint 2), and Figure 4.9-3 (Viewpoint 3). These viewpoints were chosen as a representative sample of the views available of the MEIR Study Area from surrounding uses and the broader project vicinin~. The general character of each of these viewpoints is described below. Viewpoint 1 This view is looking north towards the Genentech Campus from a point along the Bay Trail south of the Genentech Campus. As seen in Figure 4.9-1, foreground views consist of the Bay and natural vegetation; middle-ground views from this point are of the South Campus, currently under construction, but not part of the proposed expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Background views to the north Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts are of Mid Campus, and behind the South Campus to the northwest are views of Upper Campus buildings and distant views of the San Bruno Mountains. Viewpoint 2 This view is looking south and southwest towards the Genentech Campus from Oyster Point on the north side of the Bay cove, as seen in Figure 4.9-2. Foreground views are of the Bay Trail and Bay, and the rocky bluff on either side of the Bay, with some natural vegetation. Middle-ground views are of the Lower Campus, level with the Bay, and the tall buildings of Upper Campus above Lower Campus. Background views are composed of the San Mateo hills located south and southwest of the MEIR Study Area. Viewpoint 3 This view is looking west from a parking lot off Eccles Avenue, to the northwest of the Genentech Campus, as seen in Figure 4.9-3. Foreground views are looking down at a parking lot and street trees fronting Forbes Boulevard. The Middle-ground view is of a 3-story building that is located just north of West Campus, at the base of Upper Campus. Background views beyond the building are dominated by single story buildings within Upper Campus, and a distant view of the Wind Harp-an art sculpture at the top of Point San Bruno Hill. Visual Character The existing Genentech Campus is divided into distinct neighborhoods, as discussed above, each with a unique geographic setting. Buildings within each neighborhood are arranged in clusters with research facilities, cafeterias, parking lots, and other activity centers, ranging between 1 and 5 stories. The majorite of the Genentech Campus buildings are new and in good condition, with older buildings slated for redevelopment. The Genentech Campus is nicely landscaped with native vegetation along the slopes and edges of buildings and roads. Genentech Campus infrastructure, including paving, sidewalks, landscaping, and amenities, are all well maintained, and the street system and pedestrian network are designed to integrate the neighborhoods and establish connectivity and access. Lighting Existing lighting within the MEIR Study Area is characteristic of a research and development campus. Light sources include interior lighting within each building, and nighttime security lighting at building entries, courty=ards, and spaced along pathways and circulation areas. Newer buildings are designed to utilize transparent and non-reflective glass to control glare, and are oriented to maximize access to natural lighting. 4.9.2 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal statutes related to aesthetics that would apply to the proposed project. 4,g.g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR o ~ o w z 0 0 N N _N N U O N N ~ C ~ ~ •~ w W fl. V ~ ~ O LL ~ y 0 0 4.9 Aesthetics State McAteer-Petris Act Under the McAteey=Petris Act, the Ba~~ Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) regulates development within the first 100 feet inland from the Ba}'. One of BCDC's primary= roles is to review proposed development or changes to the shoreline for their aesthetic and ~=isual impact. BCDC has appointed a Design Review Board that evaluates projects and makes recommendations in light of the San Francisco Bay Plan Part IV, Appearance, Desilm, and Scenic Views, Policies 1-15 (BCDC 2002). Although the 2006 FMPU and related expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District does not affect the shoreline, the Genentech Campus is located adjacent to the shoreline, and any future changes to buildings within the first 100 feet inland from the Bay would be subject to BCDC regulations. Some of the criteria related to aesthetics include the following: ^ To enhance the visual quality of development around the Bay and to take maximum advantage of the attractive setting it provides, the shores of the Bay should be developed in accordance with the Public Access Desilm Guidelines. ^ All bay front development should be designed to enhance the pleasure of the user or viewer of the Bay. Maximum efforts should be made to provide, enhance, or preserve views of the Ba~~ and shoreline, especially from public areas, from the Bay itself, and from the opposite shore. ^ Structures and facilities that do not take advantage of or visually complement the Bay should be located and designed so as not to impact visually on the Bay and shoreline. In particular, parking areas should be located away from the shoreline. Loca I Aesthetic and visual resource regulations must be identified on aproject-by-project basis. Pertinent local aesthetic policies currendv in place are listed below under their respective plan or ordinance. South San Francisco General Plan (1999) The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies for future growth and development throughout the City. The General Plan governs the maximum amount and intensity of development within the East of 101 Area, including the Genentech facilities. Pertinent aesthetic policies are listed below: East of US 101 Area 3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of 101 Area. 3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-13 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls East of 101 Area Pian (adopted 1994) The MEIR Study Area is also located within the East of 101 Area Plan, a detailed implementation guide for the area. The East of 101 Area Plan is principally used to provide direction related to project design and certain other facets of development in the area not otherwise covered in the General Plan or other Cite plans. Some of the policies in the East of 101 Area Plan related to the protection of aesthetic resources are listed below. The City will use these criteria in evaluating proposals for new development. Land Use LU-2 ^ New land uses that are similar to or compatible with surrounding development are encouraged. ^ New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area. LU-23 Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 Criteria. LU-28 The Cit<~ shall protect buildings, sites, and land uses which are historically significant. According to the East of 101 Area Plan, at this time, no historic buildings or other resources are known to exist in the East of 101 Area. However, if any are found, they should be protected in accordance with Land Use Policy-28. Design DE-1 Developments on parcels adjacent to San Francisco Bay should emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take advantage of the design and visual opportunities associated with the bay. b. US 101 Corridor Development US 101 is an important regional transportation corridor that creates the East of 101 Area's western edge and affords many people their only views of the area. For this reason, it is particularly important that developments visible from US 101 be designed with a high visual qualit<~. The following policies will enhance the visual image of the area as seen from US 101: DE-2 Projects in the vicinity of US 101 should be designed with the freeway in mind. Topographic Features DE-4 Developments built on sloping sites should incorporate the topography into their plans, rather than including significant grading to create flat development pads. Visual Landmarks Landmarks are objects that stand out to the observer and provide a sense of orientation when viewed from a distance. Major landmarks in the East of 101 Area include San Francisco Bav and Point San Bruno Hill which has a large sculpture known as the "Windchime" at its peak. The following policy will ensure that future development takes advantage of these landmarks. 4.9-14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetics DE-5 Developments in the East of 101 Area should be designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill with its "Windchime". Wherever possible, open space areas should be designed to provide views of these areas, and any new roadways should be laid out to provide vistas of them as well. Building Design DE-38 The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials, and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the project and promote the development of a sense of identitt~ for the East of 101 Area. DE-39 All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated with relief elements and changes in plane. Architectural elements used to provide relief could include awning projections, trellises, built in planters, integrated plazas, colonnades or arcades, expression of structural elements, wall/window recesses and/or projections, changes in materials and textures or elements/treatments that create patterns of shade/shadow. Blank walls should be avoided. In addition to the specific policies mentioned above, the East of 101 Area Plan also lists guiding policies to control the design of individual buildings, sites, and streetscape, including policies related to parking, loading, and access design; landscaping and lighting; utility lines; fencing and screening; open space; and signage. South San Francisco Municipal Code Zoning Ordinance: Planned Industrial (P-I) Zoning District The City of South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) designates the Genentech Campus and facilities as Planned Industrial (I'-I). The P-I zoning district (Chapter 20.32) establishes permitted uses, height, bulk, and space standards for all land designated P-I. The P-I zone is applied to land intended for research and development uses. P-I Zone is the base or underlying zoning district for the Genentech Campus. The Genentech R&D Overlay District is `overlaid' on top of the underlying P-I zoning. Zoning Ordinance: Genentech Research and Development Overlay District The Genentech Campus lies within the Genentech R&D Overlay District (SSFMC Chapter 20.40), which augments the underlying P-I Zone and grants a degree of flexibility in development. Design review of projects within the Genentech R&D Overlay District must be in accordance with the provisions of this title, including SSFMC Chapter 20.40 (Genentech R&D Overlay District) and anp facility design guidelines adopted by the Planning Commission pursuant to SSFMC Chapter 20.39.040(c). The 2006 FMPU must be consistent with the General Plan, and the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The purpose of the 2006 FMPU is to implement the Genentech R&D Overlay District by: ^ Establishing a facility-wide architectural character, a system of open space elements, and a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system. ^ Increasing the flexibility of the City's land use regulations and speed of review procedures to reflect the rapidly changing needs of Genentech growth and development. ^ Establishing facility-wide development standards and design guidelines. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls ^ Defining a baseline of existing conditions for all land classified in the Genentech R&D Overlay District. 4.9.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method The analysis of visual impacts focuses on the nature and magnitude of changes to the visual character of the MEIR Study Area as a result of the expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District and related 2006 FMPU, including the visual compatibility of anticipated development with the existing Genentech Campus and adjacent uses, vantage points where visual changes would be evident, and the introduction of new sources of light and glare. The 2006 FMPU does not establish the location, size or design of individual buildings. The emphasis of the 2006 FMPU is on policies that will achieve several purposes identified in the 2006 FMPU, including protecting and capitalizing on views and ensuring access to the waterfront, and providing design guidelines that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the MEIR Study Area. Planned visual change that would be compatible with existing patterns of development with respect to height, massing, setback, and architecture of form would not be considered a significant impact on the environment. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to visual quality and aesthetics if the proposed project would result in anv of the following: ^ Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ^ Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highwa~~ ^ Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ^ Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area r Impacts and Mitigation Measures ~ Threshold Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ~ Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of the project requirement PR 4.9-1 would ensure this impact remains less than signiftcant. Scenic vistas may generally be described in two ways: panoramic views (visual access to a large geographic area, for which the field of view can be wide and extend into the distance) and focal vie~~s (visual access to a particular object, scene, setting, or feature of interest). 4.9-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetics Panoramic views are typically associated with vantage points that provide a sweeping geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views include urban skylines, valleys, mountain ranges, or large bodies of water. To determine whether the proposed project would substantially and adversely impact existing scenic views, it is important to identify significant view sheds in the vicinit<~ of the proposed project, and determine if those views would be impacted by implementation of the proposed project. As stated in Section 4.9.1 (Existing Conditions), there are three views identified for the analysis of aesthetics in this MEIR; these are identified in Figure 4.9-1 (Viewpoint 1), Figure 4.9-2 (Viewpoint 2), and Figure 4.9-3 (Viewpoint 3). These viewpoints were chosen as a representative sample of the views available of the MEIR Study Area from surrounding uses and the broader MEIR Study Area. The following discussion describes and analyzes the views from the three different viewpoint locations described above that could potentially be impacted by proposed future expansion and growth of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. These viewpoints are representative of views held of scenic vistas from various vantage points to the south, west, and north of the MEIR Study Area and include all major view points for public views of the project. Viewpoint 1: View from the South, Looking North As described above, foreground views from Viewpoint 1 consist of the Bay and natural vegetation; middle-ground views are of the proposed South Campus; and background views are of Mid Campus, parts of Upper Campus and the San Bruno Mountains. New development in the Mid Campus area would not impact views of the Bay or San Bruno Mountains from viewsheds south of the Genentech Campus, as Mid Campus is set back from the Bay so as not to impact views of the Bay, and is not in the line of sight of the mountains. The opportunity sites on the Genentech Campus are where redevelopment or new construction could occur, as identified in the 2006 FMPU. Proposed opportunity sites for future development on Upper Campus, as shown in the 2006 FMPU, are not in a location that would significantly alter views of the San Bruno Mountains from land uses to the south of the Genentech Campus. Proposed opportunity areas for future development are either in the eastern portion of the Upper Campus or set back along Grand View Drive in the interior portions of Upper Campus, where imposed height restrictions would protect views of the distant mountains from vantage points south of the Genentech Campus. This impact is considered Zess than significant. Viewpoint 2: View from Oyster Point (north of Campus), Looking South Viewpoint 2 consists of foreground views of the Bay and Bay Trail, middle-ground views of Lower and Upper Campus, and distant views of the San Mateo hills south of the Genentech Campus. Scenic views of the Bay from this viewpoint would not be impacted by proposed intensification or expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District, as the Bay is in the foreground. Development on Point San Bruno Hill within Upper Campus would potentially obstruct views to the hills south of the Genentech Campus, as well as the Wind Harp at the top of Point San Bruno Hill, depending on the location and height of development. These views, however, would only be obstructed for non-residential land uses, such as the Marina, Oyster Point Inn and commercial uses north of the Genentech Campus. Furthermore, the existing elevation of Point San Bruno Hill largely obstructs views to the south of the Genentech Campus Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts from vantage points north of the Genentech Campus. As such, new development would not create a significant difference in view obstruction from what currently exists due to the natural terrain of Point San Bruno Hill. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. Viewpoint 3: mew from parking lot ofif Eccles Avenue, looking west towards Campus Viewpoint 3 consists of foreground views of a parking lot and Forbes Boulevard; middle-ground views of a three-story building on the east side of Forbes Boulevard; and background views of single-story buildings of Upper Campus, and the Wind Harp sculpture at the peak of Point San Bruno Hill. The proposed 2006 FMPU identifies opportunity areas for potential future development, some of which are located within view of land uses west of the Genentech Campus. For example, redevelopment of the one-story administrative buildings at the top of Grand View Drive to two or three-story buildings, and redevelopment within the West Campus along Allerton Avenue, could potentially block views of the Wind Harp sculpture. However, the 2006 FMPU lists goals to protect existing view corridors while simultaneously maximizing Genentech skyline (within FAA height regulations) along Point San Bruno Hill to establish a strong visual identity and skyline for the Genentech Campus from US 101 and the East of 101 Area. The 2006 FMPU also specifically identifies the need to limit the higher elevations within the West Campus neighborhood to not only comply with FAA regulations but also maintain a view corridor to the Wind Harp sculpture. Policy DE-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan, and incorporated in the MEIR as PR 4.9-1, also directs development in the East of 101 Area to be designed to take advantage of views of Point San Bruno Hill with its "Windchime." Project Requirement 4.9-1 would ensure that future development within the West Campus would retain views of the Wind Harp. As such, views of the Wind Harp sculpture would be protected under the 2006 FMPU and East of 101 Area Plan, and this impact would be considered Zess than significant. PA 4.9- 9 Future development within the Kest Campus shall Ue constructed so as not to of~struct ea~zsting vieavs of San Francisco Bay and Point ,Sara Bruno Hill and the associated `mind Chirrees" scupture, from areas avert of the Genentech Campus, including U,S' 901. Open space areas and neza~ roadways shall he designed to provide vieavs of these resources. Threshold Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse effect on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. There is no impact. The Genentech Campus is built on and around Point San Bruno Hill-the highest point in the East of 101 Area-with views overlooking San Francisco Bay and many major landmarks in the Bay Area. Sections of Bay Area Interstate-280 (I-280), Interstate-580 (I-580), and Interstate-680 (I-680) have been designated as scenic corridors under the State Scenic Highway program but do not provide motorists with expansive or continuous, uninterrupted views of the Bay. None of these designated highways is in the vicinity of the Genentech Campus. The closest scenic highway is I-280, which runs north-south more 4.9-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetics than 5 miles to the west of the Genentech Campus. Therefore there are no im~iacts to resources within a scenic highway. Threshold Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings Impact 4.9-3 Construction of the proposed project would not adversely alter the visual character or quality of the MEIR Study Area. This is considered aless-than- significantimpact. The proposed project consists of an update of the 1995 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan (2006 FMPU) and expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. The proposed growth strategy aims for expansion and redevelopment throughout the Genentech Campus, concentrating on more intense administrative office development in the Upper Campus and West Campus. Research and development uses will continue to expand in the Mid and Lower Campuses. The expected growth of the Genentech Campus to six million sf of building space on 200 acres will result in an overall Genentech R&D Overlay District FAR of .69, which is below the permitted FAR of 1.0 for the District. However, individual neighborhood densities will vary, with the maximum FAR of any neighborhood not to exceed 2.0. Implementation of the proposed project anticipates the following changes within each of the Campus neighborhoods, none of which are considered significant impacts to the visual quality or character of the MEIR Study Area: Lower Campus: The Lower Campus currently houses offices, laborator}~, manufacturing, and warehouse buildings, ranging from two to five stories, and is currently constructing an interim surface parking lot and a small manufacturing building, as described above. The 2006 FMPU identifies several opportunity sites along the Central Spine and along the Bay shoreline for development, which would transform the Lower Campus into the northern gateway to the Genentech Campus. Development underway (December 2005) in the Lower Campus includes: An expansion of approximately 20,000 sf to accommodate small scale clinical manufacturing, and other manufacturing functions; a new 35,709 square foot modular fill facility; a new 750-space surface parking lot; and expansion of the central plant in addition to a new 7,894 square foot boiler building to support manufacturing buildings. Mid Campus: The Mid Campus currently houses a number of new and modern research facilities, grouped into multiple building clusters. New development under the 2006 FMPU would reinforce existing connections and create smaller, informal gathering and open spaces. The neighborhood would capitalize upon its unique setting by siting new buildings and amenities to connect to existing connections and open spaces. Improvements under construction as of the December 2005 baseline include the extension of the Bay Trail to connect to the future South Campus. Upper Campus: The Upper Campus currently consists primarily of new office and laboratory buildings, including several of Genentech's newest facilities. Redevelopment under the 2006 FMPU would focus upon external placemaking, views, and internal Genentech Campus amenities, providing the foundation Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-19 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis for an active Central Spine in Upper Campus. The greatest amount of intensity would focus along the hillside to both capture views and define the Genentech Campus with a strong identity and skyline. A 150,972 square foot office building is under construction (December 2005.) 1~'est Canrpr~s: Only one building within the West Campus is planned to remain. The remainder of the area is slated for development under the 2006 FMPU. Land Use Goals identified in the 2006 FMPU for the West Campus includes developing it as the major southern and western gateway into the Genentech Campus, given its strategic location at the busy intersection of Grand View and East Grand. Landscape, open space, signage, and building alignments along Grand View Drive will further emphasize this entry point. Greater FARs and building heights are possible along the western edge of the neighborhood, where lower elevations are substantially below those of the adjacent Upper Campus. However, the higher elevations within the neighborhood are both limited by Federal Aviation Administration regulations and the need to maintain a view corridor to the Wind Harp sculpture. While the 2006 FMPU proposes redevelopment and intensification in the next ten years of various sites in each of the Campus neighborhoods, the 2006 FMPU does not establish the location, size, or design of each individual building which will follow over the next ten years. However, during construction, four basic types of activities would be expected. First, demolition of existing structures within the Genentech Campus would occur. Second, the sites would be prepared, excavated, and graded to accommodate the new building foundations. Next, new buildings and associated landscaping and site improvements would be developed. Visual impacts associated with construction activities would be temporary in nature as they would only exist for the duration of construction activities. Such temporary impacts would include exposed pads and staging areas for grading, excavation, and construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located in the MEIR Study Area during various stages of demolition or construction, within material storage areas, or associated with construction debris piles. While these activities would take place exclusively within the MEIR Study Area, these visual impacts could affect surrounding land uses to the north, south, and west of the Genentech Campus, which is comprised of primarily industrial areas. In addition, automobiles traveling along Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue would have short-term views of the MEIR Study Area during construction. Boats and bicyclists along the Bayshore bike path may also have short-term views of construction activity occurring on the eastern side of the Genentech Campus. However, this visual condition would be a temporary visual distraction typically associated with construction activities and equipment and would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Impact 4.9-4 Implementation of the proposed project would not adversely alter the visual character or quality of the existing MEIR Study Area. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an expansion of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District, and a subsequent intensification of existing land uses within the proposed expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District. The proposed character and uses are described above under Impact 4.9-3. New development would be required to comply with development codes found within the Genentech R&D Overlay District and Planned Industrial Zone in the SSFMC; and be consistent with policies stated within the City's East of 101 Area Plan. New development would be compatible with 4.9-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetics existing patterns of development with respect to height, massing, setback, architecture, and would not be considered a significant impact on the visual character or quality of the existing MEIR Study Area. Specifically, the 2006 FMPU contains design guidelines and development standards that further the City's intent for the East of 101 Area. In response to the unique setting and views of the Genentech Campus, the 2006 FMPU focuses its desilm directives upon connectivity, views, character, and the pedestrian experience. The 2006 FMPU identifies specific strategies to enhance streetscape and character, Genentech Campus entry points, primary and secondary pathways, views, open space, individual neighborhoods, and building scale and massing. For example, some of the design strategies include developing cohesive facility streetscape with consistent site elements including lighting, signage, site furnishing, and bus shelters; enhancing the sense of arrival at key entry points to the Genentech Campus through landscape, sigmage, and other design elements; using landscape to create a distinct campus identity; and using view corridors and sight lines along major pathways to visually connect neighborhoods, open spaces, and amenities. Furthermore, the Genentech R&D Overlay District prescribes planning and design principles for facility- wide development in accordance with the 2006 FMPU. Development standards in the Overlay District designate maximum lot coverage, floor area ratio, off-street parking and loading requirements, building heights, and landscaping, with the intent to achieve awell-designed and integrated campus with respect to architecture, open space elements, and circulation. As a result, new development would be required to be compatible and interconnected with existing development in awell-designed manner so as not to adversely alter the visual quality or character of the existing MEIR Study Area. Specific policies and design guidelines are also in place to protect and enhance the visual quality and character of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District, some of which are listed above under Regulaton~ Framework. The City will use the design policies specified in the City's East of 101 Area Plan in evaluating proposals for new development. For example, Policy LU-2 in the Land Use Element encourages new land uses to be similar to or compatible with surrounding development, and that new developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area; Policy DE-1 in the Design Element states that developments on parcels adjacent to San Francisco Bay should emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take advantage of the design and visual opportunities associated with the bay. Additionally, Policy DE-2, which has been incorporated in the MEIR as PR 4.9- 2 below, directs that development visible from US 101 be designed with a high visual quality; and Policy DE-38 states that the form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials, and the selection of landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the project and promote the development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 Area. Additional policies in the Design Element address the design of parking, loading and access; landscaping and lighting; utility lines; fencing and screening; signage, and rooftop mechanical equipment. The comprehensive list of design strategies identified in the 2006 FMPU, in combination with guiding policies from the East of 101 Area Plan and development and design standards of the Genentech R&D Overlay District, and implementation of the identified Project Requirement PR 4.9-2, will ensure that new development as a result of implementation of the 2006 FMPU enhances the visual quality and Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls character of the existing MEIR Study Area. This impact is considered less than significant, and no mitigation is necessary. Impact 4.9-5 Implementation of the proposed project could result in an adverse effect on scenic resources visible from US 101 and this effect is a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of identified project requirement PR 4.9-2 would reduce the potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant impact. As stated in the Regulatory Framework above, although US 101 is not a designated scenic highway, the City's General Plan has identified US 101 as an important regional transportation corridor that creates the East of 101 Area's western edge and affords many people their only views of the area. US 101 is less than a mile west of the Genentech Campus, and portions of the Upper Campus Neighborhood, including the Wind Harp and buildings surrounding the Wind Harp along Grand View Drive (i.e. Buildings b5 through b8, and b20), are seen from locations along US 101. For this reason, the Ciry has created policies, such as Polic}' DE-2 of the East of 101 Area Plan and incorporated in the MEIR as PR 4.9-2, to ensure that development visible from US 101 be designed with a high visual quality and enhance the visual image of the area as seen from the highway. The proposed project keeps a maximum building height limitation of 150 feet above ground level on buildings within the Genentech Campus, consistent with height restrictions imposed by the FAA. The 2006 FMPU also identifies a goal to ensure that building heights and massing maintain key views to the Bay and San Bruno Mountain as seen from existing view corridors from various locations within the Genentech Campus. PR 49-2 Developments within the proposed MEIR .Study Area visible from U.S' 101 be designed avith a high visual quality. Future developments avithin the proposed MEIR Study Area shall be designed to enhance the visual image of the Area as seen front U.S 101 and shall be designed with the vieavs from US' 101 in mind in order to create an aesthetically pleasing and inviting environment from U.S 101. According to the General Plan, buildings and structures which reflect the character of districts and centers for activit}', provide reference points for human orientation, and may add to (but can detract from) topography and views. People perceive the visual quality of developments from the streets while traveling, and from entranceways and observation points, such as US 101, while visiting the Ciry. New buildings erected as part of implementation of the proposed project would be subject to the same height requirements as the existing structures in the MEIR Study Area, and be similar in size and scale as those currently on site, in order to protect existing views. Project requirements PR 4.9-1 and PR 4.9-2 above would also ensure that views of the Wind Harp from US 101 are retained. Therefore, through implementation of Ciry policies, existing height regulations, and PR 4.9-1 and PR 4.9-2, the proposed expansion and intensification of the Genentech Campus would not create adverse effects with respect to potential impacted views from US 101. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 4.9-22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetics Threshold Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area Impact 4.9-6 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new sources of increased daytime glare. This is considered a potentially significant impact. However, implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.9-1 would reduce the impact associated with daytime glare to less than significant. Implementation of the proposed project, which entails expansion and intensification of the existing MEIR Study Area, as described above, could create new sources of glare from reflective building surfaces. The proposed project is an expansion of existing commercial, office, manufacturing, and related structures currently owned by Genentech. No residential uses are located within the MEIR Study Area and residential uses are not permitted within the entire East of 101 Area. Adjacent land uses consist of commercial, industrial, and recreational concerns, and these areas would not be impacted by potential daytime glare. However, the Upper Campus neighborhood occupies the highest point in the East of 101 Area, on the highest point of Point San Bruno Hill, and is visible from US 101 and much of the East of 101 Area. The Genentech Campus' high vantage point provides expansive views to the San Francisco Bay and beyond, including San Francisco and Mt. Diablo on clear days, as well as San Bruno Mountain and Sign Hill to the west. As the proposed project calls for intensification of development on Point San Bruno Hill, daytime glare would increase if reflective materials were used, and could adversely affect views by distant land uses, such as motorists traveling along US 101, looking towards the Genentech Campus to views of the San Francisco Bay, San Bruno Mountain, and Mt. Diablo. Therefore, the added sources of daytime glare could adversely affect land uses not within the project ~=icinitt~, but within view of the project site, which could result in a potentially significant impact. The 2006 FMPU, however, encourages the use of glass systems throughout the Genentech Campus that are as transparent and as non-reflective as possible while achieving the requisite performance for energy conservation, internal comfort, and glare control. Specifically, the 2006 FMPU proposes double-glazed and non-reflective vision glass as the building material for Genentech Campus glass and entries. With installation of these proposed materials, made a requirement under mitigation measure MM 4.9-1 below, daytime glare on the Genentech Campus would be reduced to ales-than-significant level. MM 4.9-7 Design for the proposed structures on the Campus neighborhoods shall include the ~~se oftextured or other non-reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass types, including double glared and non-reflective vision glass. All exteriorglass must meet the specifications of all applicable codes. Implementation of MM 4.9-1 would reduce impacts from daytime glare on the Campus neighborhoods to ales-than-significant level by eliminating or minimizing increased glare by the use of non-reflective glass and non-reflective textured surfaces for new development. New development in the other Campus neighborhoods as a result of implementation of the proposed project would not create an adverse affect on views created by an increase of daytime glare due to the absence of sensitive land uses in the vicinity or within viewing distance of these other neighborhoods. With implementation of MM 4.9-1 above, this impact would be considered less than significant. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-23 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Impact 4.9-7 Implementation of the proposed project would result in new sources of increased light that could adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. This would be a significant impact. However, with implementation of the identified mitigation measures, MM 4.9-2(a) through 4.9-2(c), would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Implementation of the proposed project, which entails expansion of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District and subsequent intensification of existing commercial, manufacturing, office, and related structures in the proposed expanded area, would create new sources of light from exterior building illumination, lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation, including the headlights of vehicular traffic. However, as mentioned above, there are no residential land uses on-site or within the project vicinity in the East of 101 Area that would be adversely affected by these new light sources. The 2006 FMPU proposes maintaining appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots, and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels detailed in the company security plan and building codes. Nighttime security lighting would not be expected to substantially increase over current conditions. The 2006 FMPU proposes fixture heights of 22-feet on parking lots and roads; 15-foot poles on sidewalks, pathways, and plazas; and 42-inch high bollards for accent pedestrian lighting. Lighting would be directed onto the specific locations intended for illumination and would be characteristic of existing lighting in the surrounding industrial areas. These lighting standards, as made a requirement by mitigation measures MM 4.9-2(a) through MM 4.9-2(c), below would reduce the impacts associated with new light sources. MM 4.9-2(a) Maintain appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent with minimum levels ~letaile~l in Generatech',c security plan and buihling codes. MM 4.9-2(b) Enhance campus character with consistent use of light fixtures, finishes and colors. MM 4.9-2(c~ Fixture types and heights shall cor farm to the following styles as feasible: ^ Parking lots and roads provide round fixtures on 22' poles on raised concrete footings not to exceed 25' total finished height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. ^ .Sidewalks, pathways, anel playas provide roarnel hardtop on post top fixtures not to exceed 15'total finished height, appropriately fznishe~l black, or approved equal. ^ Accent pedestrian lighting-provide bollard style fixtures, not to exceed 42" total height, appropriately finished black, or approved equal. Additional lighting would not have the potential to create "spillage" onto sensitive land uses, as none exist within the area. With implementation of MM 4.9-2(a) through MM 4.9-2(c), this impact would be considered less than significant. 4.9.4 References Brady and Associates. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, July. Dyett & Bhatia. 1999. City of ,South .San Francisco General Plan, 13 October 4.24 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9 Aesthetics . 2005. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Existing Cantlitions. 3 October. South San Francisco. City o£ 1986 and amended periodically..South ,San Francisco M~.rnieij~al Code. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.9-25 4.10 Cultural Resources 4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes existing cultural resources in the MEIR Study Area and discusses whether implementation of the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the silmificance of a historic or archaeological resource (as defined in Section 106 of the National Historic Pre.rerz~ation Act and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, or result in the disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Preparation of this section used data obtained from the California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) Northwest Information Center (KWIC), which reviewed pertinent data maps, historic- period maps, and literature for San Mateo County on file at the NWIC office, and the 1995 Master Plan. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.10.4 (References) of this section. No comment letters related to cultural resources were received in response to the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.10.1 Existing Conditions MEIR Study Area The MEIR Study Area is located on the San Mateo Peninsula, a landform that divides the Pacific Ocean from the southern San Francisco Bay, and connects the City= of San Francisco with the Santa Clara Valley. The MEIR Study Area is generall~~ developed and includes surface parking lots, roads, structures and landscaped areas, interspersed with steep hillsides in the City of South San Francisco (City). Historic Background Regional History The colonizing efforts of the Spanish government first reached the San Francisco Peninsula when an expedition led by Gaspar de Portola was attempting to explore Monterey Bay. The parry reached what is now the San Francisco Bay in October 1769, and though they knew they had overshot their target when they spotted the Farallons and Point Re~~es, they briefly explored the region before returning south. After traveling along the San Mateo coastline, the party turned east and traveled inland to camp along San Andreas Creek near the present City of Millbrae. Sergeant Jose Francisco Ortega first saw the San Francisco Bay when he climbed the hills northeast of San Pedro Valley (along present-day Sweeney Ridge). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10.1 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis Captain Fernando Rivera, a member of the Portola expedition, returned with Fray Francisco Palou in 1774 to explore the region and scout prospective sites for Spanish settlement. The parry camped in the San Andreas Valley. Just two years later, in the spring of 1776, Juan Bautista de Anza, Pedro Font, and others would return to explore the area once again. The Rivera and de Anza parties traveled north up the Peninsula along the route that would become known as both El Camino Real and the San Jose Road. Once the missions at San Francisco and Santa Clara were established (in 1776 and 1777) at the northern and southern ends of the Peninsula, the trail would become awell-traveled wagon road between the two centers of activity. In addition, the road would be a determining factor in the settlement patterns of newcomers and the growth of future cities and towns within this area. The traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 Area, was originally developed with meatpacking and heavy manufacturing activities, facilitated by rail access. In the 1930's, shipping emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. In the post-war years the Ciry converted marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City. The area has been transforming for the past thirty years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing and research and development establishments. Historic Landmarks South San Francisco possesses one national historic landmark-Sign Hill. The sign on this regional landmark, which reads "South San Francisco The Industrial City," is clearly visible to travelers on nearby freeways and to those flying into and out of San Francisco International Airport. This sign has been an important facet of the Ciry's character since the J. Dunn Real Estate Company, South San Francisco's first realtor, initially installed a sign that included this message in 1891. After a period of several years during which the sign was absent, the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce had the message of the original sign whitewashed onto the hillside. The letters that comprise the message of the sign were installed in concrete in 1929. Archaeology Prehistoric and Ethnographic Context At the time of initial contact between European explorers and the Native Californians, the area that is now San Francisco was inhabited by a people who were of Penutian linguistic stock and who spoke the Ramaytush language. These people, referred to as Costanoan, reaped the benefit of living in a bountiful, temperate environment. Abundant marine and terrestrial resources made both agriculture and animal husbandry unnecessary. Evidence of the success of their hunter/gatherer subsistence strategy may be seen in the number of flourishing village sites known to have existed at the time of contact with the Spanish. The detritus of these sites was found in numerous locations around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay in the form of shellmounds-large accumulations of shell, ash, human artifacts, and occasionally human remains. With the influx of European settlers in the mid-nineteenth century, most of these sites were destroyed or 4.10-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10 Cultural Resoun:es covered by buildings and roads at numerous locations around the bay shoreline, including the MEIR Study Area. Additionally, the MEIR Study Area is located along the southwestern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Gold rush-era silt accumulation and historic settlement (e.g., landfills) effectively filled in hundreds of acres of the original bay shoreline. The MEIR Study Area is located on such fill. Estuary and marsh locales along the former bay shoreline would have offered abundant food resources to prehistoric human population. The term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word Costanos, or "coast people," but its application as a means of identifying this population is based in linguistics. Costanoan actually designates a family of eight languages. Of these, Ramaytush was the language spoken by the estimated 1,400 people who occupied the area now designated as San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Tribal groups occupying the area from the Pacific Coast to the Diablo Range and from San Francisco to Point Sur spoke the other seven languages of the Costanoan family. Modern descendants of the Costanoan prefer to be known as Ohlone and formed a corporate entity in 1971, the Ohlone Indian Tribe. They are named after the Oljon tribal group, which occupied the San Gregorio watershed in San Mateo County. On the basis of linguistic evidence, it has been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area about 500 A.D. from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. Extended families lived in domed structures thatched with tule, grass, wild alfalfa, ferns or carrizo. Semi- subterranean sweathouses were built into pits excavated in stream banks and covered with a structure against the bank. The tule raft, propelled by double-bladed paddles, was used to navigate across San Francisco Bay. The Ramaytush usually cremated a corpse immediately upon death but, if there were no relatives to gather wood for the funeral pyre, interment occurred. Mortuary goods were all or most of the personal belongings of the deceased. Mussels were an important staple in the Costanoan diet as were acorns of the coast live oak, valley oak, tanbark oak and California black oak. Seeds and berries, roots, grasses, and the meat of deer, elk, grizzly, sea lion, rabbit, and squirrel also contributed to the Costanoan diet. Careful management of the land through controlled burning served to insure a plentiful and reliable source of all these foods. The arrival of the Spanish in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1775 led to the rapid demise of native California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to eradicate the aboriginal life ways (which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone descendants). Brought into the missions, the surviving Costanoan along with former neighboring groups of Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers. With abandonment of the mission system and Mexican takeover in the 1840s, numerous ranchos were established. Generally, the few native Californians who remained were then forced, by necessity, to work on the ranchos. Definitions of Historical Resources The National Historic Pre.reruation Act established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to recognize resources associated with the country's history and heritage. Structures and features generally must be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 26, Part 60 of the Code of Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10,3 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60), are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that meet any of the following criteria: A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (See 36 CFR X60.4). The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP, but focus upon resources of statewide significance. The criteria are set forth in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, and are defined as any resource that: A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's histon~ and cultural heritage; B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The CRHR includes resources listed on the NRHP. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a) (4) states: The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1 (j) or 5024.1 Results of Records Search and Historic Resources Survey Results of Records Search The California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) includes the statewide Historical Resources Inventory (HRI) database maintained by the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and the records maintained and managed under contract by twelve independent regional information centers. The staff of the California Historical Resources Information System's Northwest Information Center (KWIC) at Sonoma State University completed a record search of the project vicinity on January 3"~, 2006 (File No. 05-502) for the 2006 FMPU (KWIC 2006). The record search included a review of site 4.10-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10 Cultural Resources records, primary records, historic maps and manuscripts, the National Register of Historic Places Index (NRHP), California Register of Historic Resources, California Historic Landmarks (CHL), California Points of Historic Interest (CPHI), state and local inventories, and other pertinent historical data available at the NWIC for San Mateo Counri~. The record and literature search did not identify anv previously recorded Native American or historic- period archaeological resources in the MEIR Study Area or within aquarter-mile radius of the MEIR Study Area. The record and literature search did not identify any previous archaeological studies at the MEIR Study Area or within aquarter-mile radius of the MEIR Study Area. No resources within the MEIR Stud~~ Area boundaries were listed on the NRHP, CHL, or CPHI. The nearest NRHP-listed property is within one quarter-mile radius of the MEIR Study Area: the W P Fuller & Company Paint Plant, located on East Grand Avenue. Historic Resources Survey South San Francisco has several historic homes and commercial buildings. Most are located along Grand Avenue near the Civic Center, and around the intersection of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street. The City conducted a comprehensive survey of these structures in 1986. The buildings identified in this survey are representative of an architectural period, are of local historic prominence, or are well-restored examples of vernacular architecture. Many of the structures in downtown South San Francisco along Linden, Baden, and Miller avenues were also among those identified as potential historic resources in the survey. Although industry play ed a critical role in South San Francisco's history, no industrial buildings or sites are currenth~ designated as historic resources (OSCE 1999). At the time of the Euro American contact the Native Americans that lived in the area spoke Ramaytush, one of the Costanoan/Ohlone languages. Two Native American resources-shellmounds-have been recorded within and adjacent to the MEIR Study Area, according to references in the ethnographic literature. Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American cultural resources in this part of San Mateo Counri' have been found on terraces adjacent to the bayshore. The Cit<~ of South San Francisco contains gently sloping hills adjacent to the bayshore. Given the similarit<~ of these environmental factors and ethnographic sensitivity, there is a moderate to high likelihood that unrecorded Native American cultural resources exist in the MEIR Study Area. Review of historical literature and maps indicated four historic-period archaeological resources within the MEIR Study Area. The 1915 San Mateo 15-foot Quadrangle indicated four historic-period buildings in the MEIR Study Area. With this in mind, there is a moderate to high possibility of identifying historic- period archaeological resources. Paleontological Resources The MEIR Study Area is on the west shore of San Francisco Bay on reclaimed bay lands and adjacent uplands at the eastern base of San Bruno Mountain. The lower portion of the MEIR Study Area was reclaimed from the waters of the San Francisco Bay in the mid to late 1960's by using well compacted Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.1x5 Chapter 4 Environmental Ana/ysls materials derived primarily from excavations consisting of the Bedrock belonging to the Franciscan complex, alluvial material and Bay Mud lie directly beneath the reclaimed fill material. In this area, the Franciscan complex consists primarily of sandstone and shale. The Bedrock Alluvial units consisting of medium stiff to hard, green, gray-green, and brown sandy and silty clay and medium dense to dense silt, siln~ sand, and sand unconformably overlie the bedrock surface. A review of a map produced by ILleinfelder Associates depicting the HEIR Study Area illustrates the potential for the existence of paleontological resources in the MEIR Study Area. Because the MEIR Study Area is underlain primarily with bedrock components, as discussed in Section 4.5 of this MEIR (Geology and Soils), it is possible that unique paleontological resources exist within the MEIR Study Area, since paleontological resources typically occur within rock formations. However, according to the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History (EACH), no vertebrate fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource or unique geologic features are anticipated to exist within the HEIR Study Area. No previously identified paleontological resources were found to be located at the HEIR Study Area (UCB 2006). The University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology database was searched to determine whether invertebrate or vertebrate fossils were present. No vertebrate fossils were listed. 4.10.2 Regulatory Framework The treatment of cultural resources is governed by federal and state laws and guidelines. There are specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric and historic sites or objects are significant and/or protected by law. Federal and state significance criteria generally focus on the resource's integrity and uniqueness, its relationship to similar resources, and its potential to contribute important information to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet federal significance criteria may, nevertheless, be considered significant by state criteria. The laws and regulations that seek to address and/or mitigate impacts on significant prehistoric or historic resources are summarized below. Federal The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The National Historic Preservation Act of~ 1966 established the NRHP as the official federal list of cultural resources that have been nominated by state offices for their historical significance at the local, state, or national level. Properties listed in the NRHP, or "determined eligible" for listing, must meet certain criteria for historical significance and possess integrity of form, location, and setting. Significance is determined by four aspects of American history or prehistory recognized by the NRHP Criteria, which are listed below. A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 4.10-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10 Cultural Resources C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type; period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components ma}~ lack individual distinction D. Have yielded, or may be likely to }Meld, information important in prehistory or history. (See 36 CFR X60.4) Eligible properties must meet at least one of the criteria and exhibit integrit}-. Historical integrity is measured by the degree to which the resource retains its historical properties and conveys its historical character, the degree to which the original fabric has been retained, and the reversibilitt~ of changes to the property. State The California Register of Historic Resources (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.) The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains the CRHR. Properties listed, or formally designated as eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are State Landmarks and Points of Interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. State law seeks to protect cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the silmificance of prehistoric and historic resources in CEQA documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in Section 15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. These criteria, which are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, are listed below. A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage B. Is associated with lives of persons important in our past C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history As stated earlier CEQA Section 15064.5(a)(4) also affords the lead agency the abilit<~ to determine whether a resource may be an historical resource without being listed in the CRHR. California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5, 7051, and 7054 These sections collectively address the illegality' of interference with human burial remains, as well as the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites. The law protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction, and establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project, including the treatment of remains prior to, during, and after evaluation, and reburial procedures. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10-7 Chapter 4 Env/ronmental Analysts California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5 (e) This law addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction. The section establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project and establishes the Native American Heritage Commission as the entity responsible to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. Local The City has a Historic Preservation Commission that designates historic resources, reviews applications for altering or demolishing historic structures, disseminates information to the public concerning structures, sites and areas deemed worthy of preservation, and considers and recommends to the City Council methods for encouraging and achieving historical or architectural preservation. The Historic Preservation Commission prepared a Historic Resources Survey in 1986, which determined that there are no historical resources within the MEIR Study Area. 4.10.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method Historic Resources Potentially adverse effects on historic structures or features are evaluated by determining the presence or absence of historic status with respect to the feature in question, and then determining the potential for the project to affect the structure or feature if it possesses historic status. Archaeological Resources (including human remains) This analysis is based on the possibility, based on the archaeological survey conducted, that an archaeological resource or human burial would be affected by activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface, including grading or excavation. Paleontological Resources This analysis is based on professional knowledge that paleontological resources could be affected by activities that disturb the ground surface or subsurface, including grading or excavation. For the purposes of this MEIR, impacts on paleontological resources are assessed in terms of significance based upon whether these resources meet the definition of a "unique paleontological resource" found in Section 21083.2(g) of the PRC. 4.10-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10 Cultural Resources Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to cultural or historic resources if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in the NRHP criteria or Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. ^ Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. ^ Directl}~ or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. ^ Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in the NRHP criteria and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Impact 4.10-1 Implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. This impact would be less-than-significant. As discussed in Section 4.10.1 (Existing Conditions), there were no previously identified historic structures located within the MEIR Study Area. State and federal inventories list no historic properties within the MEIR Study Area. The nearest NRHP-listed structure is outside the MEIR Study Area on East Grand Avenue. The MEIR Study Area currently comprises non-historic structures used to support the functions of Genentech. The project would not require demolition of a structure or structures which are potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. This impact is less than Significant and no mitigation is required. Threshold Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 36 CFR 60.4 Criterion (d) and/or CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 Impact 4.10-2 Implementation of the proposed project could affect the significance of a previously unidentified archaeological resource as defined in 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5, and PRC Section 21083.2. This impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of identified mitigation measures MM 4.10-1(a) and MM 4.10-1(b) would reduce this impact to less- than-significant. As discussed in Section 4.10.1 (Existing Conditions), a records search was conducted by the CHRIS to determine the existence of archaeological resources in the MEIR Study Area. Review of data maps, historic-period maps, and literature for San Mateo Count~~ on file at the NWIC indicates that the MEIR Study Area contains four historic-period archaeolo~rical resources within the MEIR Study Area. The 1915 San Mateo 15-foot Quadrangle indicated four buildings in the MEIR Study Area. The CHRIS also Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls discovered two Native American resources in or adjacent to the MEIR Study Area referenced in ethnographic literature. Two shellmounds were recorded within and adjacent to the MEIR Study Area, #377 and #378 (KWIC 2006). With this in mind, there is a moderate to high possibility of identifying historic-period archaeological resources. Additionally, the MEIR Study Area contains gently sloping hills adjacent to the bayshore, a type of land area on which Native American cultural resources have previously been found on adjacent terraces in South San Francisco. Thus, as previously discussed, based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, there is a moderate to high likelihood that unrecorded Native American cultural resources exist in the MEIR Studv Area. While the MEIR Study Area is a highly developed area, the East of 101 Area has historically been occupied by ware housing and meat packing industries. Due to the nature of these activities, most of the existing buildings in the area did not include sub-levels beneath grade. Construction activities associated with the proposed project has the potential to excavate and grade in areas that were previously developed. As such, other previously unidentified archaeological resources eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR may also be located within the MEIR Study Area or its immediate vicinity during project construction. Construction of the project could result in ground disturbance associated with grading, excavating, and trenching, which could damage or destroy previously unidentified, significant archaeological resources. This impact is considered potentially significant. Implementation of MM 4.10-1 (a) and MM 4.10-21 (b) would reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. MM 4.10-1(a~ If an unident~ed archaeological resource is uncovered during construction, a qual fed archaeologist approved by the project applicant shall conduct further archival and field study to ident~ the presence of archaeological resources in the area surrounding the discovery. Field study may include, but is not limited to, pedestrian survey, auguring and monitoring construction actizrities as well as other common methods arsed to ident~ the presence of archaeological resources in a fully developed urban area. M1tiI 4.10-1 (b) I f an unidentified archaeological resource is uncovered during construction, a qualified archaeologist approved ly the project applicant shall first determine whether this resource is a "unique archaeological resource" under 36 CFR 800, CEOA .Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code .Section 21083.2. If the archaeological resource is determined to be a "unique archaeological resource, "the archaeologist shall forrreulate a mitigation plan that satisfies the requirements of, 36 CFR 800, CEOA Section 15064.5, and/or Public Resources Code 21083.2. Fork in the vicinity of the find may resume at the completion of a mitigation plan or recovery of the resource. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological resource is not a unique archaeological resource, work will resarme, and the archaeologist may record the site and submit the recordation form to the California Historic Resources Information .System Northwest Information Center. The archaeologist shall prepare a report of the results of any study prepared as part of a mitigation plan, following accepted professional practice. Copies of the report shall be submitted 4.10-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10 Cultural Resounses to the City and to the California Historic Keso~rrces Information .S ystem Northwest Information Center. The potentially significant impact on previously unidentified archaeological resources would be reduced to aless-than-signifZCant level with implementation of MM 4.10-1 (a) and MM 4.10-1(b). Threshold Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Impact 4.10-3 The proposed project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. This impact would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.10.1 (Existing Conditions), no previously identified unique paleontological or unique geologic features are located in the MEIR Studv Area. A review of a map produced by Kleinfelder Associates depicting the MEIR Study Area shows the potential existence of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils within the MEIR Study Area. However, according to the LACM, no vertebrate fossil localities exist on the San Francisco peninsula, thus, no unique paleontological resource or unique geologic features are anticipated to exist in the MEIR Study Area. The University= of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontolo~r5= database was also searched to determine whether invertebrate or vertebrate fossils were present. No vertebrate fossils were listed (CJCB 2006). This impact is considered Zess than significant. No mitigation is necessary. Threshold Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries Impact 4.10-4 Implementation of the proposed project could disturb unknown human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries as defined in 36 CFR 800, CEQA Section 15064.5 and/or PRC Section 5097.98. This impact would be potentially significant. However, implementation of identified mitigation measure MM 4.10-2 would reduce this impact to less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.10.1 (Existing Conditions), the MEIR Study Area is not known to be located within a human burial ground and no known human burial sites were identified within the MEIR Study Area or its immediate vicinity. However, previously unidentified human remains could be encountered during ground disturbing activities with construction of the project. Human burials, in addition to being potential archaeological resources, have specific provisions for treatment in Section 5097 of the PRC. Disturbing human remains could violate the health code, as well as destro}~ the resource. This impact is considered potentially significant. To minimize this impact, implementation of MM 4.10-2, shall be required if human remains are discovered in the MEIR Study Area: MM 4.10-2 In the event of the discovery of a burial, human hone, or s~rspecteel human bone, all ea~cavation or grading avithin 700 feet of the find shall halt imrnerliately, the area of the find shall be protected, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.10-11 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis and the pr ject applicant immediately shall notify the .San Mateo County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions of PAC .Section 5097 avith respect to Native American involvement, burial treatment, and re-burial, if necessary. 1~ork may resume once the area is protected or the body is removed. This potentiall}~ significantly impact on previously unidentified human remains would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of MM 4.10-4. 4.10.4 References California Historical Resources Information System-Northwest Information Center-Sonoma State University. January 2006. Record Search Results. Jillian E. Guldenbrein, Researcher I, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, written communication to EIP Associates, January 3, 2005, Re: Record Search Results for the proposed City of South San Francisco Project. City of South San Francisco General Plan, Open Space and Conservation Element. Dyett & Bhatia. Genentech. Central Campus Ten-~ ear Master Plan-.South .San Francisco. November 2005. Office of Historic Preservation. August 2005. Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County. UCB Museum of Paleontology, Paleontology Collections Data website, http://bscit.berkele~~.edu/ucmp/ Accessed February 14, 2006. City of South San Francisco. October 1999. City of .South .San Francisco General Plan, Open .Space and Conservation Element. hleinfelder Associates, 2003, Inferred Fossil Potential from State-wide Geologic Unit Map (Jennings, 2002), database searched 16 February 2006. 4.10-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11 Population, Employment, and Housing 4.11 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING This section describes existing population, employment and housing in the MEIR Study Area and analyzes the potential for adverse impacts on population and housing resulting from implementation of the proposed project. The MEIR analysis is limited to those socioeconomic issues that could result in a direct change on the physical environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). In light of this, the effect of the proposed project on property values and its economic effect on surrounding businesses are not considered environmental issues, and thus will not be analyzed. Data used to prepare this section were derived from the United States Bureau of the Census (2005), the Association of Bay Area Governments ("ABAG"), and the Cin~ of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element ("Housing Element"), updated in 2002. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.11.4 (References) of this document. No comment letters related to population, employment, and housing were received in response to the December 9, 2005 Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.11.1 Existing Conditions Population, housing, and employment data are available on city, county, regional, and state levels. However, this section uses this data at the city level, in order to focus the analysis on the City of South San Francisco (see Table 4.11-1). Soutli S'en Fla-~ 2006 2015 San McOeo Oo~rKy 2006 2015 Total Population 61,000 65,600 723,200 773,900 Total Jobs 42,170 48,410 336,460 400,000 Total Households 19,980 21,390 261,280 278,650 SOURCE: ABAG 2005, Projections Population According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the City of South San Francisco had a population of 60,552 in 2000. ABAG Pr jection.r 2005, which was completed in 2004, projected the total population of South San Francisco as 61,000 in 2005. As these numbers indicate, the City is primarily built out and no new substantial residential uses are anticipated. Table 4.11-2 shows the projected population growth in the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Ciry, surrounding communities and the County from 2005 to 2015. Based on the ABAG Projections 2005 data, the population in the Ciry of South San Francisco would increase by a total of approximately 7.5 percent from 2005 to 2015, which recorded a population of 61,000 in 2005. South San Francisco ranks as the fourth most populated Ciry in San Mateo County, following Daly City, the City of San Mateo, and Redwood City. According to ABAG Projections 2005, the City's population is expected to grow by 4,600 persons between 2005 and 2015, a 7.5% increase. .,~.~~,~.~ 2005 2010 2015 iiaeasehPop/efbn South San Francisco 61,000 62,300 65,600 4,600 Daly City 104,100 106,000 110,000 5,900 San Bruno 41,700 42,700 44,900 3,200 Colma 1,350 1,410 1,570 220 San Mateo County 723,200 741,000 773,900 50,700 avuKUt: ntsHt; ~vvo rro~ections Households A household is defined by the U.S. Census as a group of people who occupy a housing unit. A household differs from a dwelling unit because the number of dwelling units includes both occupied and vacant dwelling units. It is important to note that not all of the population lives in households. A portion lives in group quarters, such as board and care facilities; others are homeless. Housing Needs Assessment Based on a methodology that weighs a number of factors (e.g., projected population growth, employment, commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determined quantifiable needs for housing units in the region according to various income categories. In its final Regional Needs Determination (RHND) figures, ABAG allocated 1,331 housing units to the Ciry of South San Francisco (Housing Element 2005). Between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, which is within the planning timeframe of the Housing Element, South San Francisco approved or built 1,688 new units. After accounting for approved and constructed housing units between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, South San Francisco's remaining fair share need is 504 new units (Housing Element 2005). According to the General Plan Housing Element, Summar~~ of Quantified Objectives, pending projects and units that will be developed through implementation measures during the time frame of 2001 through 2006 will construct 528 more units. Once all units are constructed, the RHND will be exceeded by 24 units. 4.11-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11 Population, Employment, and Housing Potential Future Housing Development The General Plan Housing Element includes an analysis of residential development potential. A total of 40.95 acres within the City of South San Francisco are vacant or underutilized, upon which a total 1,399 residential units could be built (Tables I-32 and 33, South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element, Background Report, 2005). Approximately 704 of those units would be developed on 25.05 acres of underutilized land, and 695 units would be developed on 18 acres of vacant land. Jobs/Housing Balance According to the 1999 General Plan, the City has a history of imbalance in its jobs/housing ratio. For instance, in 1999, only 23 percent of the City's employed residents actually worked within the City limits, despite a surplus of jobs. In 2005, South San Francisco had a total of 42,130 jobs and approximately 19,980 households. Therefore, the CitS~'s existing jobs/housing ratio is 2.1, which is considered high. Essentially, this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that exports housing. By contrast, San Mateo County has a slight overall shortage of jobs relative to housing; although its job/housing ratio has crept closer to a balance during this same period. Given that much of the land in the Cit}', including all of the East of 101 Area, is not zoned for residential development, attainment of a jobs and housing balance in South San Francisco is doubtful. On the other hand, continued job growth in the Cit<~ will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area communit<~ well served by all modes of transit-including air and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future-future employees from and traveling to the City will have varied means of reaching employment sites. The City's General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on infill sites. The intent here is that increased residential development within the Ciry will help alleviate traffic impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the City but currentl}~ live elsewhere (Housing Element 2005). As South San Francisco's emplo}=ment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share of South San Francisco's new non-residential development. While under the General Plan total building floor space is expected to increase by about 50 percent (from 12.0 million sf to about 17.4 million s~, overall employment levels are expected to more than double (from 22,200 in 1997 to 42,000 at General Plan buildout in 2020). Genentech currently operates within 2.83 million sf in the Genentech R&D Overlay District and projects to expand to as much as 6.0 million sf in the next ten years, under the proposed project. The City's Housing Element Background Report estimated that by the year 2020, total employment buildout of the East of 101 Area would reach approximately 35,430 employees. In 2005, the City of South San Francisco completed a Traffic Impact Fee Study Update (Update) for the East of 101 Area. The Update looks at existing development plus all pending development that were either completed or approved from September 2001 through March 2005. According to the document, the employment buildout in the East Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls of 101 Area is expected to reach 52,880 mainly due to substantial increases in Office/R&D development and the fact that these uses have much higher employment intensity than industrial development. Consistent with this, ABAG Projections 2005 projects that number to be 51,160 at buildout in 2020. Both the Traffic Impact Fee Stud}= Update, and the ABAG Projections 2005 are based upon existing planning documentation; therefore, as new projects are approved, the projection numbers would also change. As such, the employment build out projections are not treated as limits, rather they project the employment for the region based upon the best available data. 4.11.2 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project. State There are no state regulations related to population and housing that apply to the proposed project. Local Association of Bay Area Governments The Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide governs regulations applicable to population and housing for the proposed project. California's Housing Element Law assigns responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need and for allocating a share of this need to localities within the region to regional councils of government. For the San Francisco Bay Area, these determinations were prepared by ABAG. The RHND process is a state mandate, devised to address the need for and planning of housing across a range of affordability and in all communities throughout the state. Each jurisdiction within the Bay Area (101 cities, 9 counties) is given a share of the anticipated regional housing need. The Bay Area's regional housing need is specified by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and finalized through negotiations with ABAG. The timeframe for this RHND process is January 1, 1999, through June 30, 2006, (a seven and a half year planning period) (ABAG 2005). South San Francisco General Plan and Municipal Code The General Plan Housing Element and the SSFMC govern regulations applicable to population and housing for the proposed project. The City's General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential development opportunities on infill sites. The intent here is that increased residential development within the Ciry will help alleviate 4.11-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11 Population, Employment, and Housing traffic impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential opportunities to those that work in the City but currently live elsewhere (Housing Element 2005). 4.11.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method This analysis considers emplo~~ment growth, and the resulting increase in overall population growth and housing demand that would occur with implementation of the proposed project and whether this growth is within local or regional forecasts. In addition, this analysis determines whether it can be considered substantial with respect to remaining growth potential in the Cin~ as articulated in the East of 101 Area Plan. Further, this analysis considers whether growth and development were previously assumed to occur in the Project Area. Specifically, population, employment, and housing impacts were analyzed by comparing the proposed project with growth projections for the City from ABAG. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to population and housing if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new -homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ^ Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere ^ Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the proposed project could directly and indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area by proposing increased employment. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. Presently, Genentech employs approximately 6,658 employees in the East of 101 Area. With the proposed expansion of its facilities under the proposed project, the new development could increase the number of employees to approximatel}' 13,319, or approximately 6,661 net new employees, as shown in Table 4.11-3. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Rgpoaed6lddaut Facoors Ropoeed' Land Area 160 acres NIA NIA Office 2,629,395 sf 375 sf/employee 7,012 Laboratory 2,002,482 sf 450 sflemployee 4,450 ManufacturinglWarehouse 1,041,668 sf 955 sflemployee 1,091 Amenity 322,000 sf 420 sflemployee 766 Total 5,995,545 sf N/A 13,319 SOURCE: EIP Associates 1UUfi a Employee numbers were rounded. The net increase of approximately 6,661 employees resulting from Genentech's growth would exceed the City's projected population growth expected during 2005 and 2015 at approximately 107 percent, and approximately 10 percent of the County's during this time (per ABAG projections in Table 4.11-1). Although Genentech is presently the largest employer in the Cite, because the anticipated employment growth exceeds the existing forecasts for the Ciry, Genentech's anticipated employment growth is considered substantial and exceeds the General Plan. The significant increase in employees during the 10-year planning horizon could simultaneously create a significant demand for new housing in and around the Ciry. This demand could exceed existing housing stock and/or housing proposed in the General Plan or ABAG's RHND, as further discussed below. A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs and the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide both adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. Ajobs- housing ratio of one represents a balance of jobs and housing and, assuming similar income and housing cost levels, suggests that workers can afford to live close to their jobs. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1 to '1.5 is generally considered balanced (so that there is little in- or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and housing can benefit the regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length, which creates environmental effects, such as those associated with transportation, air quality, and noise. As discussed above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 2.1; this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding communities, or alternatively, that exports housing. ABAG projects the number of jobs to increase to approximately 48,410 and the number of households to grow to approximately 21,390 by the year 2015, the approximate build out year of the proposed project. Consequently, the future jobs/housing ratio in 2015 is anticipated to increase to approximately 2.3, which suggests poor housing availability relative to the amount of jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability, already projected to be out of balance, will decrease with implementation of the proposed project. Assuming that not more than one person per household would be employed b}' Genentech, the addition of 6,661 new employees would create the need for 6,661 new units of housing. This increased need for housing is not accounted for by the Ciry. Consequently, the 4.11-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11 Population, Employment, and Housing potential employment increase that would result from the proposed 2006 FMPU would result in direct and indirect growth that may not be accommodated by existing or proposed housing projections for the Cit<~ However, and as stated above, continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As a strategically located inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit-including air and rail, BART and ferry service in the near futurefuture employees that travel to and from the City will have varied means of reaching employment sites. Existing documents, such as the Economic Development Element of the General Plan, recognize that redevelopment and intensification of land uses within the City will be necessary to meet future demand. Further, the Economic Development Element also recognizes the anticipated increase in non-residential development and the resulting substantial increase in related employment, particularly within R&D establishments in the East of 101 Area, which is unsuitable for residential uses. Genentech serves both local and regional roles; the Genentech Campus is a major high- technology/biotechnology anchor in the Fast of 101 Area and due to its size, it also provides the region with a firm establishment in the biotechnology industry and its resulting economic benefits. Thus, while the increase in non-residential uses as proposed under the proposed project would further exacerbate the existing jobs-housing ratio within the City, existing City documents recognize the integral role that Genentech and its resulting services provide to the City and the region. Additionall~~, residential uses are not permitted in the East of 101 Area. Thus, the majority of additional housing demand that could be generated under buildout of the proposed project would be filled in surrounding communities. Although the City's jobs-housing balance could worsen, because of Genentech's strong economic presence, the significant increase in jobs would actually improve the overall regional jobs-housing balance. Further, although the jobs-housing balance is a noteworthy measure for land use planning purposes, the City does not have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal. Therefore, because Genentech's continued employment growth would serve to balance regional needs between jobs and housing, this impact is considered to be less than signi~eant. Threshold Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impact 4.11-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact. The MEIR Study Area is located in the East of 101 Area. According to the General Plan, the East of 101 Area, the traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, was originally developed with meat packing and heavy manufacturing activities. In the post-war years the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the City for the first time. Residential uses are not permitted in the East of 101 Area. As South San Francisco's emploti~ment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major share Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.11-7 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts of South San Francisco's new non-residential development. As no residential uses exist in the MEIR Study Area, implementation of the proposed project would not displace existing housing. Therefore, there would be no impact. Threshold Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Impact 4.11-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people, and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact. No residential uses exist in the MEIR Study Area. Thus no residents would be displaced, and construction of replacement housing elsewhere would not be necessitated. Existing businesses in the proposed expanded Genentech R&D Overla}~ District could be displaced by Genentech. However, these employees would likely find other locations in the East of 101 Area. Therefore, displacement of existing businesses and associated employees would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere as these potentially displaced employees could find employment in the East of 101 Area. Therefore, there would be no impact. 4.11.4 References Association of Bay Area Governments, ABAG Housing Program, http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/rhnd.html, Accessed 22 November, 2005. Dyett and Bhatia, City of South San Francisco, General Plan, Housing Element Background Report, adopted December 11, 2002. Sue Exline, Dyett and Bhatia memorandum to Mike Lappen, South San Francisco Planning Department, forwarded to EIP on November 21, 2005. 4.11-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12 Public ServirPc 4.12 PUBLIC SERVICES This section describes public services within the MEIR Study Area and whether implementation of the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on public sere-ices. Information is provided for police and fire protection services. Information provided in this section is based on the City's General Plan and on communications with local service providers and Genentech. The MEIR for the proposed project evaluates environmental impacts related to public services for the Genentech Campus. This section evaluates the environmental impacts related to police protection, fire protection and emergency services. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.12.4 (References) of this section. No comment letters related to public services were received in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.12.1 Existing Conditions Police Police services within the MEIR Study Area are provided by Genentech's private First Alert Team, as well as the South San Francisco Police Department (SSFPD). The First Alert Team provides first response services for emergencies, including medical, chemical, and fire (as discussed below) emergencies within the Genentech Campus. Emergency call phones are located throughout the Genentech Campus and calls are routed to the Control Room Operator, who notifies the First Alert Team. If needed, the Control Room Operator also notifies outside emergency personnel such as the SSFPD. The SSFPD has an agreement with the San Mateo County Harbor District for radio communication and emergency response coordination. The SSFPD includes the following divisions: Administration, Services, Records, Communications, Investigations, and Patrol. These divisions include special sections and units staffed by both civilians and sworn officers for a total of 35 civilian staff and 79 sworn officers employed by the SSFPD. One chief of police, two captains, five lieutenants, 10 sergeants, 17 corporals, and the remaining 44 sworn personnel are police officers. The City's officer-to-population ratio is currently an acceptable level of 1.9 officers per 1,500 population. Police, Fire, and Parks and Recreation departments share facilities within the City's Municipal Services Building. The nearest SSFPD station is located at 33 Arroyo Drive, approximately 4.5 miles from the MEIR StudS~ Area. Average response times throughout the City of South San Francisco (which is roughly eight square miles, geographicall~~) are approximately 5-7 minutes depending on priority of calls for service. The Administration division, under the direction of the Chief of Police, has the ultimate responsibilitti~ for management of the SSFPD and ensures policing needs in the community are being met. The Services division oversees administrative duties and personnel within the administrative support area of the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12-1 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysis SSFPD and also manages the production of the budget and grants. The Records division is responsible for.processing, filing and distribution of all police reports to the district attorney, allied agencies, and the public. Records personnel also greet those who arrive at the station, respond to all non-emergency business calls, do fingerprinting, manage evidence, and ensure compliance with state and federal mandates related to police operations and reporting. The Communications division employs dispatchers for police, fire, and medical emergencies. The Investigations division handles all investigation on major cases in South San Francisco and coordinates with allied agencies at the municipal, state, and federal level. The Patrol division operates under the direction of the Police Captain. The patrol division is responsible for the primary law enforcement activities in the Ciry, and is the first to respond to all police-related emergencies. The SSFPD is projected for a maximum of 46 officers in the Patrol Bureau. Those 46 officers are divided into six teams: two day shift teams, two swing shift teams, and two grave shift teams. The patrol team utilizes a team concept for supervision, and teams work together for approximately one- year tours. Each team has a supervisor (sergeant), a team leader (corporal), and several police officers. Officers work in a solo capacity-one officer per patrol vehicle. The City of South San Francisco Police Department uses the Community-Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) philosophy for evaluation of service. For specific planning and development projects, the department utilizes the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (OPTED) philosophy. Traffic Demand Management (TDl~7) is also a primary concern with respect to project approval. Fire Protection Similar to police services, fire protection and emergency services within the MEIR Study Area are the responsibility of the Genentech's First Alert Team as well as the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The First Alert Team provides first response services for medical, chemical, and fire emergencies within the Genentech Campus. Emergency call phones are located throughout the Genentech Campus and calls are routed to the Control Room Operator, who notifies the First Alert Team. If needed, the Control Room Operator also notifies outside emergency personnel such as the SSFFD. The SSFFD is staffed by 76 employees organized into five divisions: Administration, Fire Prevention, Disaster Preparedness, Emergency Medical Services, and Operations. There are currently five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. In addition to the paramedics, the rest of the fire personnel are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) EMT-D (defibrillation certified to help those who have cardiac related emergencies that need to be defibrillated as soon as possible). The SSFFD also has Advanced Life Support (ALS) engines that arrive on scene with a paramedic aboard. The SSFFD has 3 fire engines, 2 quints, 2 ambulances, a breathing support unit mutual aid vehicle used by Northern San Mateo County, and a battalion truck. A quint, or quintuple combination pumper, functions as a hybrid of a fire engine and a fire truck, as the quint carries its own water and elevating ladders, and has more equipment than a fire truck. q,~_2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12 Public Services The Administration Division is responsible for providing the vision, direction, and control of all divisions of the SSFFD through the use of strategic planning, resource identification and allocation, financial management, introduction of new technologies and cost recovery. The Fire Prevention Division is headed by the fire marshal and is responsible for the prevention of fires, hazardous materials incidents, or other situations that threaten health, the environment, or propert}'. This division also enforces the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) through public safety announcements regarding smoke detectors, fire safett~ demonstrations, adoption of local amendments to the Uniform Fire Code, construction plan checking, site inspection, and investigation of SSFMC violations. The Disaster Preparedness Division is responsible for coordinating citizen, business, and Ciry efforts to prepare and respond to manmade and natural disasters through the creation and support of community emergency response teams, provision of advanced training in disaster response and management, participation in county-wide disaster simulations, and writing disaster mitigation plans. The Emergency Medical Services Division is led by the Deputy Fire Chief and its daily operations are supervised by the Emergency Medical Services Coordinator. This division is responsible for the SSFFD's injury and illness prevention programs, throughout its offering of community classes in first-aid, CPR, child-car safety seat inspections, and senior fall prevention. This division also cares for the sick and injured in the event of a medical emergency. The Operations Division is responsible for response to emergency incidents including fires of all types, medical emergencies, natural disasters, and hazardous material incidents. Each fire station has at least one fire engine staffed by three firefighting personnel. Two of the fire engines also have a permanently fixed aerial ladder that can reach up to 75 feet. Two of the fire stations house fire rescue ambulances that are staffed by two firefighting paramedics. Station #62 is the closest station to the MEIR Study Area and is located within a mile, at 249 Harbor Way. Station #62 provides all first response services to the area East of US 101, and would also provide first response to any emergency at the MEIR Study Area upon project completion. Station #62 has one quint with a 75-foot ladder and a 500-gallon carrying capacity, as well as a technical rescue trailer and utility. A second fire station, Station #61, is located at 480 North Canal Street, approximately one mile from the MEIR Study Area. Estimated emergency response times from Stations #62 and #61 to the MEIR Study Area are approximately 4 minutes and 6 minutes respectively. The delivery of water for fire protection to Genentech buildings uses the same network of pipes as the domestic water system, Figure 4.12-1, Water System. Cal Water recently installed a new 10-inch ductile- iron high-pressure line in Grandview Drive to alleviate the deficiency in the pressure to the buildings and fire systems for upper and lower campuses (Dyett and Bhatia 2005). There are several buildings within Genentech that have water storage tanks and/or fire pumps installed for local pressure control. The pipe sizes and flow for the present conditions are generally adequate; however, there are a few locations, such as the lower campus, where the existing pipes are undersized for required fire flow pressure. To resolve this problem, tanks or pumps are being added. The addition of a new fire main connection will alleviate some of the demand in the Lower Campus (Dyett and Bhatia 2005). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12-3 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls 4.12.2 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no federal regulations related to public services applicable to the proposed project. State The 2001 California Fire Code contains regulations relating to construction and maintenance of buildings and the use of premises. Topics addressed in the code include fire department access, fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, hazardous materials storage and use, provisions intended to protect and assist fire responders, industrial processes, and many other general and specialized fire-safety requirements for new and existing buildings and premises. The Code contains specialized technical regulations related to fire and life safety. Local The City's General Plan contains implementing policies regarding public services and utilities of which the applicable policies are discussed below. Police General Plan Policy 8.5-I-1 calls for the Police Department to provide rapid and timely response to all emergencies and maintain the capability to have minimum average response times. While there are no response time goals, the current average response time throughout South San Francisco (which is roughly eight square miles, geographically) are approximately 5-7 minutes depending on priority of calls for service. Fire and Emergency Services City of South San Francisco General Plan Policy 8.4-G-1 calls for minimization of the risk to life and property from fire hazards in the City, and Policy 8.4-G-2 calls for fire protection that is responsive to citizens' needs. The fire response goal is 3.5 to 4 minutes for engines and quints, and 4.5 minutes for medical or rescue vehicles. Health and Safety Element: Fire Hazards Policy 8.4-1-1 Institute a comprehensive fire hazard management program to reduce fire hazards on public lands in those management units identified in Figure 4.12-2, in the South San Francisco General Plan, shown on page 265. Policy 8.4-1-2 Explore incentives or programs as part of the comprehensive fire hazard management program to encourage private landowners to reduce fire hazards on their propertS~. 4.12-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR E ~~~..~ ;, ;' ~~ ~.._. E , ~~ -- ~ ~ ;'; / ~ (~ ~ ~~ ( ; ay ~, .,; ._ € ,, ? I "w ~~.P~ ~ ,. ...._ ~ - ~ .., _ -, ~ ~~.~ ~~ ~ \* I: ~, a ~~ f p . ~ ~ Y \'`~ ~ f ^' _... s ~~ q S. f V ~~~i~ ~ F ~ «.~~ ~. ~~ °` ._, ,.~~ r ~ ,~ ~~~.:. .J ~. ~ j',~ ,F _ - ~ ~ /~ aka ~ ~ ~ ~` _ r z ~,~ ' T l' a ~5 dl .. F3 ,, ~r ~ ~ ~ e .u;~y~ ~" _ ~yr ~: i ~ ... ~,.. ~ ~~ ~ ,r r. r ~r j~ .~ N ~\ 4 t, c _ ~ fit' 'iJ o-~~~~ `q`' '~~ G S` ~/ ~. t ~. g ~ V . ,,` l~ .. K _ K - •,` K t { c ,./ j Q <^. ~4 ~,.. v ;c.c i" ~t ~ t~ M r ~ ,:.L~ . t a t~' t7 ~~~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ Z ti 4'-' s '4 ~~~ J ~ ~ ` /iii ~ ^~7 ~: ~ ~ ~~• w G ., ,~~"' y,/+y ~'' 3 it ~~ .~ ~. y C c t5 y t" ~ ~ L ~~'.i ~, ~~ cs`. ~ ~ K' '~3G ' J W ~ s 1~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ Li ... v G y !~ .P„ '.aw -'~~ G d m R N N ~ r ~ ~ ~ w = ~ LL 0 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis Policy 8.4-I-3 Require site design features, fire retardant building materials, and adequate access as conditions for approval of development or improvements to reduce the risk of fire within the City. South San Francisco Municipal Code The Cit<~ of South San Francisco Fire Department adopted an amended version of the 2001 California Fire Code, as Chapter 15.24 (Fire Code) of the SSFMC. 4.12.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytical Method The assessment of whether the project would result in a significant adverse impact related to public services or utilities was determined by first evaluating whether for a given public service, additional resources would be required to senTe the project at acceptable service standards, or if serving the project under current resources would reduce services to the existing public below accepted or current standards, and second, by evaluating whether construction of new facilities would result in potentially adverse effects. Additionally, because the First Alert Team is specific to the Genentech Campus in providing emergency response services, this analysis focuses on the potential impacts to the SSFPD and the SSFFD. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts on public services, including police and fire protection if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services, including the following: > Police protection > Fire protection 4•~$ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12 Pub11c Services Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection Impact 4.12-1 The proposed project would not result in the alteration of existing police protection facilities or require the construction of new police protection facilities resulting from the SSFPD's inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. This is considered aless-than-signif2cant impact. As described earlier, the existing uses are currently served by the SSFPD. The SSFPD's jurisdictional area includes the entire City. Two unincorporated pockets, including the California Golf and Country Club, are under the jurisdiction of the San Mateo County Sheriff 's office. The entire City is patrolled except for the undeveloped Sierra Point area. Implementation of the proposed project would increase development within the MEIR Study Area. At buildout, Genentech expects to almost double its 2005 size (an increase from three million sf to roughly 6 million sf) in sf of office, research and development, manufacturing space, amenities building, and parking structures. As mentioned earlier, the City's officer-to-population ratio is currently an acceptable level of 1.9 officers per 1,500 population. The current population of the Ciry of South San Francisco is 60,552 and the da}Mime population is 101,651. As of the December 2005 baseline, Genentech employed approximately 6,658 people. An addition of 6,661 employees within the Genentech Campus would constitute a minor increase (6.5 percent) in the City's daytime population and would not lead to a change in response times and/or requirement for construction of new facilities. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within five to seven minutes. These times are within the department's response time goals. With implementation of the proposed project, police surveillance at the Genentech Campus would continue adequately with routine patrols and responses to calls for assistance, hence the impact is less than significant. The Guiding policies in the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) establishes policies 8.5-G1 to 8.5-G2 to provide police services that are responsive to citizen's needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and property in the community; and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community design. As implementation of the proposed project would constitute a negligible increase in the City's population, and would not result in SSFPD's inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. As the current response times and senTice ratio's are adequate, and no new facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required, the project will result in aless-than-significant impact. Thus, no mitigation is required. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12-9 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Threshold Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection or emergency services Impact 4.12-2 The proposed project would not result in the alteration of existing fire protection facilities or require the construction of new fire protection facilities resulting from the SSFFD's inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. This is considered aless-than-significant impact. As described under "Environmental Setting," the land uses within the MEIR Study Area include office, research and development, manufacturing space and amenities. Beyond the topographic, climatic, and land use conditions that create fire hazard, two factors contribute to fire risk in individual locations: Vegetation As shown in Figure 4.12-2 Fire Hazard Management Units, the MEIR Study Area does not have a significant fire risk. In the past there have only been a few fires and the worst was controlled with two sprinklers, which is probably less than 1000 gallons total (Stocker 2005). Infrastructure Public infrastructure, particularly site access and water supply, affect the City's ability to respond to fire. While most of the areas near open spaces have good access and water supply, access is poor near Sign Hill and along Dundee Drive (South San Francisco General Plan 1999). Several fire hydrants in the Genentech area have been tested by the Fire Department for flow and pressure requirements. Based on that fire flow test and water analysis completed by Wilsey Ham (engineering, planning and surveying company), all hydrants meet the fire flow requirements; however fire flow test can change as new buildings come on line or even at different hours of the day depending on how much domestic water is being used by the system. The pipe sizes and flow characteristics for these pipes are in most cases acceptable. There are a few locations where the existing piping is undersized for the local building or hydrant requirements. These undersized pipes are identified for replacement when, either the new structures are designed and built in the area, or that certain pipes will have to be replaced for that location (Selby 2005). As mentioned under "Environmental Setting," the new 10-inch-high pressure line was installed to alleviate the deficiencies supplying the Grandview campus and all code requirements are currently met. Adherence to the fire code that contains regulations pertaining to fire hydrants, automatic sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, fire and explosion hazards safety, and other fire safety requirements for new and existing building and premises will reduce any significant building specific impacts. The proposed development of approximately 3.17 million sf of new uses in the MEIR Study Area will increase usage by commuters, and present new fire and life safety risks to the people. In the future, fire requirements will need to be analyzed for each individual building based on the size, tSTpe of construction and fire sprinkler system associated with the building. The fire flow requirements will need to be analyzed 4.12-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12 Public Services specific to each building in order to determine if the local system can adequately handle the fire flow needs. If the local system is found undersized or deteriorating, then the pipelines will need to be modified by upsizing, new connections, and or the installation of pumps and tanks to supply the new requirements. As implementation of the proposed project would constitute a negligible increase in the Cit<~'s population, and would not result in SSFFD's inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. As the current response times and service ratio's are adequate, and no new facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required, the project will result in aless-than-signi~eant impact. Thus, no mitigation is required. 4.12.4 References California Water Service Company. 2005. Locate Cal Water Service Areas. `~'ebsite: http://www.calwater.com/Locate.html. Accessed 26 September 2005. Dyett and Bhatia. 1999. South San Francisco General Plan. -. 2003. City of ,South .San Francisco General Plan, Prepared for CitS~ of South San Francisco, October 1999, as amended December 2003. . 2005. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan. Dennin, Dick. 2005. Email communication with Deputy Fire Chief, Cit<~ of South San Francisco Fire Department, 23 August. Normandy, Allan. 2006. Email communication with Sergeant, City of South San Francisco Police Department, 31 January. South San Francisco, Cite of. 2006. Website http:// http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/about/demographics.asp, accessed January 31. Stocker, Eric. 2005. Personal communication with Associate Director-Risk Management, Genentech, Inc. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.12-11 4.13 Utllitles and service systems 4.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS This section describes utilities, including water supply, wastewater, surface water and storm drainage, groundwater and water quality=, solid waste, and electricity and natural gas, within the MEIR Study Area. Further the sections addresses whether implementation of the proposed project would cause a significant impact on utilities. Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the City of South San Francisco General Plan prepared by Dyett & Bhatia and adopted in October 1999, the East of 101 Area Plan prepared by Brady and Associates and adopted in July 1994, and communications with local service providers. Full bibliographic entries for all reference materials are provided in Section 4.13.5 (References). No comment letters related to utilities were received in response to the December 9, 2005, Revised Notice of Preparation (NOP) circulated for the project. In addition, no comments were received at the public scoping meeting held January 17, 2006. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this MEIR. 4.13.1 Existing Conditions Water Supply Domestic Water The California Water Service Company-Bayshore District (CWSC) serves the portion of the City east of I-280, where the MEIR Study Area is located, as well as the cities of San Carlos and San Mateo. The CWSC obtains water from a purchasing agreement with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which is supplied by water from the Hetch Hetchy Regional y~G'ater System, and from groundwater. The CWSC's contract with the SFPUC dated August 8, 1984, entitles the CWSC to 42.3 million gallons per day (mgd) annual average. Based on the June 1, 2005, letter from the SFPUC, the 2005 request from CWSC was 38.25 mgd with single dry year cutback of 18.1 percent. An additional 1.4 mgd of the CWSC's supply is pumped from groundwater. (Groundwater resources are described further in "Groundwater," below.) Water use projections through 2030 for the South San Francisco District (SSFD) are approximately 9.0 mgd. Total demand for the entire CWSC service area is expected to only grow to 41.3 mgd by 2030 and is documented in the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared as part of the CEQA analysis. The WSA is included in Appendix F and utilizes land use projections presented in Table 5-1 (Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions) and Figure 5-1 (2015 Net Growth and Transportation Analysis Zone Boundaries) in Chapter 5 (Other CEQA Considerations). The proposed project will potentially use 800 acre-feet per year or an average demand of 0.72 million gallons per day (mgd). In comparison, the existing demand is approximately 470 acre-ft per year or an Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-1 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts average day demand of 0.42 mgd. The net increase in demand is approximately 330 acre-ft per year or an average day demand 0.29 mgd. Table 4.13-1 summarizes the projected project demand. pRoe . Lab ~ Arner~les 70TAL Existing 0.060 0.226 0.131 0.004 0.421 Proposed 0.155 0.447 0.092 0.021 0.715 Net Increase 0.096 0.221 -0.039 0.016 0.294 Calculations included in Appendix F of WSA in Appendix F The water distribution system in the East of 101 Area was designed and constructed to meet industrial water demands. The water mains entering the Genentech Campus include a 12-inch line in Forbes Boulevard, a 12-inch line in East Grand Avenue, and a new 10-inch high-pressure line in Grandview Drive (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). These piping systems are fed from the CWSC 18-inch main supply line located along US 101. The water system in the Upper Campus is augmented by a 1.5 million gallon storage reservoir on the top of San Bruno Hill. The pipe and flow capacit<~ for these pipes in their present condition generally meet the current domestic water flow requirements. The City's historical water use patterns illustrate the differences between residential or commercial and industrial water use. Industrial water use is most prevalent in the East of 101 Area (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). While industrial water consumption showed no consistent pattern of decrease during the drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s, residential and commercial water use levels declined considerably. Thus, compared to the historic reduction of residential and commercial water use during drought, industrial water use appears inelastic and therefore represents a critical issue for drought planning. Fire Protection Discussion of fire protection services is included in Section 4.12 Public Services. This section addresses the infrastructure to deliver the required water used for fire protection. The delivery of water for fire protection to Genentech buildings uses the same network of pipes as the domestic water system (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). CWSC recently installed a 10-inch ductile iron high-pressure line in Grandview Drive to improve pressure to the buildings and fire systems for the Upper and Lower campuses. There are several buildings within the Genentech Campus that have water storage tanks and/or fire pumps installed for local pressure control. Wilsey Ham (2005) prepared a fire flow model for the campus. The model assumed fire requirements ranging from 360 to 2000 gpm based on building size. The model identified potential deficiencies in the system. There have been no fire flows measured on site since the addition of the new high pressure force main. 4,~2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 lJtllltles and service Systems Wastewater Wastewater collection system Sewage and wastewater generated within the Cite= is collected through the Cit~''s sewer system and is disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (~X/QCP). The sanitary= sewer system has an interconnecting network of approximately 12 miles of 6-inch to 30-inch diameter gravity sewer mains, force mains, and nine pump stations, which function together to bring wastewater from individual homes and businesses to the WQCP. Some pump stations act as tributaries to a few stations that handle most of the wastewater from large portions of the community. Older portions of the City's sewer system are subject to infiltration and inflow (I/I) problems. I/I problems occur when leaks and breaks in sewer pipes, or cross connection with the storm drain system, result in the entrance of rainfall and other water from the storm drain system into the sewer pipes. There are also some reliability issues at pump stations and areas where sewer lines have sunk, decreasing hydraulic capacity and increasing the potential deposit of solids. Based on the 2002 Carollo East of Highway 101 Sewer Sj=stem Master Plan for the Citt='s wastewater system, Pump Station 8, located in the Lower Campus, has an existing firm capacity of 990 gallons per minute (gpm) and currently does not meet the existing peak sewer discharge of 1,100 gpm (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). In addition, Pump Station 4 needs to be upgraded to improve reliability. The upgrade of Pump Station 4 is critical to sere=ing the proposed growth under the East of 101 Area Plan, and has been included in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment plan for funding. Necessary system improvements, including Pump Station 4, are identified in the Sewer Master Plan (Carollo 2002), which also establishes a program for implementing the improvements. The Sewer Master Plan estimates cost share of the improvements, with respect to how they relate to existing users and future users. Costs from existing users are recovered through rates. Impact fees, collected prior to the issuance of a building permit, fund the improvements as they relate to future users. The East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan prepared by Carollo in 2002 (2002 Sewer Master Plan) lists the 2002 average dry weather flow in 2001 as 1.5 mgd. The 2002 Sewer Master Plan also identified deficiencies in the current s}=stem to handle current and projected flows. An addendum to the 2002 Sewer Master Plan (2006 Sewer Master Plan Addendum) analyzed the sewer system based on projected land use and flows presented in Table 5-1 (Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions) and Figure 5-1 (2015 Net Growth and Transportation Anal}psis Zone Boundaries) in Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations. The revised flow estimates were less than previously calculated, but the recommendations did not change. As a result, the project list in the 2002 Sewer Master Plan is still applicable. Further development in the East of 101 Area may require that the City undertake extensive improvements to the existing sewer treatment facilities above and beyond those sewer system impro~=ements already budgeted in the CIP. Although required by increased development in the East of 101 Area, most of the sewer treatment improvements will result in citevide benefits. For this reason, the City has determined that it is appropriate that most of these improvements be financed through the issuance of sewer revenue bonds. The revenues required to pay off the bonds would be collected through increased rates charged to current and future users of the sewer system. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 413-3 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysis Water Quality Control Plant The South San Francisco and San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), located in South San Francisco, will serve the proposed project. The WQCP operates under NPDES No. CA0038130 and Waste Discharge Requirements R2 2003-010. The current facility has an average dry weather flow capacity to provide secondary level treatment for 13.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater from the cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, portions of the city of Daly City, and the Town of Colma. The WQCP can handle a peak hourly wet weather flow of 62 mgd. In 2001, the average annual and peak wet weather flows at the treatment plant were 10.4 and 24.4 mgd, respectively. The cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno are each entitled up to 50 percent of the available treatment capacity. Treated wastewater is pumped through a 54-inch force main located along the Lower Campus, then discharged 2 miles out into San Francisco Bay via a joint outfall pipe operated by the North Bayside System Unit (NBSU), which is the joint powers authority responsible for operation of certain shared transport, treatment, and disposal facilities. The NBSU includes the Cities of Millbrae, Burlingame, South San Francisco and San Bruno, and the San Francisco International Airport (SIFA) (both the Airport's Industrial Wastewater Treatment Plant and Water Quality Control Plant). The treatment facility consists of bar screens, grit chambers, primary sedimentation, aeration tanks, final clarifiers and disinfection equipment. NBSU dechlorinates the combined effluent prior to discharging via the joint NBSU outfall off Point San Bruno. The WQCP had five discharge violations during 2003, as reported in RWQCB Order No. R2 2004-0075. There have been no violations since 2003. Effluent concentrations of oils and grease, cyanide, and biological oxygen demand (BOD) were exceeded. These results are summarized in Table 4.13-2. No additional violations have been reported during the 2004 and 2005 annual reports. D47E .• - • ~~ Pollutant • • ~uerkLiNt RgporUedl~e 41112003 Oil and Grease daily maximum, mglL 20 35 71112003 Cyanide daily maximum, Ng/L 10 19 10/412003 BOD weekly average, mglL 45 52 1011112003 BOD weekly average, mg/L 45 54 10131/2003 BOD monthly average, mg/L 30 37 SOURCE: KW(2Ct3 NU nz-zww-UU~o Solids from wastewater treatment process are referred to as sludge. Sludge consists of inert solids from the wastewater and microbial biomass created during treatment. Sludge is thickened, anaerobicallti~ digested, and then dewatered. Final disposal of sludge is by trucking to a landfill for disposal. The City currently does not limit the amount of flow or the peak pollutant concentrations that industries can discharge. However, the East of 101 Area Plan requires projects in the East of 101 Area that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower their treatment needs through recycling, on-site q,~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems treatment, gray~vater irrigation, and other programs where feasible. Manufacturing, processing, and research activities in the MEIR Study Area generate wastewater contaminated with pollutants that the WQCP was not designed to treat. Thus, for such wastewater flows, Genentech operates its own on-site waste treatment and neutralizations systems (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). Additionally, Genentech operates its own water purification systems to produce high quality water for use in its manufacturing processes. On- site utilities are primarily located within buildings and underground. Surtace Water and Storm Drainage The MEIR Study Area is located along the eastern shoreline of the City overlying artificial fill and Bay mud. The East of 101 Area generally= slopes downward to the east, toward San Francisco Bay. The MEIR Study Area, itself, comprises a hilly region to the south, formed by southeast-trending Coyote Point Fault Zone, and low-lying areas to the northeast. Average annual precipitation is between 18 and 22 inches per year, increasing to 26 inches in the upper watersheds west of the City. Approximately 90 percent of the precipitation is received between November and April (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). Runoff in the hills is relatively= rapid because of the steep slopes and clay soils, and is slower in the flat lowland areas. Some infiltration into the ground occurs, but because the City is largely developed with a high proportion of impermeable surface, runoff is relatively high. Runoff throughout the City is collected in the Cit<~'s storm drainage system, which discharges to Colma Creek or San Francisco Bay (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). Colma Creek is the City's main natural drainage system. The Colma Creek watershed is bounded on the northeast by San Bruno Mountain and on the west by the ridge traced by Skyline Boulevard (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). It discharges to San Francisco Bay south of the MEIR Study Area near Belle Air Island. However, Colma Creek does not intersect the MEIR Study Area, nor does the MEIR Study Area drain to Colma Creek. No other creeks or natural surface drainages are in the MEIR Study Area. Instead, surface water and stormwater runoff in the MEIR Study Area are collected by the Cit<~'s storm drainage system and discharged to San Francisco Bay to the east of the MEIR Study Area. The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development (Brady 1994). The Genentech storm drainage system consists of underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various locations (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). The pipes are reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) or high-density polyethylene (HDPE). The outfalls to the San Francisco Bay are both above and below the mean high tide elevation of 3.1 feet. Outfalls below the mean high tide water elevation are likely to experience flooding when a heavy storm event happens during high tide water elevations. The storm drainage system in the MEIR Study Area is gravity flow and does not require pumps to transport the flows. The majority of the MEIR Study Area consists of developed land, with less than 10 percent pervious surfaces. stormwater point and non-point source discharges are a major source of pollution in San Francisco Bay from the CitS~, as the City's storm drainage system discharges directly into the Bay. stormwater quality in the MEIR Study Area, and in the East of 101 Area as a whole, is generally influenced by typical urban pollutants, such as construction sediments, vehicular fuel and oil, household cleaning surfactants, and landscape pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides. However, Bay water in the vicinity= of the CitS~ is Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-5 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis considered to be generally good because this area of the Bay tends to be well mixed (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). Industrial and commercial development could degrade water qualin~ through industrial pollutant discharges. Indirect degradation of surface water quality could affect fish and wildlife species in local eater bodies. To combat this problem, the San Mateo Countywide stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), a consortium of all 20 cities located within San Mateo County, has prepared a Best Management Practices (BMPs) plan to control pollutants in their stormwater system. Compliance with the permit requirements for non-point source stormwater discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) also requires the property owner of all construction projects over 1 acre in size to obtain a stormwater discharge permit. The WQCP operates under STOPPP's Joint Municipal NPDES Permit. Section 4.13.2 (Regulatory Framework), below, further describes the STOPPP and NPDES programs. According to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region (Basin Plan), beneficial uses of South San Francisco Bay, to which the MEIR Study Area discharges, include wildlife habitat, navigation, water contact and non-contact recreation, commercial and sport fishing, and industrial service supply. However, the Bay is listed on the 2002 CWA 303(d) list as an impaired water bode. The various pollutants and stressors listed as inflicting the Lower and Central San Francisco Bay are chlordane, dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), diazinon, dieldrin, dioxin compounds, exotic species, furan compounds, mercury, mercury (sediment), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (I'AHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), PCBs (dioxin-like), and selenium. Causes contributing to impairment include urban runoff, other non-point sources, ballast water (exotic species), municipal point sources, industrial point sources, resource extraction (mercury) and agriculture. As described under "Groundwater," below, a shallow groundwater table occurs within the majority of the East of 101 Area, including the MEIR Study Area. Groundwater in this area is hydraulically connected to San Francisco Bay, and thus, groundwater quality is closely tied with Bay water quality. The high groundwater table increases the risk that on-site surface contamination will leach into groundwater and spread to other properties or to the Bay. The "groundwater" subsection of this section 4.13 as well as Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials further describes factors affecting groundwater in the MEIR Study Area and its vicinity. Groundwater and Water Quality The Westside Groundwater Basin (Basin) underlies the majority of the City, including the MEIR Study Area (DWR 2004). The Basin is bounded on the north and west by a northwest trending bedrock ridge through the northeastern part of Golden Gate Park in the City of San Francisco. The San Bruno Mountains bound the Basin on the east. The San Andreas fault and Pacific Ocean form its western boundary and its southern limit is defined by bedrock that separates it from the San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin. The Basin opens to the Pacific Ocean on the northwest and San Francisco Bay on the southeast. The general direction of groundwater flow is easterly towards San Francisco Bay. 4,~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems The Basin is comprised of two geologic groups; bedrock and unconsolidated materials. Unconsolidated materials overlying the bedrock comprise the water bearing formations; the Colma Formation and the Merced Formation. The Colma Formation generally overlies the Merced Foundation and consists of multi-layered sand. The Merced Formation consists of sand and thin interbedded silt and clay lay=ers. Unconfined conditions exist at depths less than 100 feet, whereas confined conditions are encountered at depths greater than 100 feet. A United States Geological Survey (USGS) study= covering the period from 1987 to 1992 showed declining groundwater levels. The decline is likely the result of a concurrent drought during this period. The return of normal precipitation resulting in increased recharge has likely renewed groundwater levels. The geology of the East of 101 Area differs from the above. Low-lying portions of the East of 101 Area are primarily underlain by artificial fill over Bay mud (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). Section 4.5 Geology and Soils further describes the geology of the region and MEIR Study Area. Sources of groundwater recharge throughout the Basin include infiltration of rainfall, infiltration of irrigation water, and leakage from water and sewer pipes (DWR 2004). Within the City, recharge is generally= concentrated in the immediate near-stream areas where open space is present (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). Recharge resulting from pipe leakage likely occurs in the East of 101 Area. Also, because the East of 101 Area is in close proximity to San Francisco Bay and is largely underlain by artificial fill and Bay- mud, the groundwater table at the East of 101 Area is shallow and tidally influenced. Tidal fluctuations in the Bay dictate the direction of groundwater flow and the rate of recharge. A small portion of the Cit<~'s potable water supply from CWSC is derived from eight groundwater wells in the vicinity= of Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road, located near the center of the city (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). The wells extract water from aquifers of the Colma and Merced Foundations, which lie at a depth of 200 to 300 feet and are capable of providing about 1,530 acre-feet per year (1.36 mgd) of water. The aquifers have some high levels of nitrate and manganese, but otherwise are considered to be of good water quality. High nitrate levels also occur throughout the Basin. While most dissolved constituents in the Basin meet United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, nitrate-nitrogen concentrations commonly exceed the primary maximum contaminant level of 10 milligrams per liter (DWR 2004). Little groundwater quality= information is available for the East of 101 Area. Groundwater contamination may be present in shallow groundwater in areas with existing or former industrial uses and areas of unconfined waste disposal (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). Also noteworthy is the location of the MEIR Study Area between the closed Oyster Point Landfill to the north and the Blue Line Materials Recovery Facility- and Transfer Station (MRF/TS) to the south. While groundwater beneath the MEIR Study Area is not considered to have a beneficial use as a potable supply, because the groundwater is in hydraulic communication with San Francisco Bay, it has a beneficial use as providing maintenance of marine habitat. Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials further describes groundwater contamination at the MEIR Study Area and its vicinity (particularly Impact 4.6-4). Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-7 Chanter 4 Environmental Analysts Solid Waste Solid waste is collected from the City's homes and businesses, including Genentech, by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). In addition, the Scavenger Company serves the Ciri~ of Brisbane and the San Francisco international Airport. After collection, waste is brought to the Scavenger Company's Blue Line MRF/TS, a public disposal and recycling center located just south of the MEIR Study Area at 500 East Jamie Court. The MRF/TS has a permitted capacity of 1,200 tons per day, but currently receives an average of 600 to 700 tons per day, approximately 10 tons (1 to 2 percent) of which are from the Genentech Campus.'`' Although the MRF/TS is operating below capacity, the Scavenger Company and City are planning to increase its permitted capacity to 2,148 tons per day to accommodate future increases in recycling activity including that generated by the proposed project, particularly of construction and demolition wastes (Formosa 2005). From the MRF/TS, non-recyclable wastes are then deposited at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill near the City of Half Moon Bay. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill is the only remaining landfill in the County that will accept Scavenger Company waste. Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI), co-owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires in 2016, either Corinda Los Trancos Canyon will be expanded further or neighboring Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill (Dyett & Bhatia 1997). In 2000, the City landfilled approximately 105,875 tons (CIWMB 2006b). Genentech's existing baseline generation is 2,775 tons of non-hazardous waste per year, of which 2,142 tons (77 percent) are landfilled and 633 tons (23 percent) are recycled (Genentech 2004). Genentech does not incinerate any solid waste (Genentech 2004). Genentech's contribution to the amount of solid waste landfilled by the City is approximately 3 percent. A description of hazardous waste generation, collection, and disposal services in the MEIR Study Area is provided in Section 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Electricity and Natural Gas Energy use accounts for more than three-quarters of Genentech's total greenhouse gas emissions. The energy related greenhouse gases come from three sources: electricity purchased from power suppliers, natural gas burned on campus for heating, and diesel fuel in on-site emergency generators. Electricity Pacific Gas and Electric (I'G&E) provides natural gas to the Genentech Campus at South San Francisco. The underground 12.47 kV distribution system that serves the area is configured in a lopped network ~" According to the Genentech Corj~orate Environincntnl Perfonunnce Ke~ort (Genentech 2004), Genentech's South San Francisco facility generated a total of 2,775 metric tons per }ear of non-hazardous waste in 2004. The daily generation rate was calculated b~~ dividing the annual tonnage b~~ 52 weeks per year, then by dividing the weekly tonnage by five operation days per week. 4 ~g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 lJtllltfes and service systems from the East Grand Avenue substation. This enables PG&E some flexibility to continue to provide service to buildings through switching, should problems be encountered with cabling. Each building or a cluster of buildings is metered at either the primary or secondary rates. Most buildings are metered at the secondar}' 480 or 208 volt rates. PG&E has confirmed the ability to provide sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed 83 percent increase in electrical loads that are planned by Genentech, based on the 2006 FMPU through the year 2015 (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). Natural Gas Pacific Gas and Electric (I'G&E) provides natural gas to the Genentech Campus. The high pressure gas distribution system is metered at each building and is configured in a loop system that is served from three interconnected underground pipelines; 3-inch Pipeline at Grandview; 4-inch pipeline at Forbes Avenue; 8-inch pipeline at East Grand Avenue. PG&E has confirmed that it has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed 50 percent increase in natural gas loads that are planned by Genentech, based on the 2006 FMPU through the year 2015. Figure 4.13-1 shows the natural gas distribution site plan. The East Grand Avenue line is the recent pipeline modification installed to serve the leased buildings under construction on the South Campus. This new enhanced service connects to the existing loop through the Point San Bruno Boulevard line that tie into the Grandview Drive line. A recent proposed change to the gas service on this site is the installation of a new 6-inch high pressure gas line (15 PSI) from the north side of the propert~~, called the Gull Drive service that will serve the high pressure stream boilers in the proposed Building 9A boiler plant that is scheduled for completion in mid 2006. Existing steam boilers that serve the Lower campus will be decommissioned in 2006. this new service will unload the existing Grandy=iew Drive/Forbes Boulevard loop and free-up capacity to serve future proposed buildings. Other Greenhouse Gas Emissions About 60 percent of Genentech's energy-related greenhouse gases are associated with manufacturing operations. Genentech's manufacturing processes have certain specific requirements that drive energy consumption. For instance, fermentation and cell culture process water must be heated to an ideal temperature to ensure that the manufacturing cells thrive and produce the desired medicinal proteins. Also, in order to ensure the sterility of manufacturing areas, the air pressure in manufacturing areas must be kept greater than ambient air pressure. Both of these special needs drive up the energy consumption. The remaining 40 percent of Genentech's energy-related greenhouse gases are associated with non- manufacturing uses such as labs and offices. In labs, one of the main drivers of energy consumption is ventilation, which must run at a high rate in order to ensure the safet~~ of laboratory employees. In offices, lighting and climate control are the main drivers of energy use. Over the next several years, Genentech will be significantly increasing production and constructing new offices and labs, all of which will increase the company's energy use. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-9 Chapter 4 Envlronmental Anatysls Most of the remainder of the Genentech's greenhouse gas emissions is related to transportation- business travel, employee commuting, and on-site vehicle fleets. A small proportion of Genentech's greenhouse gas emissions result from the use of HFC (hydrofluorocarbon) gases in refrigerant and air conditioning systems. A summary of Genentech's greenhouse gas emissions are included in Figure 4.13-2. Co-generation facility Genentech, based on projected growth estimates, is investigating the feasibility of a co-generation (Co- Gen) facility on the Mid Campus. The Co-Gen plant would be a combination of primary power and secondary utility generation to support the Mid Campus expansion and conversion of existing building utilities to the new system. Co-Gen would generate power independent of PG&E during power outages. Green Building Design Genentech included environmental sustainability as an important feature in the design of a new 125,000 sf office building that includes several environmentally friendly features, such as energy-efficient glass, the use of wall partitions, carpet and paving materials with recycled content, and abundant natural light. This building has since won an Energy award from the Environmental Protection Agency for superior energy performance. This was the first in a three building complex that will include the above mentioned environmental features. 4.13.2 Regulatory Framework Federal Clean Water Act The CWA is the principal statute governing water quality. The statute's goal is to end all discharges entirely and to restore, maintain, and preserve the integrity of the nation's waters, with an interim goal of providing water that is both fishable and swimmable. The CWA regulates both the direct and indirect discharge of pollutants into the nation's waters. It mandates permits for wastewater and stormwater discharges, regulates publicly owned treatment works that treat municipal and industrial wastewater, requires states to establish site-specific water quality standards for navigable bodies of water, and regulates other activities that affect water quality, such as dredging and the filling of wetlands. The CWA was enacted in 1977 as a series of amendments to the federal lYlater•Pollution ControlActof 1948. Section 303(d). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to identify waters that will not achieve water qualit}' standards after application of effluent limits. For each water and pollutant, the state is required to propose a priority for development of load-based (as opposed to concentration-based) limits called total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). The TMDL determines how much of a given pollutant can be discharged from a particular source without causing water quality standards to be violated. Priorities for development of TMDLs are set by the state, based on the severity of the pollution and uses of the waters. 4.13-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I' ' / ~ s~c:r n ~l~ '~~ ,~ ,~ .. ,/ ~i ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~`~: ~~ I ~ I %~° ~ ~ I' ' i ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ o ~ y'. ~, ~~~ Q \/ / ~~1~~// 1~~j\. ~~"' ~ ~' ~ ~ I a iJ~ ~i ~~ ,t ~~ ~,. r~~ Z a l7 C° J Q l7 Q Z 8 m I--~ ~~ .. w w 0 w .. .......... ' - -- '~~~J ~~~~ J' ~1 ' ~. j 1 a z ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ 1 ~ < ~I ` ~ o 0 0 a ~ a `o ~, z o v rn 2 ~ c / i W .X ~ J' ~ w 1 ~ / `i ~I M fC ~' ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ a+ C~ t4 LL Z 0 a ~, m ai U (O LL Q1 (O O d O U L U c U ai i 3 O N 0 0 4.13 lltfllt/es and service systems National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit sy=stem was established in the CWA to regulate both point source discharges and non-point source discharges from construction, industrial, and municipal activities to surface waters of the US. For point source discharges, each NPDES permit contains limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. For non-point source discharges, the NPDES program establishes a comprehensive stormwater quality program to manage urban stormwater and minimize pollution of the environment to the maximum extent practicable. As permitted under the CW'A, authoritt~ for issuing NPDES permits has been delegated by the EPA to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in the San Francisco Bay Area. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has adopted a separate NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity (NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). Under this permit, developers proposing construction activin~ that disturbs more than 1 acre of land must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop a stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), conduct monitoring and inspections, retain records of the monitoring, report incidences of noncompliance, and submit annual compliance reports. The SWPPP must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project, including post-construction impacts and sampling/monitoring requirements. Individual projects proposed under the 2006 FMPU that would disturb more than 1 acre of land would be required to obtain and comply with a NPDES General Permit for construction activitt~. stormwater NPDES permitting for certain classes of industrial activities, including manufacturing activity, are regulated under the Industrial Activities General Permit adopted by the SWRCB (NPDES Permit No CAS000001). To comply with the conditions of this permit, facility operators are required to submit a NOI, develop a SWPPP, and conduct stormwater monitoring, in addition to submitting annual reports by July 1 of each year. Municipal stormwater in the City is regulated by STOPPP's Joint Municipal NPDES Permit (No. CAS0029921, Order No. R2-2004-0060, originally issued in 1999) for stormwater quality management. STOPPP and its NPDES Permit are described further in "San Mateo Count vide stormwater Pollution Prevention Program," below. State Urban Water Management Planning Act The Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides urban water management planning sere=ices to local and regional urban water suppliers. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban 1~'ater ~Llanageynent Planning Act (Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656). The Act states that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The Act describes the contents of the Urban Water Management Plans (U~~'MPs) as well as how Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls urban water suppliers should adopt and implement the plans. It is the intention of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to permit levels of water management planning commensurate with the numbers of customers served and the volume of water supplied. The Draft 2005 UWMP prepared by the CWSC-South San Francisco District recognizes that a 28.8 percent cut back in normal year water demand will be required during a multiple year drought. The drought scenario is based on historic rainfall records. CWSC recognizes the importance of conservation and is developing demand management strategies, standards, and criteria by working with the California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The CWSC has development the following conservation programs and budgets to implement the CUWCC's BMPs: ^ BMP 01 Residential Audits-X16,076.38 ^ BMP 02 Plumbing Retrofit-X3,743.50 ^ BMP 06 High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate-X18,373.00 ^ BMP 07 Public Education-X6,964.56 ^ BMP 08 School Education-X8,227.80 ^ BMP 14 ULFT Rebates-X22,047.60 ^ Large Landscape Program (ET Controller)-X16,659.00. Water Supply Assessments (SB 610) Effective January 1, 2002, California, through Senate Bill 610 (SB 610), requires that a city or county, and the associated public water system, prepare a Water Supply Assessment (~'SA) for projects that meet certain criteria. Three criteria include (1) a project creating the equivalent demand of 500 residential units, (2) a proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 sf of floor space, and (3) a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 sf of floor space. The 2006 FMPU meets the criteria for requiring a WSA because the 2006 FMPU is projected to employ over 1,000 persons and would include development of approximately 3 million additional square feet of office, research and development, manufacturing, amenities, and parking structures. The purpose of the WSA is to assess the adequacy of water for the Proposed Project over a 20-year horizon during normal, single dry, and multiple dry year conditions. The WSA completed for the 2006 FMPU is attached as Appendix F of this MEIR. Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) The Porter-Cologne 1~'ater Quality Control Act is the primary state regulation that addresses water quality. The requirements of the Act are implemented by the SWRCB at the state level, and the RWQCB at the regional level. The SWRCB, as authorized by the Act, has promulgated regulations in Subchapter 15 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) designed to protect water quality from the effects of waste discharges to land. Under Subchapter 15, wastes that cannot be discharged directly or indirectly to waters of the state (and therefore must be discharged to land for treatment, storage, or disposal) are classified to determine specifically where such wastes may be discharged. 4.13-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 lJtllltles and service systems Pretreatment Program and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program The Cit<~'s Office of Environmental Compliance administers a Pretreatment Program and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program mandated by the state. The two programs regulate and control the concentrations of wastewater and stormwater pollutants discharged by industrial, commercial, and residential dischargers. Pollution prevention information is distributed to residents as well as schools and businesses within the service area. These programs are enacted under Chapter 14.08 (Water Quality Control) of the SSFMC, which is described in "City of South San Francisco Municipal Code," below. California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 939, the California Integrated lYla.rte Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties in California are required to divert 25 percent of all solid waste to recycling facilities from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000. The City of South San Francisco has not yet met this goal. Between 2001 and 2004, the Cite has achieved a diversion of rate ranging between 40 and 48 percent. The City has submitted an application for a time extension with the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) until December 2005 to meet the 50 percent goal, but the CIWMB's review of the City's application has been delayed. Solid waste plans are prepared by each jurisdiction to explain how each city's AB 939 plan is integrated with its county plan. The plans must promote in order of priority: source reduction, recycling and composting, and finally, environmentally safe transformation, and land disposal. Waste disposal efforts in the County of San Mateo are governed by the Count vide Integrated Waste Management Plan. The County's Health Department, Environmental Health Division, acts as the solid waste disposal enforcement agency, coordinating efforts and granting waste disposal permits. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24 New buildings in California are required to conform to energy conservation standards specified in Title 24 of the CCR. The standards establish "energy budgets" for different types of residential and non- residential buildings, with which all new buildings must comply. The energy budget has aspace- conditioning component and awater-heating component, both expressed in terms of energy (British thermal units, BTU) consumed per year. The regulations allow for trade-offs within and between the components to meet the overall budget. Energy consumption of new buildings in California is regulated by the State Building Energy Efficiency Standards, embodied in Title 24 of the CCR. The efficiency standards apply to new construction of both residential and nonresidential buildings, and regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local building or individual agency permit and approval processes. The Cit<~ requires all new buildings to meet Title 24 standards. J Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-17 rtin.,ror d Fnvfmnmental AnalVSls Regional Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by the RWQCB, the Water Qualin~ Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay Region identifies surface waters in the region as consisting of inland surface water (freshwater lakes, rivers, and streams), estuaries, enclosed bays, and ocean waters. Historic and ongoing wasteload contributions to surface water bodies in the region come from upstream discharges carried into the region via Delta outflow, direct input in the forms of point and nonpoint sources, and indirect input via groundwater seepage (SFB RWQCB 1995). The Basin Plan describes the water quality control measures that contribute to the protection of the beneficial uses of the Bay watershed. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses for each segment of the Bay and its tributaries, water quality objectives for the reasonable protection of the uses, and an implementation plan for achieving these objectives. McAteer-Petris Act (Public Resources Code Section 66600 et seq.) The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay and encourages the Bay's responsible use. The members of BCDC are local, elected government officials, public appointees of the governor and the legislature and representatives of state and federal agencies. BCDC has been successful in stopping the shrinkage of the Bay and dramatically increased public access to the Bay's shoreline and waters. Pursuant to its authority under the McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC regulates development in the Bay and within the first 100-feet inland of the shoreline, evaluating proposals for consistency with the provision of the Act, and BCDC's San Francisco Bay Plan. BCDC also participates in regional partnerships, including the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to advance its mission of improving public access to the San Francisco Bay and its shoreline. Local San Mateo Countywide stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) The STOPPP is a consortium of all 20 cities located within San Mateo County. Many of STOPPP's activities are coordinated through the City/Count} Association of Governments of San Mateo County. The STOPPP functions under a Joint Municipal NPDES Permit (No. CAS0029921) for stormwater quality management, as authorized by the RWQCB. This partnership also relies on each of the municipalities to implement local stormwater pollution prevention and control activities for their local storm drain systems. The STOPPP includes the following: ^ Provisions for a model ordinance ^ Identification of BMPs, including street sweeping, storm drain stenciling, spill clean-up, and annual catch basin maintenance ^ Measures for extensive public education and public awareness ^ Pollutant source identification and water quality measurement, and elimination of illicit discharges ^ Structural and nonstructural controls for commercial and residential areas, and controls for industrial facilities 4.13-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utllltles and Service Systems ^ Controls for new development and construction sites and other elements The STOPPP Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) describes measures for the prevention and control of stormwater pollution. The SMWP senTes as part of the basis of STOPPP's third NPDES permit to be reissued by the RWQCB (NPDES Permit No. CAS0029921), which expires in 2009. The SWMP, in conjunction with the reissued permit adopted by the RWQCB, is designed to enable STOPPP to meet requirements of the CWA. Because individual projects proposed under the 2006 FMPU would apple for coverage under the STOPPP NPDES Municipal Permit, the SWPPP prepared for each individual project must to be consistent with the SWMP. Because much of Colma Creek flows through private propert~~, the City has also adopted BMPs aimed at private land owners to control litter, gain compliance from industrial dischargers, reduce pollutants at commercial sites, minimize construction sediment, and clean and maintain privately-owned watercourses. San Mateo County Hazardous Waste Generator Program The County Health Department, Environmental Health Division, has maintained a Hazardous Waste Generator Program since 1984 aimed at protecting public health and the environment. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) authorized the Division at that time to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators in the County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and Safen~ Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5. The above referenced regulations require businesses generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. Division staff members conduct annual inspections at over 1,900 businesses in order to assess compliance with state law and regulations. Division staff members also conduct surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the County District Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above referenced law and regulations. Furthermore, staff members respond within 24 hours to complaints filed with the Division regarding potential violation of the aforementioned law and regulations. City of South San Francisco General Plan The City's General Plan, which contains implementing policies regarding public services and utilities, is discussed below. Water and Wastewater General Plan Policies 5.3-I-1 and 5.3-I-2 of the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element call for the Cite to work with CWSC and Westborough Water District to do the following: ^ Ensure coordinated capital improvements ^ Establish guidelines and standards for water conservation Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-19 cnaerer 4 Environmental Anah~sis ^ Activeh~ promote the use of water-conserving devices and practices in both new construction and major alterations and additions to existing buildings, including conservation as it relates to any industrial or commercial construction Industrial-related conset-~ration measures regarding monitoring of industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, state, and regional standards and to encourage new projects in the East of 101 Area (such as the MEIR Study Area and vicinity) that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pretreatment, or other means as necessary are intended to help limit the demand for wastewater treatment plant capacity. Policy 5.3-I-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, state, and regional standards; treatment costs would remain affordable. Policy 5.3-I-7 Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pretreatment, or other means as necessary. Solid Waste General Plan Policy 8.3-I-1 of the Health and Safety Element calls for the City to continue working toward reducing solid waste, increasing recycling, and complying with the San Mateo County Integrated L~aste Management Plan. The City has a responsibility to meet regional source reduction and recycling initiatives in order to achieve state-mandated waste reduction targets and to extend the useful life of existing landfill facilities. Under this policy, builders are encouraged to incorporate interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables into new or remodeled buildings (both residential and commercial) to make recycling activities more convenient for those who use the buildings. Also, the City is encouraged to explore the feasibility of installing recycling receptacles in parks and public areas, such as the public open space areas in the MEIR Study Area. Commercial and business parks are encouraged to install recycling receptacles on their premises. The City is encouraged to explore incentives for businesses to establish recycling programs. East of 101 Area Plan Public Facilities Element The East of 101 Area Plan's overall intent regarding water, sewer, drainage, and utility facilities for the East of 101 Area is to provide adequate municipal services to serve all development, and to limit development if it would exceed available service capacity. Policy PF-1 The Cit<~ shall allow development in the East of 101 Area only if adequate water supply to meet its needs can be provided in a timely manner. Policy PF-2 Low flow plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping shall be installed as part of all new developments in the area. Policy PF-7 Projects in the East of 101 Area that would generate large quantities of wastewater shall be required to lower their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, gray water irrigation and similar programs where feasible. 4.13-20 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utllltles and Servir~ Sv!ctpmc Policy PF-8 Specific development proposals in the East of M1 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage and flood protection requirements. y Policy PF-9 All development in the East of 101 Area shall compl}~ with the NPDES discharge program. Developments over 5 acres in size shall obtain a storm water discharge permit from the NPDES, which may require inclusion of on-site treatment of stormwater from parking areas. Policy PF-10 During the rainy season, developers shall be required to place appropriate erosion control devices, such as silt fences, hay bales, etc. during construction activities to minimize the amount of silt directly entering the Bay or other wetlands. Policy PF-11 Utilitt~ companies shall be provided early notification for any proposed project that could have an unusual requirement for water, sewer, gas, electric, or telephone services. Design Element The overall design policy of the City is to promote quality design; promote a functional, safe, and attractive environment; preserve the character of the City's heritage; protect public investment and land values; protect the natural environment; and facilitate evaluation of individual development proposals through the use of Design Guidelines. Policy DE-13 New construction projects shall be required to supply and install street trees and landscaping and landscaping to meet the CitS~'s specifications for the frontages. > Streetscape planting, irrigation, and hardscape should be designed for minimum maintenance by City staff. > Medians should be cobbled and grouted or landscaped with low maintenance plants with automatic irrigation. Policy DE-18 Paths with durable, all-weather surfaces should be located in medians and other landscaped areas within parking lots to provide convenient pedestrian routes, and reduce wear on landscaped areas. Policy DE-30 UtilitS~ lines serving new development shall be installed underground, unless the Cit<- finds that undergrounding would be financially infeasible for a specific project. Fnancing Element Policies in the Financing Element of the East of 101 Area Plan are intended to form an overall approach to future discussions about who will pay for improvements and ho~v sources of revenues will be used. In addition, these policies provide some element of certainty to developers and property owners in terms of what types of facilities and/or fees the~~ will be expected to provide in conjunction with plans for future development with the East of 101 Area. Policy FIN-1 Costs of new infrastructure and public amenities shall be borne by both existing and future development. Policy FIN-4 Ongoing operating and maintenance costs for new East of 101 Area improvements shall be financed through ongoing revenues collected as fees, assessments, and taxes generated by future development in the Area. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-21 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.16 (Solid Waste-Scavenger Services) Chapter 8.16 of the SSFMC contains health and sanitation rules and regulations applicable to all lands and premises within the Cite. The purpose of Chapter 8.16 is to prevent the accumulation of quantities of solid waste within the boundaries of the City, except for approved dump sites, in order to protect and preserve the public health and welfare of City and neighboring communities. The Scavenger Company is identified in this chapter as the entity with whom the City has contracted to collect, receive, carry and/or transport solid waste in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Chapter 8.28 (Recyclable Materials) The purpose of Chapter 8.28 is to increase participation rates, improve recyclable material recovery rates, reduce landfill dependency, and ultimately maintain acost-effective overall solid waste and recycling program for the citizens, businesses, and institutions of the CitS~. While the current SSFMC does not appoint an authorized recycling agent, the Scavenger Company is responsible for providing recycling services in the City. Also, the SSFMC does not establish recycling goals for the City. Chapter 14.04 (stormwater Management and Discharge Controls) Chapter 14.04 was created to ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the City and to protect and enhance water quality pursuant to the CWA. The controls include measures to eliminate non-stormwater discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer; control discharges to the municipal storm sewer from spills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than stormwater; protect watercourses from modifications to natural flow; and reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Chapter 14.08 (Water Quality) Chapter 14.08 sets forth requirements for direct and indirect contributors into the City-'s wastewater collection and treatment system and enables the City to comply with all applicable state and federal laws required by the CWA and the General Pretreatment Regulations. The objectives of Chapter 14.08 are the following: ^ To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the municipal wastewater system which will upset or interfere with the operation of the system or contaminate the resulting sludge ^ To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the municipal wastewater system which will pass through the system, inadequately treated, into receiving waters or the atmosphere or otherwise be incompatible with the system ^ To improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim wastewaters and sludges from the system ^ To provide for equitable distribution of the cost of the municipal wastewater system ^ To prevent the exposure of workers at the publicly owned treatment works and the collection system to chemical hazards This chapter provides for the regulation of direct and indirect contributors to the municipal waste- water system through the issuance of permits to certain non-domestic users. Further, through enforcement of 4,13-22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 lltllities and Service Systems general requirements for all users, the chapter authorizes monitoring and enforcement activities, requires user reporting, assumes that existing customer's capacit<~ will not be preempted, and provides for the setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs. Under this chapter, the superintendent of the WQCP is responsible for administering, implementing, and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 14.08. Chapter 14.12 (Sewer Rates) Under this chapter, the City establishes a system of sewer rentals and charges for all domestic, commercial, and industrial uses of the municipal sewer system. This chapter also contains the charges for sewer service and facilities as provided by the Cit<~. Chapter 13.16 (Underground Utility Installations) Under this chapter, the City Council may call public hearings to determine whether existing overhead utilities should be relocated underground. It is the responsibility of the person owning, operating, leasing or renting the propert<~ with the utility in question to follow the provisions set forth as a result of the public hearing. Chapter 15.08 (California Building Code) Under Chapter 15.08, the City adopts and modifies the 2001 California Building Code for application to developments within the City. This chapter contains construction standards for weather protection, foundations, drainage, and grading. Grading activities require a permit from the City Engineer. To obtain the grading permit, a soils engineering report and engineering geology report must be approved b~~ the City Engineer. Recommendations in these reports must be incorporated in the grading plans or specifications. Under Section 15.08.170, construction work is restricted during the rainy season (November 1 to May 1) so as to minimize erosion. Genentech Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Protection Policy Under its companywide EHS Protection Policy, Genentech states that it is committed to "employ prudent business practices to continuously improve our responsible and efficient use of natural resources, reduce our reliance on hazardous materials, and minimize the creation of waste" (Genentech 2004). Genentech also "encourages our suppliers, contractors, and partners to comply with all EHS regulations and minimize the use of toxic chemicals and the generation of hazardous wastes." Genentech has established the following goals to support its EHS Protection Policy: ^ Water Goal: improve water efficiency'` by 10 percent by the year 2010, compared to 2004. ^ Greenhouse Gas Goal: Improve energy efficiency" by 10 percent by the year 2010, compared to 2004. '~ Water efficiency is measured as total water use divided by kilograms of marketed product produced (Genentech 2004). ~- Energy efficiency is measured as the total weight of ener~,~~-related greenhouse gases (measured in tons of carbon dioxide equivalents) divided by kilograms of marketed product produced. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-23 rh9ntor d Fnvlmnmental Ana1V5IS 4.13.3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Analytic Method The assessment of whether the project would result in a significant adverse impact related to public services or utilities was determined by first evaluating whether for a given public service, additional resources would be required to serve the project at acceptable service standards, or if serving the project under current resources would reduce services to the existing public below accepted or current standards, and second, by evaluating whether construction of new facilities would result in potentially adverse effects. Thresholds of Significance The following thresholds of significance are based on Appendix G of the 2006 CEQA Guidelines. For purposes of this MMEIR, implementation of the proposed project could result in potentially significant impacts to utilities if the proposed project would result in any of the following: ^ Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge so that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted). ^ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. ^ Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site. ^ Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. ^ Require or result in the construction of new water treatment, distribution, or conveyance facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. ^ Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. ^ Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed. ^ Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacit}' to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. ^ Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. ^ Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 4.13-24 Genentech Corporate Faclllties Master EIR 4.13 UtJlffles and Service Systems Impacts and Mitigation Measures Threshold Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge so that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted) Impact 4.13-1 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-1(a) through (c) would ensure that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant groundwater impact. CWSC supplements their purchased water supplies with groundwater from seven operational wells in the Westside Basin. The CWSC and SFPUC agreed to a short-term (3-year) in-lieu conjunctive use plan, whereby SFPUC would supplement water needed by CWSC customers that is normally supplied by groundwater sources. This in-lieu agreement ended in 2005 and CWSC is again pumping groundwater to supplement their supplies. CWSC draws approximately 1.36 mgd, or 1,530 acre-feet per year during a normal supply year.'' This makes up approximately 3.5 percent of CWSC available daily supplies for its three peninsula districts. The groundwater supply is also subject to dry year reductions. SSFD included this rate of groundwater pumping as a reliable supplementary source through the 2030 UWMP planning period. However, concerns regarding the allocation and reliability of groundwater on the San Francisco peninsula are growing. No formal agreements or judicial decisions currently regulate pumping rates and quantities. Citizen groups, who are mainly concerned with the decline of water levels in Lake Merced as it relates to groundwater pumping in the basin during the drought of 1988-1992 have voiced their opinions. Specifically, "California Trout filed a formal complaint with the SWRCB claiming that SSFD and other providers pumping groundwater for the Westside Basin in an unregulated manner resulted in impairment to Lake Merced."z~ Consequently, CWSC, the cities of San Bruno, Daly City and San Francisco are in the process of preparing a GMP to meet these two objectives: (1) maintain water quality and (2) ensure water supph~ reliability. The early scoping sessions of the GMP identified the fact that little knowledge is available about the geology and characteristics of the basin. As such, useable data and information necessary to make intelligent long-term planning decisions did not exist, and gathering this data became the focus of the GMP. The GMP establishes both long-term and short-term tasks that address the following five items: 1. Groundwater Storage and Quality Management 2. Saline Water Intrusion 3. Conjunctive Use ~3 Westside Basin UMP: Table 3.3-3 from 2005 Dratt SSFD UWi~1P, page 24 as referenced in Cite of South San Francisco, Water Supplt~ Assessment for the Proposed Genentech Facilities Master Plan, July 2006, page 14, Table 2-2. ,a 2005 Draft South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan, page 31. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-25 /~hnnter d Fnvlmnmpntal AnalvslS 4. Recycled Water Use 5. Source Water and Wellhead Protection In an effort to expedite the data gathering process the participants are conducting groundwater monitoring investigations while other components of the GMP are being worked out. Sources of recharge include infiltration of climatic conditions (rainfall), infiltration of landscape irrigation water, and leakage from local conveyance systems. Aquifer recharge is dependent upon climatic conditions, landscape irrigation, local hydrology and leaking conveyance systems. As of 2003, not enough data exist to provide either an estimate of the Westside Basin's groundwater budget or sustainable groundwater extraction (pumping) rates from the basin. This is based upon the facts that no estimate of stored groundwater or groundwater storage capacity could be estimated. Although, average groundwater recharge in the basin for water years 1987-1988 was estimated to be 4,850 acre-ft/year or an average annual pumping rate of 4.33 mgd (Phillips and others 1993); current data from the City of Daly City Groundwater Management Plan would suggest that these recharge estimates are exaggerated and new data from the multi-stakeholder Groundwater Management Plan should be used to correctly evaluate the basin's groundwater potential. CWSC does not plan to expand production of groundwater as a result of growth in the service area, but is actively participating in groundwater management planning to ensure a safe yield of the basin is not exceeded. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. While the proposed project's effect on groundwater supply is not a significant effect under CEQA, there are measures that the City could encourage Genentech to implement or impose as conditions of approval. Mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 (a) and (b) below would reduce the proposed project's contribution to the total groundwater demand. MM 4.13-1 (a) The project applicant shall include methods of ~a~ater conservation in the proposed project s buildings and landscaping. These methods shall include, but not be limited, to the follorvir~g: ^ Install avater-conserving dishwashers and avashing machines, and water-~cient centralised cooling ystems in all new buildings (this method would not apply to process development or research development laboratory eguipment~ ^ Install water-consennng irrigation systems (eg., drip irrigation and Evaportranspiration- based irrigation controllers) ^ Gray water irrigation ystem (as detailed in General Plan Policy PF-7, but other elements of that policy do not apply here, such as wastewater treatment facilities) ^ Design landscaping with drought-resistant and other lo1a~-avater-use plarzts ^ Install water-saving devices such as water-~cient toilets, faucets, and showerheads MM 4.13-1 (b) The project applicant shall install separate water meters for buildings and landscaping for parcels with greater than 10,000 sf irrigated area. 4.13-26 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utllltles and Service Systems Threshold Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site Impact 4.13-2 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or alter the course of a stream or river; however, construction activities associated with the proposed project could increase the potential for erosion or siltation on- or off-site; however, implementation of project requirements PR 4.13-1(a) and PR 4.13-1 (b) would ensure that this impact remains less than significant. Colma Creek is the City's main natural drainage system. However, Colma Creek does not intersect the MEIR Study Area, nor does the project area drain to Colma Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the course of Colma Creek or any other waterway. However, surface and stormwater runoff on the MEIR Study Area is collected by the CitS~'s storm drainage system and is discharged to San Francisco Bay east of the project area. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed t~ accommodate flows from industrial development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The ratio of impervious surface area would remain constant with existing conditions, thereby not increasing runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. However, construction of the proposed project would involve demolition of existing structures and pavement areas that currently help to stabilize site soils. Bare, unprotected site soils could be subjected to the erosional forces of runoff during construction, potentially leading to siltation impacts in the San Francisco Bay. When erosion and run-off is controlled with the NPDES general permit for construction activities construction activities the impact would be considered less than significant. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans are an integral part of construction planning, and PR 4.13-1 (a) and (b) are designed specifically to mitigate the impacts associated with construction run-off and reduce them to less than significant. PR 4.13-1(a~ Pu~:ruant to NPDES requirements, the project applicant ,chap develop a Six~'PP prior to construction to protect water quality durisag and after construction. The pr ject S~IFII'PP ,ball include, bcrt not be lirreited to, the following measures for the construction period• ^ Erosion control~soal stabilisation techniques such as straw rnulchin~ erosion control blankets„ erosion control matting and hydro-seeding, shall be utili~evl in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of .Standards far Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. ,Silt fences used zn combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope a f all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flota~ path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows attd around storm drain inlets. ^ BMPs far preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment (i. e., paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters ^ After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accuwrzelated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-27 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls PR 4.93-9 (b) The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of .South San Francisco in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erasion Control Plan shall include controls for winteri~atian, dust, erosion, and pollution in accordance with the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Plan shall also describe the BMPs to be used during and following construction to control pollution resulting form both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restraoms, mobilisation areas, and planned access routes. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to erasure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Threshold Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site Impact 4.13-3 Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, alter the course of a stream or river or substantially increase runoff which would cause on- or off-site flooding. Therefore, the impact of flooding would be less than significant. Colma Creek is the City's main natural drainage system. However, Colma Creek does not intersect the MEIR Study Area, nor does the project area drain to Colma Creek. Therefore, the proposed project would not alter the course of a waterway. However, surface and stormwater runoff in the MEIR Study Area is collected by the City's storm drainage system and is discharged to San Francisco Bay east of the MEIR Study Area. The existing storm drainage system for the MEIR Study Area is desi~med to accommodate flows from industrial development and takes into account the high ratio of impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The Genentech Central Campus Master (Dyett & Bhatia 2005) states the overall building intensity' will remain similar. The ratio of impervious surface area would remain consistent with what currently exists, thereby not increasing runoff or stormwater flows over existing conditions. The Genentech storm drainage system consists of gravity flow underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various locations (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). The outfalls to the San Francisco Bay are both above and below the mean high tide elevation of 3.1 feet. Outfalls below the mean high tide water elevation are likely to experience flooding when a heavy storm event happens during high tide water elevations. However, because the proposed project would not increase the amount of impervious surface area on the MEIR Study Area and would not increase the amount of runoff from the MEIR Study Area, the proposed project would not cause increased runoff levels that would induce on- or off-site flooding. Therefore, the impact would be less than signifiecznt. 413-28 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 lltllltles and Service Systems Threshold Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff Impact 4.13-4 Implementation of the proposed project could contribute runoff that could add substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; therefore, the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact on polluted runoff. However, with the identified mitigation measures, MM 4.13-2(a) through MM 4.13-2(d), this impact would be reduced to a less-than- significctntlevel. Surface and stormwater runoff in the MEIR Study Area is collected by the City's storm drainage system and is discharged to San Francisco Bay east of the project area. The existing storm drainage system in the project area is designed to accommodate flows from industrial development and takes of the amount of existing impervious surfaces in the area. The proposed project would remove existing buildings on the site and redevelop the area with similar uses. The exact uses of the buildings that could be developed are currently unknown, as a result potential sources of pollutants can not be quantified. However, simply as a result of increased traffic, increased stormwater pollutants, such as copper and zinc from break pads (Woodward-Clyde, 1994) or oil from leaking engines, may result in a potentially significant change in storm water quality. To comply with the Clean Dater Act (CWA), San Mateo County and the twenty cities and towns in the County formed the San Mateo Countywide stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean to the maximum extent possible. The San Mateo Countywide STOPPP has a Site Design Standards Checklist to evaluate proposed projects against guidelines intended to reduce stormwater pollution. These guidelines are regulated by the SSFMC, General Plan, or other best management practices guidelines. Construction impacts are mitigated through PR 4.13-1 (a) and (b). Still, operation of the proposed project could contribute to polluted stormwater runoff. This would be a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-2(a) through (d) would reduce operation impacts associated with polluted runoff to ales-than-signZ~Cant level. MM 4.13-2(a) The pr ject applicant shhall develop an operational .SI~PPP prior to construction to protect water duality after construction. The pr ject .SI~PPP shall inchrde, but not be limited to, the follozvina rrreasures for project operation: ^ Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the pr ject site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed pr ject site shall be described This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 413-29 nLsnfor d Fnvlrnnmental Ane1V51S ^ Identification of BMPs to he implemented at the project site based on identifier) industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placer) on source control BMPs, lvith treatment controls uses as needed. ^ Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall he carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular saveeping of parking lots and other pacer) areas, etc. lYlastes remover) from BMPs may be hazardous; therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be clearer) on a daily basis of debris that may enter the storm drain ystem. ^ The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the KIYIQCB and/ or City of South .San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually in coordination with the STOPPP. The S'WIPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. ^ The project applicant shall prepare inforrrrational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimise pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover.• (~) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping chemicals; (3) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and (4) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. MM 4.13-2(b) The project applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/~a~ater or oillgrit separator) on-site to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormu~ater. Approp~zate suing of the unit relative to the impervious surface drainage area is important and should be taken into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit model and side. MM 4.13-2(c) The project applicant shall incorporate alternative drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near large areas of imperviocrs surfaces suc% as public playas. Such solutions may include, but are not limited to, vegetated savales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds. MM 4.73-2(d~ The project applicant shall incorporate rooftop or doavnspout retention into all building plans. Threshold Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the proposed project would increase the development density of the site; and as result the proposed project could have a potentially significant impact the water system to deliver the required fire flows. However, with implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-3(a) through MM 4.13-3(c), this impact would be reduced to less than significant. The water distribution system is owned and operated by CWSC. The water system consists of a network of 12 and 10-inch lines which should be adequate to serve the required flows (Brady, 1994). Several 4.13-30 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4,13 lJtllltles and Service Systems buildings in the 2006 FMPU have water storage tanks and fire pumps for local pressure control (Dyett & Bhatia, 2005). The automated fire suppression systems in existing buildings significantly reduce the risk of fire spreading and may require fire flows beyond the current design standard of 2,000 gpm. Because the 2006 FMPU does not detail the ultimate building configuration and land use, the fire risk can be assessed generally and not in fine detail. As a result, there is a potentialh~ significant impact to the water system to serve the peak flow demands. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-3(a) through (c) would reduce the construction impacts associated with an increased fire flow demands to a less-thdn- significant level. MM 4.13-3(a) Prior to fiat building permit, the pr ject applicant shall consult a NCEES certified Fire Protection Engineer to prepare an analysis of the proposed project and determine the required design fire flow and fire duration. A certified report shall be submitted to the .S'outh San Francisco Fire Department for revieav and comment. MM 4.13-3(b~ Prio~° to receiving a building permit, the project applicant shall perform fire Holy tests for all hydrants within S00 feet of the pr ject site pursuant to American Dater iForks Association filed testing standards (AI~I~A 1989) to verify if adequate fire flows defined in mitigation measure 1Vh1~14.13-3(a) are achieved. Any deficiency measured shall Ge corrected and retested prior occupancy. MM 4.73-3(c~ California 1Ylater ,Service Company shall certify that reservoir storage, beyond their operational and emergency allotments, required far adequate protection identified in mitigation measure MM 4.13-3(a) will be maintained at all times. Threshold Result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects Impact 4.13-6 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the off site construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, the impact is less than significant. The drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally desilmed and constructed for industrial development and the associated large areas of impervious surfaces. The 2006 FMPU would connect to existing drainage lines that drain directly to San Francisco Bay. All stormwater drainage is regulated bj~ the RWQCB. The 2006 FMPU would redevelop an area of the Genentech Campus that is already populated by buildings and impervious surfaces. The expansion of the Genentech Campus will require new drainage structures and localized on-site storm drain systems. However, the amount of stormwater created in the 2006 FMPU area would not increase above existing conditions because the amount of impervious surfaces would be approximately the same as existing conditions. Because no additional stormwater runoff would be created, no additional stormwater would need to be accommodated in existing stormwater drainage facilities, and no expansion of stormwater drainage facilities would be warranted. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-31 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysis Threshold Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources Impact 4.13-7 Implementation of the proposed project would not result in insufficient water supplies. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.13-1(a) through (c) would ensure the proposed project would have aless-than- signif2cant impact on water supply. The California Water Service Company (CWSC) owns and operates the South San Francisco District (SSFD), which serves the City of South San Francisco including the proposed project, the City of Colma, a portion of Daly City and Broadmoor, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo Count}. CWSC also operates two other districts on the San Francisco peninsula: Bear Gulch District and Mid-Peninsula District. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) provides approximately 90 percent of the CWSC supply during normal years. CWSC may allocate the SFPUC allotments among the three districts CWSC operates on the Peninsula. An additional 10 percent of the CWSC supply comes from reservoirs and a groundwater system operated by CWSC. The SFPUC is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. At present, the SFPUC System consists of three regional water supply and conveyance systems: the Hetch Hetchy, the Alameda, and the Peninsula system, which are all connected. The Peninsula system includes water facilities that connect CWSC to the SFPUC distribution system. Approximately 85 percent of the SFPUC water supply is served through deliveries from the Hetch Hetchy system. The balance of the SFPUC water supply (approximately 15 percent) comes from diversions on a variety of streams and stored in local reservoirs. On the San Francisco Peninsula, SFPUC utilizes Crystal Springs Reservoirs, San Andreas Reservoir, and Pilarcitos Reservoir to capture local watershed runoff. In the Alameda Creek watershed, the SFPUC constructed the Calaveras Reservoir and San Antonio Reservoir. In addition to using these facilities to capture runoff, they also provide storage for Hetch Hetchy diversions, and serve as an emergency water supply in the event of an interruption to Hetch Hetchy diversions. In 1984, the SFPUC executed the Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (MSA) with the 29 member agencies of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency tBAWSCA). The BAWSCA members purchase approximately two-thirds of the water delivered by the SFPUC system and the balance is delivered to the City of San Francisco and .its retail customers. The MSA primarily addresses the rate-making methodology used by SFPUC in setting wholesale water rates for its wholesale customers and also addresses water supply and water shortages within the regional water system. The MSA provides 184 mgd as an annual average of "Supply Assurance" to all BAWSCA wholesale customers but that amount is subject to reductions in the event of droughts, water shortage, earthquake, other acts of God or system maintenance and rehabilitation.'' Each member holds an individual water supply contract and the MSA governs those individual contracts. Each individual twenty-five year contract ends in 2009, and it is reasonable to expect that the contract will be extended or renewed. -~ Approved SFPUC, 2005, UW~'IP and SAA lan~ua~e (Appendit B). 4.13-32 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems In the early 1990's, for planning and reliability purposes, BAWSCA negotiated, and then formally adopted in 1993, the Supply Assurance Allocation (SAA) that quantifies SFPUC's contract obligation to supply water to each of the members. The MSA does not guarantee that SFPUC will meet peak or hourly demands if the individual wholesaler's annual usage exceeds the SAA. The SAA helps the wholesaler plan for future demands and growth within their service area; for that reason, the SAA transcends the MSA expiration and continues indefinitely. CWSC's SAA for their four peninsula service areas is 35.5 mgd on an annual average basis. According to SFPUC staff, SSFD's purchase estimate for 2010 secures roughly 7.2 mgd based on average annual deliveries.`' In terms of water supply reliability, the SFPUC UWMP defines system "firm delivery capability": (System supply reliability is expressed)...in terms of the system's ability to deliver water during historically experienced droughts."`' The 1987 to 1992 drought is the basis for this plan. The SFPUC plans its water deliveries assuming that the worst drought experience is likely to re-occur and then adds an additional period of limited water availability. The revised 6.5 year drought scenario is referred to as the "design drought" and is the basis for water resource planning and modeling. According to the SFPUC UWMP, there is sufficient water to meet all expected future demand in normal and wet hydrololric periods; however, the MSA allows the SFPUC to curtail deliveries during droughts, emergencies and scheduled maintenance activities.`s SFPUC system operations are designed to allow sufficient water remaining in SFPUC reservoirs after six years of drought to provide some ability to continue delivering water, although at significantly reduced levels."' SFPUC is currently delivering approximately 265 mgd, about 43 mgd above firm delivery capabilities; consequently, if SFPUC declares a shortage, a 10 percent system-wide reduction would be mandated.;Q At current delivery levels, the regional water system can be expected to experience up to a 25 percent shortage 15 to 20 percent of the time, during multiple-year drought sequences.'' The SFPUC and the wholesale members developed along-term strategy to accommodate or rectify the potential of future water shortages throughout its wholesale and retail operations.3' The methodology for determining water supply reliability during drought years is the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (IWSAP). In 2000, the SFPUC and BAWSCA members agreed upon and adopted the IWSAP. Under this plan, the SFPUC will determine the available water supply in drought years for shortages up to 20 percent on an average, system-wide basis. The IWSAP will remain in effect through June 2009.jj The IWSAP was necessary because the MSA's default formula discouraged the wholesale customers from reducing purchases during normal or wet years by applying demand management (conservation) programs or perusing alternative supplies such as groundwater, water recycling or transfers. '~ SSFD Purchase Re9uest Estimates: Year 2015 (7.2 mgd); Year 2020 (7.5 mgd); Year 2025 (7.7 mgd); Year 2030 (8.0 mgd). "San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 1.1"alerSr~plyMarte~°Plan, April 2000, page 20. '~ Approved San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UWMP Language. =`' San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, I~`''ate~° Sr~ply Lllarter Plan, April 2000, page 20. "' Nicole Sandkulla, Water Resources Anah~st, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agenc~~, Personal Communication, Februar}~ 3, 2006. '' The reliability will increase to 4.8 percent chance of a 24.2percent reduction after 2012 following reservoir improvements. ~'-San Francisco Public Utilities Commission UWMP, 2005, page 22. ?' Approved San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UWMP Language. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-33 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysts The IWSAP has two components. The Tier One component of the IWSAP allocates water between San Francisco and the wholesale customer agencies collectively. The Tier Two component of the IWSAP allocates the collective wholesale customer share among each of the 28 wholesale customers. This allocation is based on a formula that considers three factors, the first two of which are fixed: (1) each agency's Supply Assurance from SFPUC, with certain exceptions, and (2) each agency's purchases from SFPUC during the three years preceding adoption of the Plan. The third factor is the agency's rolling average of purchases of water from SFPUC during the three years immediately preceding the onset of 3a shortage.' CWSC's total Supply Assurance is 35.5 mgd based on average annual purchase. This is their share of the 184 mgd allocated for the BAWSCA members; these supplies are then distributed to their four service areas. According to the Draft 2005 SSFD UWMP, the District buys approximately 89 percent of its water from the SFPUC, and the balance is met with local groundwater. Based upon SFPUC's planning demand study, CWSC's purchase request was 38.25 mgd from SFPUC to meet customer needs in 2005". This supply is subject to reductions in critical dry years or over multiple dry years. For example, if 2005 was a critical dry year, mandatory reductions would have been necessary and supplies would be reduced to 31.33 mgd; over a multiple dry years, the supply would be further reduced to 27.23 mgd. Because dry year conditions are a result of weather patterns that affect groundwater recharge this assessment assumed that local groundwater supplies would be reduced during multiple dry year events. Additionally, this assumption is consistent with the Draft SSFD UWMP stating, "groundwater is at risk from climatic issues, such as lack of rainfall to recharge the basin or from overall drought conditions," therefore, CWSC local supplies could be reduced by 10 percent in a single dra ,c~ year. The SFPUC 2004 Wholesale Customer Water Demand Projections study (Demand Study) analyzed water demands associated with each customer sector and then forecasted demands over a 25-year planning horizon. Supply amounts increase every five years; this is based upon the assumption that supply contracts will be renewed and SFPUC is able to "firm up" local sources, expand recycled water programs, improve conjunctive groundwater uses or increase diversions from the Tuolumne River.;' The 2006 FMPU would result in increased the amount of office uses while decreasing the amount of manufacturing uses. Although the proposed project would increase the usable square footage of the project site by more than 2.4 million sf, the types of uses would be different, resulting in a lower water use per square foot ratio. Currently, the project site uses 0.42 mgd. The proposed project would result in a demand of 0.71 mgd, resulting in a 0.29 mgd increase in water demand. sa Approved San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, U~X'MP Lan~ua~e. 35 AC ~rcr Supple KcGabilin~ Lcrrer (.-Apprndis ,A) ~~~ SFPUC, 2005 UW'MP, p. 31. ;- San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UW~'1P, pale 22-29. 4 ~~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utll-tfes and Service Systems While there is some potential for the CWSC and SFPUC to experience water shortages, there would be enough water for the proposed project based on current supply levels during normal to wet years. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. While the proposed project's effect on water supply is not a significant effect under CEQA, there are measures that the City could encourage Genentech to implement or impose as conditions of approval. Mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 (a) through (c) would reduce the proposed project's contribution to the total water demand. Threshold Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments Impact 4.13-8 Projected flows from the proposed project would not exceed planned improvements to the collection system and existing capacity in the treatment plant. As a result, the impact to the wastewater system is less than significant. An addendum to the 2002 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan (Carollo 2006) recalculated demands based on the land uses projections summarized in Table 5-1 (Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions) and Figure 5-1 (2015 Net Growth and Transportation Analysis Zone Boundaries) in Chapter 5 (Other CEQA Considerations). The wastewater flows were set equal to the water demands estimated in the WSA (Appendix F). The average dry weather flow from the 2006 FMPU project area was estimated to increase by 0.29 mgd. Current average dry weather flows east of highway 101 are approximately 2.0 mgd. Several deficiencies identified in the 2002 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan have been made including: improvements to the Harbor Trunk, Swift Avenue pump station No. 3, and the Swift Avenue sewer replacement. Additional improvements were identified in the 2002 Sewer System Master Plan and are included in a capital improvement plan that would allow for capacity up to 5.5 mgd average dry weather flow. Based on a capacity of 5.5 mgd and a current flow of 2.0 mgd, the remaining capacity in the east of highway 101 collection systems is 3.5 mgd. As a result, the incremental increase of 0.29 mgd to the collection system is less than significant. Current flows to the WQCP are approximately 10 mgd, while the permitted capacity of the plant is 13.4 mgd (Waste Discharge Requirements R2 2003-0010). No water qualit~~ violations have occurred within the last two years, and as a result, the projected 3 percent increase in dry weather flows from the proposed project to the WQCP would not exceed the WQCP capacity. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-35 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Threshold Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs Impact 4.13-9 Solid waste generated under the proposed project would be sufficiently served by the Scavenger Company's Blue Line MRF/TS and the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill; therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant solid waste impact. The Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the Cite. The Scavenger Company transports all solid waste from the MEIR Study Area to the Blue Line MRF/TS. The MRF/TS has a permitted capacity of 1,200 tons per day, but currently receives an average of 600 to 700 tons per day. Once the useable materials have been separated at the MRF/TS, the remaining trash is then transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill can accept up to 3,598 tons per day (CIWMB 2006a). As of 2000, the landfill has exceeded its permitted capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards by 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). However, the closure date is planned for 2018. Because the proposed project would roughly double in size the Genentech South San Francisco Campus area, the 2006 FMPU would result in an approximate doubling of solid waste to the MRF/TS and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill from the MEIR Study Area.3s Development under the proposed project would result in an additional 2,775 tons of solid waste per year (approximately 10 tons per day), representing approximately 2 percent and 0.28 percent of the permitted maximum amount accepted at the Blue Line MRF/TS and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, respectively. The remaining capacity of the MRF/TS would be able to accommodate the additional solid waste. Furthermore, the Scavenger Company has stated that a doubling of the Genentech South San Francisco Campus and subsequent increase in solid waste generation would not impact Scavenger's current available capacity of 500 to 600 tons per day (Formosa 2005). While the Ox Mountain landfill is currently in excess of its permitted capacity, BFI continues to accept waste as the landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. As described in Existing Conditions, BFI is permitted until 2016 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill. Thus, the increase in waste generated under the proposed project would be sufficiently served by the MRF/TS and the Ox mountain landfill and the impact would be less than signif2cant. ss Although specific land uses (office, lab, manufacturing, amenities) in the MEIR Stud~~ Area would not consistentl}' double in square footage across all land uses under the 2006 FMPU (see Table 3-1), it is assumed that the waste generated big the culmination of activities in the designated Business and Technologe Park land use would directh~ correlate with the square footage of the Business and Technolog}' Park land use. According to the Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts (Ventura Count~~ Solid Waste i~4anagement Department, ~ia}• 1998), a solid waste generation rate of 0.0108 pounds per square foot per da}' is applicable to office, manufacturing, and eating/drinking establishments sectors. Thus, if this rate is applied to the 2006 FMPU, the solid waste generation rate would directl}' relate to the increase in development proposed under the 2006 FMPU. 4.13-36 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 lltllltles and Service Systems Threshold Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste Impact 4.13-10 The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste and would not impede the City of South San Francisco from compliance; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact. Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated b~~ the City's SSFMC, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative disposal or recycling rates, the Genentech Campus, under the 2006 FMPU, would not be subject to diversion requirements. However, under the SSFMC, Genentech would be required to have its solid waste, including construction and demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Genentech currently complies with this provision and would continue to do so under the implementation of the proposed project. Additional health and sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met by the Scavenger Company. As described in the Regulatory Framework, AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50 percent of all solid waste by 2000. As of 2004, the Cin~ of South San Francisco has not been able to meet the AB 939 requirement. However, the CIWMB has repeatedly granted the City time extensions to achieve the 50 percent diversion goal. As analyzed above, the Genentech Campus is not a substantial contributor to the City's generation of solid waste disposal at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. Implementation of the proposed project could double Genentech's 3 percent contribution to 6 percent, but Genentech's contribution would remain relatively small. Consequently, because the proposed project would not impede the Cit<~'s compliance with AB 939, this impact would be no impact. 4.13.4 References AWWA .1989. AWWA M17-Installation, Field Testing, & Maintenance of Fire Hydrants, American Water Works Association. Brady and Associates for the Cit<~ of South San Francisco. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, July. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California's Groun~lia~ater.• Bulletin 118, IYle.rtcide Grounrizvater Basin, February 27. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2006x. Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfilel.asp?COID=41 &FACID=4I-AA- 0002, accessed January 14. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2006b. Jurisdiction Profile for City of South San Francisco, http: //www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfile2.asp?RG=C&JURID=511 &JUR=South+San+ Francisco, accessed January 14. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-37 Chapter 4 Environmental Anatysls Carollo Engineers for the Ciry of South San Francisco. 2002. City of South .S'an Francisco East of Highavay 101 SezverMasterPlan, September 2002. . 2006. Addendum to the City of South .San Francisco East of Highzvay 101 .SezverMaster Plan, July 2006. Dyett & Bhatia for the City of South San Francisco. 2003. City of South San Francisco General Plan, October 1999, as amended December 2003. . 1997. City of South San Francisco General Plan: Existing Conditions and Planning Issues, September. Dyett & Bhatia for Genentech. 2005. Draft Genentech Central Campus Ten-Year Master Plan, November. Formosa, Paul, Treasurer, South San Francisco Scavenger Company. 2005. Telephone communication with EIP Associates, November 2. Genentech. 2004. Corporate Environmental Performance Keport. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB RWQCB). 1995. lYlater Otrality Control Plan (Basin Plan for the .San Francisco Bay Basisa. USGS. 1956. San Francisco South Quadrangle, California, 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), photo revised 1980. Wilsey Ham. 2005. Water systems analysis for City. Memo to Mark Cruzer, December 23, 2005. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1994. Contribution of Heavy Metals to Storm iYlater From Automotive Disc Brake Pad IY>ear, Wloorlrvar~l-Clyde Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Program, Ciry of Palo Alto Public Works Department, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 4 ~~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR CHAPTER 5 Other CEQA Considerations Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that all aspects of a project must be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) must also identify (1) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented, (2) significant irreversible environmental change that would result from implementation of the proposed project, (3) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project, (4) mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects, (5) cumulative impacts, and (6) alternatives to the proposed project. 5.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. In such cases where an impact cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant, a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be prepared prior to approval of a project, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and 15093. Because implementation of the proposed project would create significant, unavoidable impacts, as further described, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required to describe the specific reasons for approving the project, based on information contained within the Final MEIR, as well as any other information in the public record. Development of the proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable project- related impacts. A detailed discussion of the project related impacts can be found in Section 4 (Environmental Analysis) of this document, and cumulative impacts are discussed below in Section 5.5. ^ Air Quality Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air qualit<~ standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) (Operation). Project related and cumulative. ^ Noise and Vibration Cause substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Project related and cumulative. ^ Transportation and Circulation > Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. Specifically, the project would create a significant impact if it would cause the Level of Service at a freeway segment or Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-1 rhantpr ~ nrher CEQA Cons-den3tlOns freeway ramp to degrade from LOS D to LOS E or worse, from LOS E to F, or cause an increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.5 or more and cause an increase in density by four passenger cars per lane per mile. 5.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that the proposed project would cause. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c) states: Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikeh~. Primary impacts, and particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The construction and implementation of the proposed project will entail the commitment of energy, human resources, and building materials. This commitment of energy, personnel, and building materials will be commensurate with that of other projects of similar magnitude, and none of these commodities are in short supply. Manpower would also be committed for the construction of buildings and public facilities necessary to support the new development. Ongoing maintenance and operation of the proposed project will entail a further commitment of energy resources in the form of natural gas, electricity, and water resources. Long-term impacts would also result from an increase in vehicular traffic, and the associated air pollutant and noise emissions. This commitment of energy resources will be a long-term obligation in view of the fact that, practically speaking, it is impossible to return the land to its original condition once it has been developed. However, as established in Section 4.13 ([Jtilities and Service Systems), the impacts of increased energy usage are not considered significant environmental impacts. In summary, implementation of the proposed project would involve the following irreversible environmental changes to existing on-site natural resources: ^ Commitment of energy and water resources as a result of the operation and maintenance of the proposed development. ^ Alteration of the existing topographic character of the project area. 5.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS A project's growth-inducing potential does not automatically result in growth, whether it is a portion of growth or actually exceeds projected levels of growth. Growth at the local level is fundamentally controlled by the land use policies of local municipalities or counties, which are determined by the local politics in each jurisdiction. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must include a discussion of the ways in which the proposed project could directly or indirectly foster economic development or population growth, or the ~2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Cons/de-atlons construction of additional housing and how that growth would, in turn, affect the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)). Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth, or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The discussion of removal of obstacles to growth relates directly to the removal of infrastructure limitations or regulatory constraints that could result in growth unforeseen at the time of project approval. Under CEQA, induced growth is not considered necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little silmificance to the environment. In general, a project may foster spatial, economic, or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any one of the criteria identified below: ^ The project removes an impediment to growth (e.g., the establishment of an essential public service, or the provision of new access to an area) ^ The project results in the urbanization of land in a remote location (leapfrog development) ^ The project establishes aprecedent-setting action (e.g., a change in zoning or General Plan amendment approval) ^ Economic expansion or growth occurs in an area in response to the project (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion, etc.) If a project meets any one of these criteria, it may be considered growth inducing. Generally, growth- inducing projects are either located in isolated, undeveloped, or underdeveloped areas, necessitating the extension of major infrastructure such as sewer and water facilities or roadways, or encourage premature or unplanned growth. 5.3.1 Remove an Impediment to Growth/Precedent Setting Action Although the proposed project includes General Plan Amendments and a zone change to expand the boundaries of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District, the proposed land uses and zoning would be consistent with the existing Planned Industrial zoning designation for biotechnology research and development land uses. The proposed amendment to the overlay district would not set a precedent by increasing the boundary of the existing land use overlay within the East of 101 Area. The types of development allowed under the overlay would remain the same; however, the growth strategt~ would aim for expansion and redevelopment throughout the Campus and the 2006 FMPU would provide an overall structure for the anticipated physical development of the area. Thus, the designations would be consistent with the nature of on-site and surrounding development. However, Genentech Campus growth and expansion would necessitate the expansion of infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, and storm drain lines, etc.) to serve future needs. While the 2006 FMPU describes a general development program for up to 3.17 million sf of new building space by 2016, the specific development pattern of those uses is presently unknown. Depending upon the availabilin~ of municipal services (e.g., adequate water supply and sewer line capacity), future development may be limited to available service capacity in the event that any municipal services are exceeded in the future. Therefore, because future development under the 2006 FMPU would require the expansion of municipal utilities, the proposed project would be growth inducing as a result of removing an impediment to growth. See Section 4.13 (Utilities and Service Systems) for a detailed discussion of impacts associated with utilities. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~ ~ti~.,tor ~ Arhpr [:FnA CensldelaUOnS 5.3.2 Urbanization of Land in a Remote Location Implementation of the proposed project would not encourage growth through the urbanization of land in remote locations, resulting in "leapfrog" development. The proposed project is located in an urbanized industrial area of South San Francisco, bordered by rail lines on the west and northwest, connected to the Caltrain station to the west, and located roughly one mile north of the San Francisco International Airport. Consequently, because the proposed project is not located in a remote location, no growth- inducing impacts would occur as a result of this criterion. 5.3.3 Economic Expansion or Growth According to the ABAG Projections 2005, the employment base in the City of South San Francisco is anticipated to increase from approximately 42,130 employees in 2005 to approximately 48,410 employees in 2015. This growth would result a net increase of approximately 6,280 employees, or a 15 percent increase over 2005 conditions. Presently, the only employment growth anticipated to occur within the City is expected to take place within the East of 101 Area where the proposed project is located. In addition, employment growth trends within the City are similar to the overall rate of growth anticipated in the County (employment growth in the County is projected to grow from 336,460 jobs in 2005 to 400,000 jobs in 2015, or 19 percent.) Implementation of the proposed project is similarly anticipated to result in an employment increase of approximately 6,661 (from 6,658 employees in December 2005 to 13,319 employees in 2015.) The net increase of approximately 6,661 employees resulting from Genentech's growth would exceed the City's entire population growth expected during 2005 and 2015, at approximately 107 percent, and approximately 10 percent of the County's. Although Genentech is presently the largest employer in the City, because the anticipated employment growth exceeds the existing forecasts for the City, Genentech's anticipated employment growth is considered substantial and directly growth-inducing. However, based on the company's history and it's vertically integrated business strategies, it is estimated that existing residents in the City (as well as residents in neighboring cities) would be likely to fill many of the future jobs. Vertically integrated companies are united through a hierarchy and share a common owner, with each division of the hierarchy structured to produce a different product or service. The products combine to satisfy a common need. Thus, while the field of biotechnology generally requires a high level of specialized skill sets, Genentech is structured in such a way that the future growth resulting from project-related employment generation would include all levels of workers. In addition to employing staff for technical scientific positions, Genentech also employs construction workers and administrative staff. Thus, while some employees that would fill the jobs generated by the proposed project would be expected to relocate to the general area (for the more technical scientific positions), many future employees would also likely be existing residents of the Cit<~ and surrounding area. It is also important to note that many commercial jobs (i.e., dry cleaners, restaurants, etc.) that would be generated by implementation of the proposed project could be filled by existing City or nearby residents. However, because it is assumed that many of the white-collar positions would be filled by people more likely to ~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA ConslderaUons relocate to the area (rather than all positions being filled by existing City residents), this analysis assumes that implementation of the proposed project could result in secondary or indirect growth resulting from project-related employment generation. In essence, because some new employees would be expected to relocate to the Cit<~ or surrounding area, the ne~v employees would result in ne~v households within the region. Thus, the proposed project would also result in an indirect population and housing increase. Therefore, the redevelopment and expansion envisioned from the proposed project, and associated employment growth would result in direct and indirect growth-inducing impacts. 5.4 MITIGATION MEASURES PROPOSED TO MINIMIZE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Table 1-2 (Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures), which is contained in Chapter 1 of this MEIR, provides a comprehensive identification of the proposed project's environmental effects and proposed mitigation measures. 5.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CEQA requires that EIRs discuss cumulative impacts, in addition to project-specific impacts. In accordance with CEQA, the discussion of cumulative impacts must reflect the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence; however, the discussion need not be as detailed as the discussion of environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project alone. Further, the discussion is guided by the standards of practicalit~~ and reasonableness. According to Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines: "Cumulative impacts" refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. (a) The individual effects ma~~ be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. (b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonablti~ foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individuall~~ minor but collectivelS- significant projects taking place over a period of time. Section 15130(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines further states that a "cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts." Only those impacts for which the project was found to have a less than significant, potentially significant, or significant and unavoidable impact are discussed. Impacts that were determined to have no project-related impact would also have no cumulative impact, and these are not discussed. A summary of the growth resulting from all the approved and proposed development projects in the greater East of 101 Area (as provided by the Cin~ of South San Francisco) is identified in Table 5-1 (Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions). Table 5-1 is based on the City's proposed project list developed in December 2005, and was updated in March 2006 based on the CitS~'s Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~ /rhnntor ~ nrnpr CEOA Considerations verbal comments. Figure 5-1 identifies the specific cumulative development projects that are included in the summary of Table 5-1 and shows the location of net growth of development in the East of 101 Area. It is important to note that Terra Bay, while not included in the East of 101 Area, is included in the cumulative projects list because it shares an on-ramp with the MEIR Study Area and thus, provides a more accurate representation of cumulative traffic growth for future development. The Traffic Report, Water Supply Assessment, and 2006 East of Highway 101 Sewer Master Plan Addendum prepared for the project all rely on this cumulative growth table for their respective projections and analysis of the proposed project. Overall, there is anticipated to be growth of over 4.6 million sf by year 2015, primarily office and R&D space. It should be noted that these values do not include any planned or programmed projects within Genentech. • ~* Qorrnnerde~- -iaeal • •• 0(IbeRB~ . sMla„ufacU„Inlg Residenllsf roml Bay West Cove 157,500 742,000 899,500 Gateway 121,000 65,250 186,250 Oyster Point 237,648 237,648 p 164,779 164,779 R 315,000 315,000 South Campus 789,000 789,000 Terra Bay 49,795 638,400 309,221 997,416 U 777,639 12,149 789,788 Upper Campus outside Overlay -43,215 -43,215 Y 177,633 177,633 Z 133,000 133,000 Grand Total 335,574 460,398 3,572,672 -31,066 309,221 4,646,799 SOURCE: Korve Engineering 2006, data compiled as of December luu~ * Refer to Legend on Figure 5-1 for identification of parcels and specific projects. Biological Resources In general, the context for this cumulative analysis covers two areas. The discussion of project contributions to coastal salt marsh and associated sensitive species impacts is discussed in the context of the entire San Francisco Bay. The project's contribution to impacts to nesting birds and conflicts with local tree preservation ordinances is referenced to habitat found within about 2-3 miles of the MEIR Study Area. Analysis methodologies are discussed within the following paragraphs as appropriate. The criteria used previously for what would be considered a substantial change resulting from the proposed project are used within this analysis. ~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR O N ~ O V ~ Q m ~ U N U p ~ w j > j O ~ ~ O N o U ~ ~ Q O c O ~ ~ O- p N N ~ u. N .- >- O O ~ N O ~- O ~ O E ~ O O .~ ~ 3 U U O \ ~- Q U m0 U ~ ,= p p O T N N N U 47 .~ ~ ~ d ~ z ® ~ o l~_~_ 0 d. c a~ N O ,\~ c ~~ ~ w co U 0 O O N _T ~\ ~~~~7 j ~~~ ~ j \~`\ ``, _ I I y F-- -_ ~ ~- ~ •~ __ I ~- ~ J Q 3 O m H 'C -_ ~ _ i t6 l~ '~ - ~- 0 ~t ~ ~ X WZ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O '~~ li N U t t c u c u u C c i C V a 1 7 7 3 i i s i i i i i Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons Cumulative impacts on species identified as candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in impacts related to noise and soil deposition to the resources discussed in Impacts 4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.1-4, and 4.1-6. The coastal salt marsh habitat could support wildlife nursery sites, sensitive bird species, and sensitive plant species. Therefore, because impacts to salt marsh could result in impacts to species these resources are linked and dependent upon each other. Because they are linked, cumulative impacts are considered in a single discussion. Salt marsh is a rare resource within San Francisco Bay and has been substantially reduced from its former range. In the foreseeable future, projects will be implemented that could result in additional reductions in salt marsh habitat and sensitive species through noise and soil deposition generated by construction activities. However, the project does not directly impact coastal salt marsh. Indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh and related resources are minor in the context of the Bay. Thus, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is not considerable. This would be considered ales-than-significant cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. Cumulative impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities are less than significant as described above. In the foreseeable future, projects will be implemented that could result in additional reductions in salt marsh habitat and sensitive species through noise and soil deposition generated by construction activities. However, the project does not directly impact coastal salt marsh. Indirect impacts to coastal salt marsh and related resources are minor in the context of the Bay. Thus, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts is not considerable. This would be considered ales-than-significant cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts on interfering with the movement of any native resident of migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in ground-clearing or removal of vegetation, which could interfere with nesting efforts and could conflict with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance or movement of migratory bird species of significance. Because of this, Impacts 4.1-7 and 4.1-8 are linked and these impacts are discussed under one cumulative impact. Implementation of the proposed project would involve demolition and removal of existing buildings and landscaping. This would result in impacts to nesting birds and protected trees. The general area around the Genentech Campus is entirely developed. These areas support similar landscaping and tree resources as the existing Campus. Foreseeable projects within the area would also remove trees and nesting habitat, which when added to the proposed project could result in an overall significant impact to these resources. However, new landscaping is expected to be installed with each new project that would replace lost trees and habitat. This results in only short-term reductions in available nesting habitat. Because the entire area will be not be (re)developed at the same time, impacts will be distributed over time such that loss of trees and habitat that would occur in any one area that is a relatively small portion of the entire contextual area. Because loss of nesting habitat and trees is distributed in time and space, the project's contribution to the overall loss of habitat is limited. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-9 Chapter 5 Other CEQA ConslderaUons Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact is not considerable. This would be considered aless-than-significant cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts of conflicting with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. As described above, and under Impact 4.1-8, cumulative impacts from construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could result in ground-clearing or removal of vegetation, which could interfere with nesting efforts and could conflict with the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. Because loss of trees is distributed in time and space, and new landscaping is expected to be installed with each new project which would replace lost trees, the project's contribution to the overall removal of trees is limited. Therefore, the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact is not considerable. This would be considered aless-than-significant cumulative impact. Flood and Inundation Hazards The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from flood and inundation hazards generally is site-specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project site has a different set of hydrologic considerations that would be subject to specific site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. Cumulative impacts to impeding or redirecting flood flows. While the shoreline of the MEIR Study Area is considered a 100-year flood hazard area by the City's General Plan, it is unlikely that development under the proposed project would place structures directly on the shoreline. However, potential opportunity sites identified in the 2006 FMPU are near the shoreline. The flow of coastal flood waters that encounter a building constructed under the proposed project would not be substantially obstructed or redirected because the path of flow, i.e., the width of the shoreline, is short. In addition, structures that substantially impede flood flows, such as dams and levees, would not be constructed under the proposed project. These potential opportunity sites would not impede or redirect flood flows themselves, and are not located near other anticipated future development sites within the City which would create a cumulative scenario resulting in flood flows being impeded or redirected. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. Cumulative impacts from exposing people to risk from the failure of a levee or dam. The MEIR Study Area is not prone to flooding in the event of dam or levee failure. Failure of a small-scale levee in the vicinity of the City= would not release a volume of water such that the MEIR Study Area would become flooded. Thus, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to flood risks associated with dam or levee failure. There are no dams or levees that would release quantities of water which would create impact zones in South San Francisco. Therefore, no future projects, in conjunction with the proposed project, would create a cumulative impact. The cumulative effect is considered Zess than significant. Cumulative impacts from exposing people or structures to inundation. The potential for inundation by mudflow within the MEIR Study Area is considered less than sigmificant due to the lack of 5-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatfons steep exposed slopes. In addition, there are no other steep slopes that would be built upon by future developments which would, in conjunction with the proposed project development, expose people or structures to mudflow. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. The northwestern portion of the MEIR Study Area, in the Lower Campus, could potentially be inundated by a tsunami. A few of the potential opportunity sites identified in the 2006 FMPU are in the tsunami inundation zone. As such, the proposed project could expose people and structures to inundation b}~ tsunami. Other future development sites within the City could be located in tsunami inundation zones as well, creating potentially significant cumulative effects in the event of a tsunami. However, as with the proposed project, compliance with the standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the SSFMC, specifically Section 15.56.140 which identifies standards specific to construction in coastal high hazard areas, reduces the effects to less-than-significant levels. The cumulative effect is considered less than significant. Air Quality Cumulative impacts from conflicting with or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan. The Clean Air Plan, discussed previously, was prepared to accommodate growth, reduce the pollutant levels in the Bay Area, meets federal and state ambient air quality standards, and minimizes the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. As discussed in Impact 4.3- 1, the Clean Air Plan assumed that future growth would occur within the zoning restrictions in effect at the time of its adoption. As described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) and Section 4.8 (Land Use), the project site's current zoning designation would accommodate the proposed project's components, as well as cumulative future growth assumed to occur, as summarized in Table 5-1. Thus, the proposed project would not conflict with the Clean Air Plan, and the cumulative effect is considered Zess than signi~eant. Cumulative impacts from violating any air quality standard or contributing substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As discussed in Impact 4.3-3, construction-related activities are generally short-term in duration and the BAAQMD does not recommend any thresholds of significance for construction-related emissions. Instead, the BAAQMD bases the determination of significance on a consideration of the control measures to be implemented. Implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-1 (a) and MM 4.3-1 (b) would ensure that emissions from construction-related activities in the Project Area would be less than significant, and the cumulative effect is considered less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.3-4, the estimated daily emissions associated with operation of the proposed development would exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the BAAQMD. The operational emissions that are generated by individual projects and exceed BAAQMD thresholds are also considered to be cumulatively considerable by the BAAQMD. Therefore, since the proposed project would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance and no feasible mitigation is available, this cumulative effect is considered significant and unavoidable. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR r11 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations Cumulative impacts from exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The simplified CALINE4 model was used to predict future (Year 2015) CO concentrations with full project buildout at selected locations along the major access routes within the MEIR Study= Area. These results are shown in Table 4.3-5 (Future Carbon Monoxide Concentrations). As shown, future CO concentrations at these receptors would not exceed the national and state 1-hour and 8-hour ambient air quality= standards for localized CO concentrations. This cumulative effect is less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.3-5, DPM would be emitted from diesel-powered delivery trucks traveling to and from the project site. To address DPM and other TAC emissions, the ARB has recently finalized an Air Quality and Land Use HandGook: A Community Health Perspective (Apri12005) as an "informational guide" to prioritize the important sources of TACs and reduce exposures to proximate populations. Among the important sources of DPM it identifies are distribution centers, warehouses and other facilities that accommodate 100 or more large diesel trucks per day, and it recommends that no new residential uses be located within 1000 feet of such facilities (or conversely that no new large sources of DPM be located near existing residential uses). As the proposed development would not represent these uses, and typically only a fraction of delivery trucks would be diesel-powered, and only a fraction of the latter would consist of the large tractor-trailer type described. Furthermore, the MEIR Study Area is not zoned for residential use, as described in Chapter 3 (Project Description) and Section 4.8 (Land Use). There are no residential uses located within 1000 feet. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial concentrations of DPM, and this cumulative effect would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts from creating objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. For this analysis, the relevant geographic area is the City, and related projects projected to be built include primarily= residential and commercial developments, and could include restaurants. Odors resulting from the construction of these projects are not likely to affect a substantial number of people, due to the fact that construction activities do not usually emit offensive odors. Although construction activities occurring in association with the proposed project and related projects could generate airborne odors associated with the operation of construction vehicles (i.e., diesel exhaust) and the application of interior and exterior architectural coatings, these emissions would only occur during daytime hours, would generally be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the construction sites and activities, and would not affect a substantial number of people. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. The most likely potential operational airborne odors associated with operation of the proposed project and related project could emanate from refuse storage areas. These odors would likely be confined to the immediate vicinity of the storage areas, and since the refuse receptacles would have lids and be emptied on a regular basis, substantial odors would not likely have a chance to develop. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant adverse odor impacts to sensitive receptors. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. 5-~ Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons Noise and Vibration Cumulative impacts from exposing persons to or generating noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinances, or applicable standards of other agencies. Implementation of the proposed project could result in the development of approximately 3.17 million sf of office, research and development, manufacturing, amenities, and parking by the year 2016. As discussed in Impact 4.4-1, the sensitive uses surrounding the MEIR Study Area would be exposed during the daytime to construction noise levels that exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL. Although the construction activities would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL noise standard identified in the SSFMC at these off-site locations during construction at the MEIR Study Area, the increase in noise levels would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are possible. Currently, under Section 8.32.050(d) of the SSFMC, construction activities are limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.~i. to 8:00 P.~i. on weekdays, 9:00 A.~7. to 8:00 P.1~1. on Saturda}'s, and 10:00 A.~t. to 6:00 P.~i. on Sundays and holidays, as discussed in Section 4.4.2 of this MEIR. During these times, the Cin= exempts noise associated with construction from provisions of SSFMC. Through this exemption of construction noise, the proposed project and related projects would be exempt from the noise standards. Construction noise occurring during these hours is exempted because these hours are outside of the recognized sleep hours for residents and outside of evening and early morning hours and time periods where residents are most sensitive to exterior noise. In addition, implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.4-1 (a) through MM 4.4-1 (c) would help to reduce noise from construction activities during the daytime to local sensitive receptors. Therefore, this cumulative effect is less than signi~eant. Large HVAC systems associated with new buildings in the MEIR Study Area can result in noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet from the equipment when the equipment is operating constantly over 24 hours. HVAC units are typically mounted on the rooftops of buildings and are required to be screened from view by building features. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors to the MEIR Study Area is the Larkspur Landing Hotel. The Larkspur Landing Hotel is located approximately 2000 feet from the northwest boundar}~ of the MEIR Study Area. Noise levels would diminish rapidly with distance from the MEIR Study Area at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Thus, the noise levels generated by the HVAC equipment associated with the new buildings would be approximately 42 dBA CNEL at the Larkspur Landing Hotel, which would not substantially contribute to existing ambient noise around the Larkspur Landing Hotel. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; generally, a single row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5 dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The manner in which older commercial structures in California were constructed (approximately 30 years old or older) generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 20 to 25 dBA with closed windows. The exterior-to-interior reduction of newer commercial is generally 30 dBA or more (HMMH 2006). However, it is expected that the childcare center would only be in operation during typical business days and would not be occupied during evening and nighttime hours. As such, occupants of the proposed childcare center would not be exposed to noise levels above the City's 75 dBA CNEL limit established for industrial land uses. As related projects would be considered to have a similar impact on sensitive receptors, this cumulative effect is less than signi~eant. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-13 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons Traffic-related noise would increase by as much as 4.1 dBA CNEL at project buildout in the Year 2015, including ambient growth and related projects. This increase is in excess of the 3.0 dBA CNEL threshold of significance for traffic-related noise. However, as shown in Table 4.9-9, traffic noise levels at buildout of the proposed project and ambient growth would not exceed the 75 dBA CNEL noise limit for industrial and institutional uses. This cumulative effect is less than significant. Cumulative impacts from exposing persons to or generating excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Construction activities that would occur under the proposed project and related projects both within the MEIR Study Area and off site could include excavation, which would have the potential to generate low levels of groundborne vibration. Given the distance of the off-site sensitive uses from the MEIR Study Area, the vibration levels experienced at the property lines of these off-site sensitive receptors could reach up to approximately 51 VdB at the Larkspur Landing Hotel, which is the nearest sensitive receptor to the MEIR Study Area Even if construction were to occur closer to sensitive receptors, the construction would have to be within approximately 25 feet of the use to exceed the 85 VdB threshold. As vibration is a localized phenomenon, related projects would need to be within 300 feet of each other to have a significant cumulative effect. As the construction activities would already be occurring 2000 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, this cumulative effect is less than significant. Genentech and other adjacent land uses potentially use research equipment that may be especially vibration sensitive. The threshold for vibration sensitive equipment is 66 VdB (HMMH 2006). Construction activities have the potential to occur within 25 feet of buildings containing vibration sensitive equipment. This would potentially expose the equipment to vibration levels up to 87 VdB, which exceeds the 66 VdB threshold, for individual projects. As the potential exists for more than one project to occur in close proximity as part of the proposed project, cumulative vibration impacts could be as much as 90 VdB. However, in order to reduce potential impacts to vibration sensitive equipment, MM 4.4-2(a) and MM 4.4-2(b) shall be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to vibration sensitive equipment. MM 4.4-2(a) would ensure that construction related activities would not occur adjacent to existing buildings containing vibration sensitive equipment. If construction activities were to occur adjacent to building containing vibration sensitive equipment, MM 4.4-2(b) would ensure that construction activities that could potentially impact vibration sensitive equipment would be scheduled such that vibration sensitive equipment would not be impacted. With implementation of MM 4.4-2(a) and MM 4.4-2(b), the potentially significant impact to vibration sensitive equipment would be reduced to a level of less than significant. During operation of the proposed project and related projects, background operational vibration levels would be expected to average around 50 VdB. This is substantially less than the 85 VdB threshold for people in the vicinity of the project site. Groundborne vibration resulting from operation of the proposed project and related projects would primarily be generated by trucks making periodic deliveries. However, these types of deliveries would be consistent with deliveries that are currently made along roadways in the project vicinity to the existing Campus and surrounding uses and would not increase groundborne vibration above existing levels. Because no substantial sources of groundborne vibration would be built as part of the proposed project or related projects, no significant cumulative vibration 5-14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations impacts would occur during operation of the proposed project. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not expose sensitive receptors on or off site to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and this cumulative effect is less than signif2cant. Cumulative impacts from causing substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As discussed in Impact 4.4-6, four roadway segments within the Traffic Study Area would exceed the 3.0 dBA CNEL threshold for a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels. These increases include ambient growth and related projects. Table 5-2 shows Year 2015 traffic noise levels without the proposed project and compares them to Year 2015 traffic noise levels with the project to show the project's contribution to this impact. As shown in Table 5-2, the project would create a 3.0 dBA CNEL increase in traffic noise level above Year 2015 conditions without the project on the roadway segment of Forbes Boulevard between Gull Road and Allerton Avenue. This is considered a significant contribution to cumulative traffic noise levels. As no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, this cumulative effect is significant and unavoidable. Nai9eleaelshdBA Neer2015 Year2015 Raed~1'x IA~/-p#Agred WRI7PrajeGt N1d~ese 7lreshold~ Th~hold? Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. to Oyster Point west 64.5 64.6 0.1 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. to US 101 Ramps/Oyster Point Blvd. 65.1 65.2 0.1 3.0 No US 101 Rampsl0yster Point Blvd. to Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd. 67.1 67.9 0.8 3.0 No Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd. to Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. 64.7 66.2 1.5 3.0 No Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. to Oyster Point east 60.6 60.6 0.0 3.0 No Forbes BIvd.IGull Rd. to Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. 58.9 61.9 3.0 3.0 Yes Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. to Forbes east 61.2 61.5 0.3 3.0 No Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. to Forbes Blvd. west 58.4 59.6 1.2 3.0 No Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to E. Grand Ave. east 58.9 59.2 0.3 3.0 No Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to Allerton Ave./Grand Ave. 63.2 64.9 1.7 3.0 No Forbes Ave.IGrand Ave. to Gateway Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. 65.7 67.1 1.4 3.0 No Allerton Ave./Grand Ave. to Forbes Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. 64.0 65.5 1.5 3.0 No Gateway Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. to ExecutivelGrand Ave. 65.7 65.6 -0.1 3.0 No Executive/Grand Ave. to Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. 64.8 65.4 0.6 3.0 No Dubuque Ave./Grand Ave. to Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. 64.8 65.5 0.7 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. to Grand Ave. west 61.6 62.2 0.6 3.0 No Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-15 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations Abbe Carafe h aBA (~I.~1001faet AoedM®YS~nerK YeerZ015 WRho~rtProtect Yeer2015 WttrProtect N~aease S~iRoanoe 7lreshofaa E~ooeerls Snoe 7treehakrT Airport Blvd./San Mateo to San Mateo west 60.8 60.8 0.0 3.0 No Gateway Blvd./Mitchell to Mitchell east 59.4 59.4 0.0 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. to Airport Blvd. north 64.1 64.1 0.0 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd. to Airport Blvd./Miller 62.2 62.4 0.2 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Miller to Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. 63.9 64.1 0.2 3.0 No Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. to Airport Blvd./San Mateo 64.2 64.2 0.0 3.0 No Airport BIvd.ISan Mateo to Airport Blvd. south 65.8 66.6 0.8 3.0 No Gateway Blvd./Mitchell to Gateway Blvd./E. Grand Ave. 62.7 64.3 1.6 3.0 No Gateway Blvd.lE. Grand Ave. to Gateway Blvd.l0yster Point Blvd. 63.1 63.1 0.0 3.0 No Allerton Ave.IGrand Ave. to Allerton Ave./Forbes Blvd. 53.7 55.8 2.1 3.0 No Grandview Dr./E. Grand Ave. to Grandview Dr. north 59.9 62.8 2.9 3.0 No Oyster Point BIvd.IGull Rd. to Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. 60.6 62.9 2.3 3.0 No SOURCE: EIP Associates 2005 (calculation data antl results are provitletl in Appendix H) 1. As described in Section 3.10.5 (Thresholds of Significance), the significance threshold is 3 dBA if the noise increase would meet or exceed the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at sensitive land uses. However, if the noise levels remain below the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise level standard at sensitive land uses, then an increase in noise between 3 dBA and 5 dBA would be noticeable, but would not be considered to be significant. 2. Although a significant increase in ambient noise over existing conditions is experienced at this roadway segment, this roadway segment would not be located adjacent to any existing or proposed sensitive uses. Cumulative impacts from a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. As discussed in Impact 4.4-1, the sensitive uses surrounding the MEIR Study Area would be exposed during the daytime to construction noise levels that exceed the City's exterior noise standard of 60 dBA CNEL. Although the construction activities would exceed the 60 dBA CNEL noise standard identified in the SSFMC at these off-site locations during construction at the MEIR Study Area, the increase in noise levels would be temporary in nature, and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from grading and construction are possible. The construction activities associated with the proposed project would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the SSFMC. In addition, as discussed in Impact 4.4-1, the SSFMC contains an exemption for construction noise. Due to this exemption, the cumulative impact of temporary increases in ambient noise at off-site locations associated with construction activities of the proposed project would be less than significant. Geology and Soils The geographic context for the analysis of impacts resulting from geologic hazards generally is site- specific, rather than cumulative in nature, because each project site has a different set of geologic considerations that would be subject to specific site development and construction standards. As such, the potential for cumulative impacts to occur is limited. r16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations Cumulative impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to ground rupture, seismic groundshaking or ground failure involving liquefaction or landslides. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards would occur at individual building sites. These effects are site-specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Buildings and facilities in the Citt~ of South San Francisco would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations, consistent with the requirements of the California Building Code and The East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element. Adherence to all relevant plans, codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Such adherence would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding ground rupture, seismic groundshaking or ground failure involving liquefaction or landslides, and, therefore, the cumulative impact of the project would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts of soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts from erosion and loss of topsoil from site development and operation can be cumulative in effect within a watershed. Uncontained runoff from the proposed project area would flow into the San Francisco Bay. To minimize the potential for cumulative impacts that could cause erosion, the proposed project and cumulative projects in the adjacent area are required to be developed in conformance with the provisions of applicable federal, state, Count~~, and City laws and ordinances, including the applicable portions of and The East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element. As a result, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts on the San Francisco Bay Watershed caused by runoff and erosion from cumulative development activity would be less than significant. With adherence to these requirements, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts regarding erosion and loss of topsoil would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts associated with unstable soils, landslides, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. As with seismic groundshaking impacts, the geographic context for analysis of impacts on development from unstable soil conditions including landslides, liquefaction, subsidence, collapse, or expansive soil generally is site-specific. Because all development within CBC Seismic Hazard Zone 4, which includes the City of South San Francisco, is required to undergo analvsis of geological and soil conditions applicable to the project site (see Policy GEO-1, GEO-7, GEO-10 in The East of 101 Plan Geotechnical Safety Element), and because restrictions on development would be applied in the event that geological or soil conditions posed a risk to safety, it is anticipated that cumulative impacts from development on soils subject to instability, subsidence, collapse, and/or expansive soil would be less than significant. With adherence to these requirements, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, would be considered less than significant. Cumulative impacts associated with expansive soil. Impacts associated with potential geologic hazards related to expansive soils would occur at individual building sites. These effects are site-specific, and impacts would not be compounded by additional development. Buildings and facilities in the Citv of South San Francisco would be sited and designed in accordance with appropriate geotechnical and seismic guidelines and recommendations, consistent with the requirements of the California Building Code and The East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element. Adherence to all relevant plans, Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5.17 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons codes, and regulations with respect to project design and construction would provide adequate levels of safety, and the cumulative impact would be less than significant. Such adherence would ensure that the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts regarding expansive soils, and, therefore, the cumulative impact of the project would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The geographical context for the analysis of cumulative impacts from hazardous materials use, transport, and disposal is the City of South San Francisco, unless otherwise specified. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by full buildout of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and development of the related projects. Cumulative impacts due to the routine transport, use, disposal, or storage of hazardous materials (including chemical, radioactive, and biohazardous waste). It is anticipated that future growth in the South San Francisco area will result in an incremental increase in the amount of hazardous materials used, treated, transported, and disposed areawide. Although each development site has potentially unique hazardous materials considerations, it is expected that future growth will generally comply with the range of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations applicable to hazardous materials, and will be subject to existing and future programs of enforcement by the appropriate regulatory agencies. For these reasons, cumulative impacts resulting from the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, or risk of upset from a release of hazardous materials, would be less than significant. As discussed above, the MEIR Study will not result in significant public hazards as a result of hazardous materials use, transport, or disposal, or as a result of accidental release of hazardous materials. While the Genentech facility will continue to use varying amounts and types of hazardous materials (including chemical and bio-hazardous materials) in day-to-day activities and operations, the facility will continue to comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the use, storage, transportation, and/or exposure of hazardous materials, as well as with existing on-site programs, practices, and procedures, to reduce potential impacts for each project under the proposed project. Consequently, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts is also less than significant. The cumulative effects of hazardous waste disposal, and the geographical area of impact, vary based upon the type of waste in question. Non-radioactive hazardous waste materials are disposed into readily available local permitted hazardous waste facilities, while radioactive waste is disposed of in facilities that accept radioactive waste generated nationwide. (Cumulative impacts from disposal of solid waste are evaluated in Section 4.13 [Utilities].) Disposal facilities accepting non-radioactive hazardous waste are not currently in short supply, and are not anticipated to be in short supply in the future, and thus cumulative impacts for non-radioactive hazardous waste would be less than significant. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts associated with the use, storage, transportation, and/or exposure of non-radioactive hazardous materials would also be less than significant. This is considered to be aless-than-significant impact. 5-18 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons As discussed above, low-level radioactive waste (LLRW must be disposed of in authorized facilities, which accept LLRW from a wide array of sources in addition to Genentech. As a result, cumulative impacts associated with the disposal of LLRW nationwide are anticipated to be Zess than significant. Cumulative impacts due to hazardous emissions, handling of hazardous materials, substances, or hazardous waste. It is possible that a number of the related projects and other future development in the City of South San Francisco will invohre significant renovation demolition activity, which could subject construction workers to health or safety risks through exposure to hazardous materials, although the individual workers potentially affected would vary from project to project. It is anticipated that future development projects will adhere to the applicable federal, state and local requirements that regulate worker safety and exposure. As a result, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Genentech will continue to adhere to these applicable regulations, as well as established programs and practices. As a result, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with potential exposure of construction workers to hazardous materials will be Zess than signif2cant. It is further possible that a number of the related projects and other future development in the Ciry of South San Francisco could expose residents and construction workers to contaminated soil or groundwater. It is anticipated that future development projects will adhere to the applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations that govern underground storage tanks and pesticide use, as well as requirements applicable to disposal and cleanup of contaminants. As a result, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Although there is no known soil or groundwater contamination on the Genentech Campus, in the event that soil or groundwater contamination is discovered, Genentech will continue to adhere to these regulations, as well as established programs and practices. As a result, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater would be Zess than significant. Cumulative impacts associated with being located on a hazardous materials site, pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Future development in the City of South San Francisco, including the related projects, may be located on or near a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. It is anticipated that future development will comply with applicable laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes, and that risks associated with identified hazardous materials sites would be eliminated or reduced through proper handling, disposal practices, and/or clean-up procedures. In many cases, development applications for projects affected by hazardous materials on identified sites would be denied by the City of South San Francisco if adequate cleanup or treatment is not feasible. Accordingly, cumulative impacts on the public or environment associated with development on or near hazardous materials sites would be less than significant. There are no listed contaminated soil or groundwater sites as listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 on the Genentech Campus. All remaining active or inactive USTs on-site conform to applicable laws and regulations and are registered and permitted by the SSFFD. If future UST-related cleanup were determined to be necessary, all work would be performed in accordance with the guidelines of the regional Underground Storage Tank Program. All non-UST hazardous waste storage locations are managed in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, such as RCRA and the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, as well as all existing Genentech programs, practices, and procedures. As Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-19 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations a result, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with development on or near hazardous material sites would be Zess than significant. Cumulative impacts with impairing with the implantation or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan. Construction and operation associated with the related projects and other future development in the City of South San Francisco could result in activities that could interfere with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, primarily by temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access. It is anticipated that future development projects will undergo CEQA review of potential impacts on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans, and will be required to implement measures necessary to mitigate potential impacts. As a result, cumulative impacts relating to inference with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be less than significant. Construction and operation activities under the proposed project with respect to emergency response or evacuation plans due to temporary construction barricades or other obstructions that could impede emergency access on-site, would be mitigated by MM 4.6-2. Multiple emergency access or evacuation routes would be provided on-site to ensure that in the event one roadway or travel lane is temporarily blocked, another may be utilized. Furthermore, ongoing coordination between Genentech and the appropriate agencies pursuant to MM 4.6-3 ensures that roadway or travel lane closures will be coordinated with emergency response personnel to ensure that individual development projects under the proposed project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, emergency response and evacuation efforts. As a result, the proposed project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with inference with adopted emergency response or evacuation plans would be Zess than significant. Transportation and Circulation The geographical context for the analysis of cumulative impacts from traffic and circulation is the East of 101 Area, unless otherwise specified. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by the summary of cumulative development provided in Table 5-1 and illustrated in Figure 5-1. Cumulative impacts related to intersections and freeways. The traffic analysis presented in the impact analysis and impact statements in the Transportation and Circulation section (for intersections and freeway segments in the MEIR Study Area) includes the forecasted year 2015 cumulative impacts of general area-wide growth and traffic that would be generated by other proposed projects within the project area. Therefore, the cumulative traffic impacts and the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative traffic impacts have been addressed and quantified in the impact discussions. As noted in the traffic analysis, cumulative traffic would be added to the project area and would affect already deficient intersections and freeway segments, resulting in significant cumulative traffic impacts. The implementation of MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-10(b), however, would ensure that project-related intersection impacts are Zess than significant. Therefore, the project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. Thus, although significant cumulative traffic impacts would occur, the project's contribution would not be cumulatively considerable. As identified in Impact 4.7-11, project freeway segment impacts would be significant and unavoidable, as would the cumulative impact. The r2U Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations project's contribution to this impact would be significant and unavoidable as no mitigation is available that does not require the approval of other agencies. Inasmuch as the project could not guarantee the implementation of mitigation, this cumulative impact would be 52gn2ficant and unavoidable, and the project's contribution would be cumulatively considerable. Cumulative impacts related to transit service. Impacts related to increased transit use and related LOS would be less than significant for the project, and for cumulative development identified in Table 5- 1. While transit demand would increase, there are numerous transit providers (public and private) that serve the project area on ademand-responsive basis. Therefore, no cumulative impact to transit use and related LOS will occur. Cumulative impacts related to Congestion Management Program segments and ramps. Finally, the SMCCMP identifies LOS E as acceptable for designated roads and highways. While the project would affect operation of US 101 segments and on- and off-ramps as identified in Impact 4.7-13, the change in LOS would result in a less than significant project and cumulative impact. Cumulative impacts related to hazards due to design. The design of project site access points and on-site roads and circulation system is not anticipated to include any design features that would result in a substantial increase in vehicular or pedestrian hazards. The project and cumulative impacts to traffic and circulation hazards would be less than signifzcant, and the project's contribution to the cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. Cumulative impacts related to emergency access. The onsite roadway infrastructure and parking areas are currently and would continue to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Vehicle access drives to/from and within the project site are currently and would continue to be designed to meet the Cite of South San Francisco design requirements for emergency vehicle accessibility. The project and cumulative impacts to emergency access would be less than sign2ficant, and the project's contribution to the cumulative impacts would also be less than significant. Each cumulative project would be required, like the project, to ensure that emergency access impacts are addressed, and therefore no cumulative impact would occur. Cumulative impacts related to parking capacity. As described above, project-related parking impacts at the Genentech Campus would be less than significant. While capacity utilization in 2015 is expected to be about 94%, there are opportunities to park elsewhere in the neighborhood. Although Genentech comprises the majority of parking demand in the overlay district area, cumulative impacts from additional related projects are likely to result in a significant cumulative impact, and Genentech would have a considerable contribution to this impact. Further, although cumulative development projects could implement individual parking mitigation measures, the proposed project cannot ensure that adequate mitigation would be in place to reduce all potential cumulative parking impacts. Therefore, the cumulative parking impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative impacts related to policies or programs supporting alternative transportation. In consideration of the fact that the project would include TDM, would be designed to accommodate and Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-21 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections and access/use throughout the Genentech Campus, the project would result in a less than significant effect upon these alternative transportation modes. Since the City has a TDM ordinance and requires implementation of TDM programs, development of additional, related projects would result in a less than significant cumulative impact on alternative transportation. The project's contribution to this impact would also be less than cumulatively considerable as the project is expected to exceed the City's TDM requirements. Land Use and Planning This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco, unless otherwise specified. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by full implementation of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and development of the related projects. Cumulative plan consistency. As required by Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, Section 4.8 Land Use and Planning discusses any= inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional and local plans. Implementation of the proposed project would conflict with development standards within the SSFMC; Chapter 20.32: Planned Industrial District. Development standards relating to building height, Floor Area Ratio and parking regulations within the 2006 FMPU are not consistent with the Planned Industrial District (I'-I District) standards. However, development standards such as building height, FAR, and parking standards contained within 2006 FMPU are consistent with the Genentech R& D Overlay District regulations and standards. It is anticipated that the Genentech R&D Overlay District will be expanded as part of adoption of the MMEIR and proposed project to include the Genentech propert~~ currently within the boundaries of the Planned Industrial District. Therefore, the cumulative impact from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Cumulative development within the CitS~ could have a potentially significant impact on the environment by conflicting with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Specifically, and as shown in Table 5-1, the cumulative projects include a total of 3,572,672 sf of office/R&D uses, 335,574 sf of commercial uses, 460,938 sf of hotel uses, 309,221 sf of residential uses in the Terra Bay development, and a loss of 31,066 sf of manufacturing. As discussed previously, Terra Bay is located outside of the East of 101 Area Plan; however, it is included in the cumulative development projections for the area because it shares an on-ramp with the MEIR Study Area. However, these projects are in line with existing plans that call for transforming the East of 101 Area to a denser office and research and development center. Therefore, cumulative development would be consistent with existing plans and policies. Aesthetics This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the vicinity of the project in the East of 101 Area in the City of South San 5-22 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons Francisco. The East of 101 Area is an appropriate geographic context for cumulative impacts on visual quality because this area is a distinct development area, isolated from the rest of the City by US 101 to the west and bounded by the Bay to the east. Cumulative impacts to a scenic vista. The proposed project would not result in a significant effect on scenic vistas of the San Bruno Mountains or the San Francisco Bay, as described in 4.09 Aesthetics. Although the proposed project resides at the highest point within the East of 101 Area, on Point San Bruno Hill, future development would be subject to FAA height regulations and be designed so as to protect and enhance view corridors, such that impacts on scenic vistas would be less than significant. Cumulative development in the area would not include other development on Point San Bruno Hill. Additional projects proposed in the area include buildings primarily ranging from one to seven stories, with one 20-story hotel proposed to the northwest of the project which could have a potentially significant impact on long-range views of the mountains and Bay from various vantage points. However, the proposed hotel is compatible with the other numerous hotels and land uses in the vicinity, is consistent with the City's General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, and would be subject to the City's Zoning Code and Design Review Boards. Considering combined visual impacts from the hotel and the proposed project, cumulative impacts on scenic vistas would not be significant. As there would be no cumulative impact on scenic vistas, this impact is considered less than significant. Cumulative impacts on existing visual character or quality of a site or its surroundings. As described in 4.9 (Aesthetics), implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact on the visual character or quality of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District. The regulating policies and development standards pertaining to the design and aesthetics of the Genentech R&D Overlay District would ensure that new development introduced as part of implementation of the proposed project would enhance the visual character and quality of the area. The proposed project is entirely compatible with the City's goals and policies for future growth and development within the East of 101 Area, as prescribed in the East of 101 Area Plan, which promotes campus-style biotechnology, high-technolo~~=, and research and development uses for the East of 101 Area. Construction of new development as part of implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term impacts on visual character during the construction period. Other development in the East of 101 Area could result in significant impacts on visual character during the construction period. The significant impacts on the ~=isual character or quality of the site and vicinity due to project construction (i.e. construction equipment, fencing, and debris) could exacerbate construction period visual character impacts of other projects. Thus, the project could contribute to a cumulative impact on visual character during the construction period. However, this visual condition would be a temporary visual distraction t}'pically associated with construction activities and equipment. Therefore, the cumulative impact from implementation of the proposed project would be less than significant. Additional development proposed in the East of 101 Area includes primarily office and R&D land uses, with some hotel and retail uses, and a new ferry terminal, each of which would be approved subject to consistency with the same policies established in the East of 101 Area Plan and compliance with development standards of the City's Zoning Code. The Zoning Code promotes development consistent with its surroundings, in terms of design, massing, and building heights. Each project would also be Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-23 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons subject to extensive design oversight as part of the City's entitlement process. Consequently, changes in land use that would substantially degrade the area would generally not be permitted to occur under the General Plan or CEQA review, thereby protecting the visual character of the East of 101 Area. Consequently, cumulative impacts on the visual character and quality of the East of 101 Area would be less than significant. Cumulative effects of light or glare affecting day or nighttime views. The East of 101 Area is highly urbanized and nearly built out and contains numerous existing sources of daytime glare and nighttime lighting. However, residential land uses are not permitted within the entire East of 101 Area, and therefore sensitive land uses are not at risk by the potential accumulation of light and glare. As described under Impact 4.9-5, new development within the Upper Campus could create a significant impact to distant views by increasing daytime glare in a highly visible location on Point San Bruno Hill. Cumulative development within the surrounding areas could result in some increase in daytime glare, as specific building materials and configurations are uncertain. However, additional development in the area would occur at lower topographies and not be surrounded by sensitive land uses. Consequently, cumulative daytime glare within the surrounding area would be less than significant. As implementation of the proposed project would not, after mitigation, result in a significant daytime glare impact, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to this impact. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with daytime glare would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Development within the areas adjacent to the proposed project area could result in the creation of ne~v sources of light that could affect nighttime views. As described in 4.9 (Aesthetics), additional development in the East of 101 Area consists of the intensification of existing land uses, primarily research and development facilities, with some hotel and retail development. Additional development would increase nighttime lighting and could contribute to a diminishment in nighttime sky; however, all uses in the East of 101 Area primarily consist of office and R&D development, and would not be considered light-sensitive land uses. Therefore, this impact is not considered cumulative and would be less than significant. Cultural Resources This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development in the East of 101 Area of South San Francisco, unless otherwise specified. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within this geographic area, as represented by full implementation of the City of South San Francisco General Plan and development of the related projects. Cumulative impacts on historic resources. Implementation of the proposed project would not encroach upon historical properties within the City; therefore, impacts on historical resources from any other project would not combine with the proposed project. Therefore, this impact is not considered cumulative and would be less than significant. 5-24 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Cons-deratlons Cumulative impacts on archaeological resources. In regards to archaeological resources, there are no known archaeological resources in the project vicinity, therefore, impacts on known archaeological resources from any other project would not combine with the proposed project. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. Unknown archaeological resources may potentially be located within the project vicinity. Without mitigation, impacts from the proposed project and anticipated future development would be potentially significant in terms of encountering sensitive resources. The potential impact would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Because the proposed project could contribute to this impact within a large area of the East of 101 Area, its contribution would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measures MM 4.10-1 and MM 4.10-2, located in Section 4.10 (Cultural Resources), would prevent significant project impacts to archaeological resources, and would likewise render project impacts less than cumulatively considerable in relation to anticipated future development in the vicinity. If other projects have the potential to result in significant impacts on archaeological resources, then CEQA would similarly require the adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures for those projects. Therefore, other projects would likely be mitigated or conditioned in a similar fashion to the proposed project such that no significant cumulative effect would occur. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant after mitigation. Cumulative impacts on paleontological resources. In regards to paleontological resources and unique geologic resources, there are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic resources in the project vicinity, therefore, impacts on known paleontological resources from anv other project would not combine with the proposed project. This cumulative effect is considered less than Significant. Unknown paleontological resources may potentially be located within the project vicinity. Without mitigation, impacts from the proposed project and anticipated future development would be potentially significant in terms of encountering sensitive resources. The potential impact would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Because the proposed project could contribute to this impact within a large, 220-acre area, its impact contribution would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measure MM 4.10-3, located in Section 4.10 (Cultural Resources), would prevent significant project impacts to paleontological resources, and would likewise render project impacts less than cumulatively considerable in relation to anticipated future development in the vicinity. If other projects have the potential to result in significant impacts on paleontological resources, then CEQA would similarly require the adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures for those projects. Therefore, other projects would likely be mitigated or conditioned in a similar fashion to the proposed project such that no significant cumulative effect would occur. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. Cumulative impacts on unknown human remains. Unknown locations with human remains may potentially be located within the project vicinity. Without mitigation, impacts from the proposed project and anticipated future development would be potentially significant in terms of encountering human remains. The potential impact would be considered a significant cumulative impact. Because the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-25 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons proposed project could contribute to this impact within a large area of the East of 101 Area, its contribution would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation measure MM 4.10-4, located in Section 4.10 (Cultural Resources), would prevent significant project impacts to human remains, and would likewise render project impacts less than cumulatively considerable in relation to anticipated future development in the vicinity. If other projects have the potential to result in significant impacts on human remains, then CEQA would similarly require the adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures for those projects. Therefore, other projects would likely be mitigated or conditioned in a similar fashion to the proposed project such that no significant cumulative effect would occur. This cumulative effect is considered less than significant. Population and Housing This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the City of South San Francisco. This analysis accounts for all anticipated cumulative growth within the City and the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impacts on population, employment, and housing. Cumulative impacts to population growth. The proposed project includes opportunity sites to be developed for R&D/office uses. As a result of this development, population growth will be induced in the South San Francisco region. Other future development sites will have the same effect as each project will create new jobs and/or homes within the City. The proposed project in conjunction with existing and future area projects will be cumulatively considerable creating a significant impact on population growth in the South San Francisco area; however, continued job growth in the city will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. In its final Regional Needs Determination (RHND) figures, ABAG allocated 1,331 housing units to the City of South San Francisco (Housing Element 2005). Between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, which is within the planning timeframe of the Housing Element, South San Francisco approved or built 1,688 new units. After accounting for approved and constructed housing units between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001, South San Francisco's remaining fair share need is 504 new units (Housing Element 2005). According to the General Plan Housing Element, Summarv of Quantified Objectives, pending projects and units that will be developed through implementation measures during the time frame of 2001 through 2006 will construct 528 more units. Once all units are constructed, the RHND will be exceeded by 24 units. As an inner Bay Area communit~~ well served by all modes of transit-including air and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future-future employees from and traveling to the city will have varied means of reaching employment sites. Therefore, because the Housing Element Summary of Quantified Objectives exceeds the RHND by 24 units, and continued employment growth within the City would serve to balance regional needs between jobs and housing, this impact is considered to be less than signif2eant. Public Services This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed project, in conjunction with other development within the City of South San Francisco. This analysis accounts for all anticipated 5-26 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons cumulative growth within the Cite and the proposed project's contribution to a cumulative impact on public services. Cumulative impacts to police protection services. As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for police protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. The provision of adequate police protection services is of critical importance to the City, and funds are allocated to these services during the annual monitoring and budgeting process to ensure that police protection services are responsive to changes in the City. Funds collected in the form of plan check fees and inspection fees (for new development) are deposited into the General Fund and allocated to City services, as needed. In addition, staffing levels are evaluated by the SSFPD during the annual budgetary process, and personnel are hired, as needed, to ensure that adequate police protection services are provided. The cumulative impact, therefore, on police services in the Cite would be less than significant. The proposed project contribution to this cumulative impact is also less than significant because current response times are adequate and not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project and there would only be a negligible increase in daytime population as a result of the project which ensures that the officer to population ratio would remains adequate. In addition, existing city= programs, practices, and procedures would continue to ensure the adequate provision police protection services. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on police protection services would not be cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be a less-than- significantimpact. Cumulative impacts to fire protection services. As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for fire protection services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. The provision of adequate fire protection services is of critical importance to the City, and funds are allocated to these services during the annual monitoring and budgeting process to ensure that fire protection services are responsive to changes in the City. Funds collected in the form of plan check fees and inspection fees (for new development) are deposited into the General Fund and allocated to City services, as needed. In addition, staffing levels are evaluated by the SSFFD during the annual budgetary process, and personnel are hired, as needed, to ensure that adequate fire protection services are provided. The cumulative impact, therefore, on fire services in the City would be less than significant. The proposed project's contribution to this cumulative impact is also less than significant because current response times are adequate and not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project and there would only be a negligible increase in daytime population as a result of the project which ensures that the officer to population ratio would remains adequate. In addition, existing cit<~ programs, practices, and procedures would continue to ensure the adequate provision police protection services. Therefore, the contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on fire protection services would not be cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be aless-than-significant impact. Utilities The geographic context for a discussion of cumulative impacts to utilities is the service area of the utilite in question. For instance, the geographic context for cumulative impacts to water supply is the CWSC and SFPUC service areas; to wastewater, it is the East of 101 Area; and to the storm drainage system, the Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-27 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons geographic context is the local watershed. The cumulative impacts analysis for each utility includes all cumulative growth within its respective service area, as identified by the providers' demand projections. Growth and utility demand forecasts for each utility are presented in the "Existing Conditions" and "Environmental Analysis" discussions of 4.13 Utilities. Cumulative effect on groundwater supplies or interference with groundwater recharge. By 2030, CWSC's three peninsula district are projected to increase the average daily demand by an additional 1.5 mgd, while supply allocation form the SFPUC is expected to increase by 1.2 mgd, as shown in Table 5-3. The proposed project's projected increase in demand is 0.29 mgd or 20 percent of the anticipated growth from the three districts. Any increase in the total demand will increase the demand on groundwater resources during drought years to supplement surface water shortfalls and could have a significant impact on the water table during drought years. The current shortfall is 10.4 mgd during multiple drought years. By 2030, the shortfall will be reduced to 8.03 mgd due to projected increases in SFPUC supplies. The proposed project's projected increase in demand is 20 percent of anticipated growth, and represents less than 4 percent of the future supply deficit during multiple drought years, as a result the impact is cumulatively considerable. HbnnelYeer OteQ~Rlaal ~Dryl'i9erEWent Ard~eeeA~er~uest UryYeer Nserl Yeer2 Year3 `2OW rr~d Pema-k n'~pd peroerK nod Pik ~ ` peroe-k ~ Pe1~-x CWSC SFPUC Allocations 38.25 100% 31.33 81.9% 31.33 81.9% 27.23 71.2% 27.23 71.2% Local CWSC Suppliesa 2.73 100% 2.46 90.0% 2.46 90.0% 2.18 80.0% 2.18 80.0% TOTAL CWSC Supplies 40.98 100% 33.79 82.4% 33.79 82.4% 29.41 71.8% 29.41 71.8% CWSC Demandb 39.83 39.83 39.83 39.83 39.83 Difference 1.15 2.9% -6.04 -15.2% -6.04 -15.2% -10.42 -26.2% -10.42 -26.2% 20111 CWSC SFPUC Allocations 35.78 100% 32.13 89.8% 32.13 89.8% 27.97 78.2% 27.97 78.2% Local CWSC Suppliesa 2.73 100% 2.46 90.0% 2.46 90.0% 2.18 80.0% 2.18 80.0% TOTAL CWSC Supplies 38.51 100% 34.59 89.8% 34.59 89.8% 30.15 78.3% 30.15 78.3% CWSC Demandb 40.45 40.45 40.45 40.45 40.45 Difference -1.94 -4.8% -5.87 -14.5% -5.87 -14.5% -10.30 -25.5% -10.30 -25.5% 2A15 CWSC SFPUC Allocations 35.47 100% 32.59 91.9% 32.59 91.9% 28.39 80.0% 28.39 80.0% Local CWSC Suppliesa 2.73 100% 2.46 90.0% 2.46 90.0% 2.18 80.0% 2.18 80.0% TOTAL CWSC Supplies 38.2 100% 35.05 91.7% 35.05 91.7% 30.57 80.0% 30.57 80.0% CWSC Demandb 40.48 40.48 40.48 40.48 40.48 Difference -2.28 -5.6% -5.44 -13.4% -5.44 -13.4% -9.91 -24.5% -9.91 -24.5% g.28 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations CWSC SFPUC Allocations 36.01 100% 33.61 93.3% 33.61 93.3% 29.29 81.3% 29.29 81.3% Local CWSC Supplies 2.73 100% 2.46 90.0% 2.46 90.0% 2.18 80.0% 2.18 80.0% TOTAL CWSC Supplies 38.74 100% 36.07 93.1 % 36.07 93.1 % 31.47 81.2% 31.47 81.2% CWSC Demandb 40.72 40.72 40.72 40.72 40.72 Difference -1.98 -4.9% -4.66 -11.4% -4.66 -11.4% -9.25 -22.7% -9.25 -22.7% 2025 CWSC SFPUC Allocations 36.32 100% 34.66 95.4% 34.66 95.4% 30.22 83.2% 30.22 83.2% Local CWSC Supplies 2.73 100% 2.46 90.0% 2.46 90.0% 2.18 80.0% 2.18 80.0% TOTAL CWSC Supplies 39.05 100% 37.12 95.0% 37.12 95.0% 32.40 83.0% 32.40 83.0% CWSC Demandb 40.96 40.96 40.96 40.96 40.96 Difference -1.91 -4.7% -3.85 -9.4% -3.85 -9.4% -8.56 -20.9% -8.56 -20.9% 2030 CWSC SFPUC Allocations 36.96 100% 35.66 96.5% 35.66 96.5% 31.10 84.1 % 31.10 84.1 Local CWSC Supplies 2.73 100% 2.46 90.0% 2.46 90.0% 2.18 80.0% 2.18 80.0% TOTAL CWSC Supplies 39.69 100% 38.12 96.0% 38.12 96.0% 33.28 83.9% 33.28 83.9% CWSC Demandb 41.31 41.31 41.31 41.31 41.31 Difference -1.62 -3.9% -3.20 -7.7% -3.20 -7.7% -8.03 -19.4% -8.03 -19.4% - ncici w r.NNcnuu r, iauie r~r. ° Refer to Appendix F, Table 3-6. A new Groundwater Management Plan is being prepared by CWSC, the cities of San Bruno, Daly Cin' and San Francisco. This plan is expected to outline methods to maintain water qualirn and ensure water supply availability. The plan will also attempt to quantify the amount of groundwater available. The findings in this plan will guide future groundwater withdrawal rates based on the available supply and acceptable yield rates. As a result, the impact is not cumulativeh~ significant. While the proposed project's effect on groundwater supph~ is not a significant effect under CEQA, there are measures that the Cite could encourage the project sponsor to implement or impose as conditions of approval. Mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 (a) through (c) would reduce the proposed project's contribution to the total groundwater demand. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be considered less than significant. Cumulative effect on water supply. Table 5-3 demonstrates the supply reliability and projected future demands by varying hydrologic conditions over the 25-year planning horizon through 2030 as required by SB 610. Based on modeling of historical weather data, all BAWSCA members have a significant risk Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR X29 .2020 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations of water shortage rely=ing on potable water supplies delivered through the regional water supply system. The SFPUC Water Supply Reliability= Letter estimates that in 2010 CWSC has a 10.8 percent probability of at least a 10.2 percent shortage (3.65 mgd) and a 4.8 percent probability of a 21.8 percent (7.8 mgd) shortage, given the modeling circumstances and assumptions. As total water demands on the regional water system grow, water shortages will increase both in frequency and in magnitude. As such, the CWSC SSFD 2005 Draft UWMP contains a Water Shortage Contingency plan in the event of these potential system-wide supply reductions. The analysis of supply and demand shows that CWSC does not have sufficient water supplies to meet normal year demands after 2010 which is contrary to the SFPUC reliability statement in the SFPUC UWMP.3`' This comparison of supply and demand finds that under the current supply situation, CWSC can not meet the areas demand with secure purchase allotments from SFPUC even during normal years. With this understanding, it will be necessary for CWSC to further develop improved demand management measures that will increase conservation beyond the passive consen~ation mechanisms that are currently in place. CWSC has committed to reducing demand in all service areas in 2030 by 2.36 mgd,¢11 which will allow CWSC to meet average, but not single dry= year demands (10.8 percent probability of a shortage). A 10.8 percent probability of mandated reduction of normal year demand is considered a significant impact. As analyzed in the cumulative effects on groundwater, the proposed project would represent 20 percent of the projected growth for the CWSC's three peninsula districts; as such the proposed project impact on supply is cumulatively considerable. SFPUC and CWSC are dedicated to implementing conservation and water recycling measures. Although aggressive demand reduction of the project's water demands will not reduce the cumulative impact to less than significant, implementation of MM 4.13-1 (a) through (c) on all development within the cities' boundaries would reduce severity and frequency of mandated reductions. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be considered less than significant. Cumulative impact related to erosion from altering the existing drainage pattern of the site, the course of a stream or river, or substantially increasing erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The City of South San Francisco is a highly developed urban area with a large amount of impervious surface area. The project area is currently developed with buildings, parking areas and other structures. There are no waterways on the project site and development of the project, or other foreseeable development, would not alter the course of a stream or river. All projects over one acre in size must obtain an NPDES General Permit for stormwater discharge associated with construction activity. Under this permit, developers proposing construction activity that disturbs more than one acre of land must submit a Notice of Intent (NOI), develop a stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), conduct monitoring and inspections, retain records of the monitoring, report incidences of noncompliance, and submit annual compliance reports. The SWPPP ;`' SI'PUC, 2005 U~`~i~1P. p 81 ~" Personal Communication with Nicole Sandkulla, b4ondaj•, i~7arch 6, 2006. 5-30 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 5 Other CEQA Conslderatlons must address both grading/erosion impacts and non-point source pollution impacts of the development project, including post-construction impacts and sampling/monitoring requirements. Individual projects proposed under the 2006 FMPU that would disturb more than one acre of land would be required to obtain and comply with a NPDES General Permit for construction activitt~. Because the CitS~ is so highly developed, it is unlikely that any proposed project in the City would substantially convert a large parcel of land from pervious to impervious, thereby substantially increasing the amount of stormwater drainage flows, which could lead to increased erosion or siltation. Long term operational impacts of cumulative development would be similar to what currently exists in the area, with no substantial increase in stormwater runoff. With applicable projects obtaining the required NPDES permit to limit construction impacts and the small conversion of pervious to impervious surfaces, the same potential for erosion and siltation would occur as what currently exists. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. Cumulative impact related to flooding from altering the existing drainage pattern of the area, the course of a stream or river or substantially increasing runoff. Foreseeable development in the City of South San Francisco could potentially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, alter the course of a stream or river, or increase runoff that could cause on- or off-site flooding. It is possible that cumulative development could increase the amount of impervious surface area in the City such that drainage patterns are altered. However, it is not anticipated that the addition of a small amount of impervious surface area in the City would drastically increase stormwater flows. Surface water and stormwater runoff in the East of 101 Area are collected by the Citt~'s storm drainage system and discharged to San Francisco Bay to the east of the MEIR Study Area. Thus, all cumulative development as identified in Table 5-1 drains to the same drainage system (including the proposed project), and cumulative development could experience localized flooding. During hea~~~ storm events, outfalls below the mean high tide water elevation in the San Francisco Bay are likely to experience flooding when a heave storm event happens during high tide water elevations. During lower tide, the outfall would be above the mean high tide elevation and flooding likely would not occur. However, this is a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measure MM 4.13-7 would ensure that stormwater flows generated from individual projects are analyzed prior to project construction and the impact would be reduced to aless-than-significant level. Cumulative impact related to creating or contributing runoff that could add substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces (Brady 1994). The Genentech storm drainage system consists of underground pipes and outfalls emptying into San Francisco Bay at various locations (Dyett & Bhatia 2005). The outfalls to the San Francisco Bay are both above and below the mean high tide elevation of 3.1 feet. stormwater point and non-point source discharges are a major source of pollution in San Francisco Bay from the City> as the City's storm drainage system discharges to the Bap. As redevelopment in the East of 101 Area continues, industrial and commercial development could degrade water qualit~~ through industrial pollutant discharges or simply as a result of increased traffic. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 5-31 Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations To combat this problem, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Program (STOPPP), a consortium of all 20 cities located within San Mateo Count~~, has prepared a Best Management Practices (BMPS) plan to control pollutants in their Stormwater system. Compliance with the permit requirements for non-point source Stormwater discharge under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) also requires the propert}' owner of all construction projects over one acre in size to obtain a Stormwater discharge permit. The WQCP operates under STOPPP's Joint Municipal NPDES Permit. Still cumulative impact and redevelopment may result in a significant increase of pollutant load in the run-off. The proposed project represents 167 acres or 14 percent of the 1,177 acres in the East of 101 Area, as a result the proposed project is cumulatively considerable. Compliance with mitigation measures MM 4.13-1 and MM 4.13-6 would ensure that the project's contribution to stormwater pollutants flows would be minimized and would help reduce the amount of potentially harmful toxins on City streets, resulting in aless-than-sign2ficant cumulative impact. Cumulative impact related to a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the service area. The 2002 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan (Carollo, 2002) required sewer system upgrades and allocated construction costs to existing and future users. Projected flow rates were calculated to a 2020 planning horizon based on redevelopment of 32 parcels to research and development. An addendum to the 2002 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan (Carollo, 2006) recalculated demands based on the land use projections summarized in Table 5-1 (Background Growth-2015 Future Without Project Conditions and Figure 5- 1 (2015 Net Growth and TAZ Boundaries) in Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations. Demand factors and calculations are in Appendix F of the WSA (Appendix F of the DEIR). Current average dry weather flows in the East of 101 Area arc. approximately 2.0 mgd. The recalculated sewer flow rates, assumes the wastewater flow rates are equal to the water demands. The recalculated average dry flows were 4.7 mgd in 2015 and 6.4 mgd in 2030. The previous flow projections were 12.1 mgd in 2020, 1.9 times greater the revised flow. Deficiencies in the collection identified in 2002 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan still need to be repaired to provide for future capacity (Carollo, 2006), but the lower projected flows may result in a larger connection charge per unit of capacity. Since planned improvements to the collection will adequately the serve the cumulative growth, the impact to the collection systems is less than signlf2cant. Current flows to the WQCP are approximately 10 mgd, while the permitted capacity of the plant is 13.4 mgd (Waste Discharge Requirements R2 2003-0010). No water quality violations have occurred within the last two years. Projected growth for the East 101 Area is 3.7 mgd, an increase of 1.7 mgd. The resulting increase for the East of 101 Area does not exceed the capacity of the WQCP, as the cumulative impact would be less than significant. 5.6 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT Alternatives to the proposed project are presented in Chapter 6 (Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of this Draft MEIR. 5-32 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR CHAPTER 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project 6.1 ALTERNATIVES The following discussion evaluates alternatives to the proposed project and examines the potential environmental impacts associated with each alternative. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the relative environmental advantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. The CEQA Guidelines require that a range of alternatives be addressed, governed by a rule of reason. Not every conceivable alternative must be addressed, nor do infeasible alternatives need to be considered (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). When addressing feasibility, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states, "among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries. ..." The Guidelines state that the discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives capable of either avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental effects of the project while also achieving the project objectives, which are identified in Section 3.3 (Project Description, Project Objectives) of this MEIR. The alternatives discussion should not consider alternatives whose implementation is remote or speculative, and the analysis need not be presented in the same level of detail as the assessment of the proposed project. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, several factors must be considered in determining the range of alternatives to be analyzed in an EIR and the level of analytical detail that should be provided for each alternative. These factors include (1) the nature of the significant impacts of the proposed project, (2) ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternati~=es. The analysis in this MEIR indicates that the proposed project will result in significant unavoidable impacts with respect to air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic. Thus, the alternatives examined herein represent alternatives that would minimize or avoid the air quality, noise and vibration and traffic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. 6.2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT A number of alternatives that feasibly attain most of the project objectives were considered as a part of the planning process by Genentech and in this environmental review for the proposed project. In order to meet the intent of CEQA, a range of alternatives was developed. The anticipated significant and unavoidable impacts to occur as a result of the proposed project were factors in determining the type and range of alternatives to be evaluated in the MEIR. That is, the range of alternatives to be evaluated were defined in part by those alternatives that would have the potential to reduce or avoid significant effects of the proposed project, even if the alternative would impede, to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 6.1 Chapter 6 ARematlves to the Proposed Protect This section provides an analysis of the impacts of project alternatives. The analysis of each alternative provides a comparison of the potential impacts of the alternative to the proposed project. In summary, the alternatives that are evaluated in this section in more detail below include the following: ^ Alternative 7: No Project-Continuation of X995 Master Plan-The Continuation of the 1995 Master Plan alternative would continue development of the Genentech Campus under the terms of the 1995 Master Plan. Under Alternative 1, the existing campus would continue on its current 124-acre site and the building area would be limited to current project entitlements (which are all under construction or approved). See Table 6.1 for details of this alternative development under the proposed land use categories of Office, Laboratory, Manufacturing, and Amenity. Methodology forS'election of Alternative 7: Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. Therefore, under Alternative 1, the impacts of the proposed Master Plan (e.g., the 2006 FMPU) are compared to the impacts that would occur under the existing plan (e.g., the 1995 Master Plan). Compared to the 6 million gsf under the 2006 FMPU, this alternative would result in approximately 2.828 million gsf of development, and an associated employee population of 5,828 Because of the reduced development and employment levels, impacts of this alternative would generally be less than the proposed project. ^ Alternative 2: Reduced Development-Under this alternative, the total campus buildout area would be 160 acres, which is the same as the proposed project, but the projected building square footage would be only 4.63 million sf, and an associated employee population of 11,025. See Table 6.1 for this alternative development under the proposed land use categories of Office, Laboratory, Manufacturing, and Amenity. Methodology far Selection of Alternative 2: This alternative was selected as the one that would still meet most of the growth needs of Genentech while reducing the overall amount and density of development. As such, some potential environmental impacts related to construction and operation would be avoided or reduced. • •- RnposedPra~ect • . •• Abernatl-ei 1.996Mas6erPlan A~ametloe2 ReduoedDeti~elopmerrt Land Area 160 acres 124 acres 160 acres Office 2,629,395 sf 1,008,801 sf 2,462,500 sf Laboratory 2,002,482 sf 970,173 sf 1,532,500 sf ManufacturinglVllarehouse 1,041,668 sf 779,892 sf 317,500 sf Amenity 322,000 sf 69,500 sf 302,500 sf Total Building Area 5,995,545 sf 2,828,366 sf 4,630,000 sf Total Employees 13,319 5,828 11,025 fr2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Protect 6.3 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE The City considered during the planning process the feasibility of alternatives to the proposed project that would involve development of similarly-scaled facilities, but located outside of South San Francisco and the Bay Area. These offsite alternatives were found to be infeasible because then do not achieve the operational needs, project requirements, project objectives, or long term goals of Genentech. South San Francisco is the birthplace and headquarters for Genentech. The proposed project would meet the functional goals in the following ways: (1) South San Francisco is the company's historic home and center of its operations; (2) retention of the current workforce, many of whom could not be expected to move (or commute) to a new location outside the Bay Area; (3) expansion of the current campus is important to Genentech's identity and to its effective functioning, as this will promote continuing and informal interactions between existing employees from various sectors of the company; (4) the academic ambience of the existing campus in a picturesque and accessible location helps to attract and retain employees, along with the top graduate students entering the field; (5) proximin~ of the current headquarters to UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and Stanford Universitt~, and maintaining close relationships with these academic institutions contributes immeasurably to the research and development functions of the biopharmaceutical industry; (6) because the administrative functions of the company are as broad and diverse as the types of expertise that the employees possess, and because administrative staff is integral to supporting the research and development activities at Genentech, it is vital to keep all functions physically affiliated to ensure close coordination and communication among Research and Development, manufacturing, and administrative functions; (7) by expanding the current campus, Genentech is able to further its vision of an interconnected community, which also promotes alternatives to automobile transportation be emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, pedestrian access, and ease of movement between buildings. By contrast, creating new facilities outside South San Francisco and the Bay Area would undermine the company's ability to thrive and to retain employees. Specifically, an offsite alternative would not meet Genentech's functional objectives because: (1) it would separate the company from its historic roots; (2) it would risk the loss of key employees who were unable or unwilling to relocate; (3) it would result in poorer quality= of communications between employees from various sectors of the company who would no longer be in close proximity to one another; (4) physical separation from the research facilities at nearby academic institutions would result in difficulty borrowing materials from and conferring with individuals at those institutions, and would further harm recruiting efforts; (5) it would prevent Genentech from creating and maintaining an interconnected community environment. Expanding at its existing headquarters also allows Genentech to continue and strengthen its civic and community= ties and relationships. This would also serve to reinforce the vitality of the existing campus, further enhancing the aforementioned reasons for expanding it in South San Francisco. For these reasons, the alternative of building new facilities at locations away from South San Francisco and the Bay Area was considered and rejected. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 6.3 Chapter 6 Aftematives to the Proposed Project 6.4 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 6.4.1 Alternative 1-No Project: Continuation of 1995 Master Plan Alternative CEQA requires the evaluation of a "No Project No Build" alternative, which means "the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably= be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). Further, Section 15126.6(e)(3)(A) of the CEQA Guidelines states that when the project is the revision of an existing land use or regulatory plan, policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan, policy, or operation into the future. Evaluation of this alternative allows the Ciry to compare the impact of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. Description The No Project: Continuation of 1995 Master Plan alternative would allow for development under the 1995 Master Plan which includes the Genentech R&D Overlay District of 124 acres. It is likely that Genentech would pursue development within the East of 101 Plan independent of expanding the overlay district in accordance with the provisions of the P-I District requirements. Thus, some portion of the proposed project's growth would still occur; however, without the mechanisms of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Additional growth of non-Genentech related projects would also occur. Impacts In general, the No Project Alternative would reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. There would be less demand on utilities and public services with less additional development in the Ciry. Additionally, with less development, biological resources, cultural resources, traffic, air quality, and noise impacts, as well as exposure to geological hazards would be reduced. However, development under this alternative would not expand the Genentech R&D Overlay District and continued expansion of Genentech's campus would occur without the benefits provided by the proposed project. Without the proposed project, the interconnectedness of the Campus would not occur, with resulting benefits to separating parking uses from the central campus area as well as promoting even greater TDM effectiveness. Alternative 1 would also not achieve the City's or Genentech's objectives with regard to fostering the City's reputation as a bio-technology capital. The City's objectives with regard to completing the transition of the East of 101 Area from an industrial and light industrial area to a research and development and office center would also not be realized, as this would not occur under the No Project Alternative. Further, regional traffic growth would still occur, resulting in the potential for traffic impacts that would otherwise be mitigated by the proposed project. In general, this alternative would result in less severe impacts than under the proposed project. In the areas of aesthetics and land use, impacts of the No Project Alternative could actually be greater overall than with the proposed project because these beneficial impacts would not be realized. 6.4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Project 6.4.2 Alternative 2-Reduced Development Under this alternative, the total campus buildout area would be 160 acres and the projected building square-footage would be 4.63 million sf, compared to nearly 6 million sf under the proposed project. While the buildout area would remain the same (160 acres) under this alternative, the amount of overall development would be reduced. This alternative would result in less development, less traffic volumes and less traffic-related air quality and noise impacts, and would involve less construction. This alternative would still meet most of the growth needs of Genentech. Due to the reduced development potential under this alternative, some potential environmental impacts related to construction and operation would be avoided or reduced. See Table 6-1 for a description of the types and amounts of uses. Description Under the Reduced Development Alternative, Genentech would prepare the 2006 FMPU, and apply for an expansion of the Genentech R&D Overlay District from the current 124-acres to 160-acres. However, with this alternative, the projected development within the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District would be reduced to 1.8 million sf, for a total buildout of 4.63 million sf. The Reduced Development Alternative would allow Genentech to meet most of their growth needs while still being consistent with and compatible with the City's General Plan policies, ensuring that future growth and development within the project area avoids potential conflicts with the City's objectives of promoting the East of 101 Area as a premier biotechnology, and research and development sector. Impacts Biological Resources As described in the Environmental Setting, the majority of the MEIR Study Area has been developed, paved, or landscaped and supports largely non-native plant species. Suitable habitat for sensitive mammal, reptile, amphibian, or fish species does not exist within the Genentech Campus and only small fragmented coastal salt marsh habitat occurs along the shoreline at the end of Forbes Boulevard near the San Francisco Bay Trail public access parking area, and there are no wildlife migration corridors. In addition, it is assumed that the identified mitigation measures for the proposed project would be implemented for any construction activities under this alternative. This would reduce the impacts to less- than-significant levels. Some migratory= avian species and other raptors may use portions of the site and adjacent areas during breeding season, and are protected under the 11~1igratory Bird Treaty Act (l~IBTA). It is assumed that the identified mitigation measures that reduce impacts to migratory birds for the proposed project would be implemented and compliance with the MBTA, similar to the proposed project, and impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR ~ Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Protect Similar to the proposed project, landscaped areas in the Genentech Campus may contain trees defined as "protected" by the South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. However, compliance with the Tree Preservation Ordinance would reduce this impact to less than significant. Flood and Inundation Hazards Similar to the proposed project, coastal flooding and wave action during a 100-year storm would inundate the narrow strip of shoreline bordering the Genentech Campus to the east. However, as the wider strip of land just inland and along the shoreline is designated by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission as the Bay Trail, a public open space area; it is unlikely that development would occur in this area under this alternative. Buildings constructed in flood hazard areas are required to comply with the construction standards contained in Chapter 15.56 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC.) Section 15.56.140 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. For these reasons, this alternative would have less-than-significant impacts resulting from exposure to flooding as a result of a levee or dam, or effects of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow, similar to the proposed project, if not reduced due to less development. Air Quality The Reduced Development Alternative would concentrate less development (about 40 percent less) within the expanded Genentech R&D Overlay District area of 160 acres. As this alternative would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning regulations, and would implement and conform to various transportation control and trip reduction measures that are consistent with the BAAQMD's goals for reducing regional air pollutants, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Clean Air Plan. This alternative would be consistent with the BAAG 2000 Clean Air Plan; therefore, this impact would be less-than-significant. As less construction activity would occur under this alternative, and it is anticipated that the identified mitigation measures to reduce the effects of construction related emissions would be implemented under this alternative, impacts related to construction emissions under this alternative would be reduced and remain less than significant. While the reduced development under this alternative would reduce the amount of emissions from stationary and mobile source, these emissions would likely not be reduced to levels below the BAAQMD's threshold; therefore, as these emissions would exceed the BAAQMD's threshold, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. However, with the reduction of vehicle trips and development this alternative would not expose sensitive receptors within and adjacent to the MEIR Study Area to substantial pollutant concentrations, nor would this alternative expose people to objectionable odors. Under this alternative, the impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors would be reduced and remain less than significant. 6-6 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Prolect Noise and Vibration The Reduced Development Alternative would concentrate less development (about 40 percent less) within the expanded Genentech Overlay District area of 160 acres. Less construction activity= would occur under this alternative, and it is anticipated that the identified mitigation measures to reduce the effects of construction related noise impacts would be implemented under this alternative. Further, although construction related activities could exceed the City's established noise standard, the SSFMC exempts construction activities from the noise standard; therefore, impacts related to construction related noise exceeding the Cin~'s noise standard under this alternative would be reduced and remain Zess than significant. As less development would occur under this alternative, impacts associated with operation and traffic noise impacts exceeding the City's noise standard would be reduced and remain less than significant. Construction and operation related vibration impacts would similarly be reduced, and it is anticipated that development and construction under this alternative would implement the identified mitigation measures to reduce construction related vibration impacts; therefore, impacts associated with construction and operational vibration impacts would be reduced and remain Zess than significant. While the decrease in development would reduce the amount of vehicle trips under this alternative, vehicle trips would increase over existing conditions. Therefore, as no feasible mitigation is available to reduce this impact, impacts associated with an increase in ambient noise levels due to an increase in traffic related noise would remain significant and unavoidable. The less-than-significant impacts associated with increases in ambient noise levels resulting from construction and operation under this alternative would remain similar to the proposed project, although reduced due to less development and no mitigation would be required. Geology and Soils Slightly less development is proposed under this Alternative, and thus, geologic hazards associated with seismic ground shaking would be of a lesser magnitude than the proposed project because the smaller amount of overall development would lessen the risk of exposing structures to damage during ground shaking. Site-specific hazards associated with erosion, loss of topsoil, liquefaction, subsidence, landslides, and expansive soils would also be of a slightly lesser magnitude than the proposed project because less development would occur in the Campus under this alternative. As all future development in the project area would be required to adhere to the most recent California Building Codes, which include strict building specifications to ensure structural and foundational stability, this alternative would have aless- than-significant impact. On the whole, impacts would be Zess than significant under this alternative, and less than the proposed project due to the reduced amount of development associated with this alternative. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials would be largely similar to the proposed project, as the intensity of development would not substantially affect the potential for impacts to this resource. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 6-7 Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Project Similar to the proposed project, implementation of this alternative could result in the development of additional laboratories and other research facilities that would use, store, or require the transportation and disposal of hazardous materials. Genentech will continue to use materials, some of which are considered hazardous, during the course of daily operations. As with the proposed project, compliance with Genentech programs, practices, and procedures and safety standards related to the use, disposal, and transport of hazardous materials and wastes, and the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (RCRA, California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and principles prescribed by the USDHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health) would ensure that risks resulting from the routine use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes remain less than signif2cant. Similar to the proposed project, there is potential for encountering soil contamination at the listed sites during construction, which could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Impacts to emergency access would be similar to the proposed project, as construction activities could temporarily encroach onto roadways. As projects are reviewed on a site-by-site basis, it is expected that mitigation measures would be identified to reduce this impact to aless-than-significant level. Transportation/Traffc The Reduced Development Alternative would concentrate less development (about 40 percent less) within the expanded Genentech R&D Overla}' District area of 160 acres. The intent of the alternative would be to reduce impacts related to traffic, and traffic-related impacts like air quality and noise impacts. While the reduced level of development would mean reduced traffic volumes and less impact at the 10 identified intersections, it is still likely that the affected intersections would be potentially significant and would require the implementation of the mitigation identified for the proposed project. With mitigation identified for the project, these impacts would be less than signif2eant. With regard to freeway operations (both mainline and on- and off-ramps), the Reduced Development Alternative would still result in the signi~eant and unavoidable impact related to the segment of US 101 north of Oyster Point Boulevard in the peak commute hour during the A.M. and P.M. peak hour. The other freeway segments and on- and off-ramps would be affected less than and similar to the proposed project. The less-than-significant impacts related to transit use, air traffic patterns, parking capacity, design hazards, emergency access, and policies supporting alternative transportation would be similar to the proposed project, and would not require mitigation. Land Use and Planning Under this alternative, the Genentech R&D Overlay District would be expanded to 160 acres, as with the project. With the Reduced Development Alternative, growth strategy aims for expansion and redevelopment throughout the campus would be similar to the proposed project, concentrating on more intense administrative and office development in the Upper Campus and West campus. Research and g.g Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Protect development will continue to expand in the Mid and Lower Campuses. The Lower Campus will also support product development and related functions. In addition, the amenities will continue to be distributed throughout the Campus. The expected growth of the Campus to 4.63 million sf of building space on 160 acres will result in an overall Genentech R&D Overlay District FAR of 0.38. Within the Campus, development intensity will vary in each neighborhood in response to available land. Maximum FARs of each neighborhood will not exceed 2.0, with a Genentech R&D Overlay District overall FAR maximum of 1.0, as with the proposed project. Building typology will further dictate the development intensities throughout the Campus. The Genentech R&D Overlay District would be expanded as part of adoption of this alternative to include the Genentech property currently outside the boundaries of the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Therefore, impact to the proposed project would be less-than- significant. On the whole, impacts would be Zess than signif2eunt under this alternative, and less than the proposed project. Aesthetics The types of impacts associated with degradation of scenic vistas, changes in visual character and quality, obstruction/alteration of scenic resources within a state- or locally-designated scenic highway, and increased light and glare would be roughly similar to the proposed project under this alternative (with a few minor exceptions), as Genentech would continue to expand its Campus into the P-I zoned areas that it currently owns. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative could result in obstruction of views of a scenic vista and/or focal views of places of public interest (e.g., historic resources, public art, or landmarks). Similar to the proposed project, this alternative could obstruct views of San Bruno Hill and the Wind Harp Sculpture. This alternative would have to comph~ with Policy DE-5 of the East of 101 Area Plan, which directs development in the East of 101 Area to be designed to take advantage of views of Point San Bruno Hill with its "Windchime." Additionally, this alternative would comph~ with project requirements as dictated by the 2006 FMPU, as well as FAA height limitations, which would reduce this impact to Zess- than-significant levels. Development under this alternative would result in changes to the visual character and quality of the Genentech Campus. Similar to the proposed project, temporary degraded visual conditions associated with construction activities under this alternative would be temporan~ visual distractions typically associated with construction activities and equipment. As such, construction-related visual impacts associated with this alternative are considered Zess than signi~eant, and would be equal to the proposed project. The City will use the design policies specified in the City's East of 101 Area Plan in evaluating proposals for new development. For example, Policy LU-2 in the Land Use Element encourages new land uses to be similar to or compatible with surrounding development, and that new developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101 Area; Policy DE-1 in the Design Element states that developments on parcels adjacent to San Francisco Bay should emphasize the bay shore atmosphere and take advantage of the design and visual opportunities associated with the bay. Therefore, as this alternative would follow the design guidelines from the 2006 FMPU, permanent Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR g-.g Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Protect impacts to the visual character or quality of the Genentech Campus as a result of continued development under this alternative would be less than significant. In addition, light and glare would also be expected to increase with full buildout of the existing Genentech R&D Overlay District, as described for the proposed project. The proposed project includes mitigation measures to ensure that future project design features would be developed to ensure that lighting and glare impacts from specific development projects would remain at less-than-significant levels, and as this alternative would follow the design guidelines from the 2006 FMPU. Therefore, light and glare impacts from the reduced development alternative would also be less than significant, and would be less than the proposed project due to less overall development. Cultural Resources Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would not require demolition of a structure or structures which are potentially eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. This impact is Iess than signif2cant, similar to the proposed project. Ground-disturbing activities would continue to occur in order to accommodate new development. Consequently, the potential of encountering fossil-bearing soils and rock formations, destroying below- ground paleontological resources, affecting archaeological sites and sites of cultural significance to Native Americans would still occur, similar to the proposed project. Mitigation measures would be expected to be developed on a site-by-site basis as individual projects are proposed and reviewed. Therefore, it is anticipated that impacts under this alternative would be less than significant, and would be less than the proposed project due to less overall development. Population, Employment and Housing Development proposed under this alternative would make maximum use of existing infrastructure, and future development would be required to include provisions to make any necessary improvements. Thus, the indirect population growth impact resulting from infrastructure improvements associated with this Alternative is considered less than significant, similar to the proposed project. Continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit-including air and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future-future employees from and traveling to the City will have varied means of reaching employment sites. Additionally, the Housing Element Summary of Quantified Objectives exceeds the RHND by 24 units, and Genentech's continued employment growth would serve to balance regional needs between jobs and housing. On the whole, impacts would be Iess than significant under this alternative, and less than the proposed project. Public Services Implementation of this alternative would constitute a negligible increase in the city's population, and would not result in SSFPD's inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. As the current response times and service ratio's are adequate, and no new 6-10 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Altematlves to the Proposed Protect facilities that would result in potential significant impacts would be required, the project will result in a less-than-significant impact. The same holds true for fire service protection, as the fire fighter to population service ratio be reduced from what it is currently projected under the proposed project. The fire flow requirements will need to be analyzed specific to each building in order to determine if the local system can adequately handle the fire flow needs. If the local system is found undersized or deteriorating, then the pipelines will need to be modified by upsizing, new connections, and or the installation of pumps and tanks to supply the new requirements. On the whole, impacts would be less than significant under this alternative, and less than the proposed project due to the reduced size at project buildout. Utilities and Services Demand for public utilities, water, sewer, power, will be reduced proportionally with the reduction in development. Impacts to these sere=ices would be less than significant with mitigation still required for demand management, and less than the proposed project due to the reduced size at project buildout. Requirements for storm water drainage are independent of the amount of redevelopment in the Genentech R&D Overlay; however, increases in commercial and industrial activities may result in increases in pollutant loading. The reduced commercial and industrial activity= in Alternative 2 will potentially result in reduced stormwater pollutant loads, but any benefit will likely be offset by reduced implementation of storm water quality control devices required as part of the redevelopment. Storm water impacts of this alternative would be less than significant, and similar to the proposed project. 6.4.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on the information in this section, and as summarized in Table 6-2 (Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project), Alternative 1 would be superior to the proposed project, and would avoid or reduce impacts related to biological resources, air quality, noise and vibration, transportation and traffic, population and housing, public services, and utilities and services. The reduced impacts would occur because Genentech has largely built out its existing acreage within the Genentech R&D Overlay District. Without further new development, impacts would be avoided that are associated with new development. However, some impacts under Alternative 1 could be greater than the proposed project, for example, transportation and traffic impacts related to supporting alternative transit and pedestrian safety-. Without the proposed project, the interconnectedness of the Campus would not occur, with resulting benefits to separating parking uses from the central campus area as well as promoting even greater TDM effectiveness. Alternative 1 would also not achieve the City's or Genentech's objectives with regard to fostering the City's reputation as a bio-technology capital. The City's objectives with regard to completing the transition of the East of 101 Area from an industrial and light industrial area to a research and development and office center would also not be realized. Finally, Alternative 1 cannot be selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative as it is not a build alternative. As specified in the CEQA Guidelines, the MEIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives ~=hen the environmentally superior alternative is the no-build alternative. Thus, Alternative 2 would be the environmentally superior alternative. This Reduced Development Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Fr11 Chapter 6 Attematlves to the Proposed Protect Alternative proposes less development (total final buildout of 4.6 million sf compared to 6.0 million sf with the proposed project) on the expanded Genentech Overlay= District area of 160 acres. This alternative would result in less development, less traffic volumes and less traffic-related air quality and noise impacts, and would involve less construction. Specifically, impacts related to transportation and traffic, population, employment and housing, public services, and utilities and service systems would be similar or less than the proposed project. In addition, Alternative 2 would meet most of the City='s objectives for the site and East of 101 Area, specifically: ^ Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range ofnon-residential uses ^ Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses ^ Unless otherwise stated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 Area to the maximum limits permissible under the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 ^ Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot size ^ Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with restaurants, cafes, and support commercial establishments such as dry cleaners, to meet the need of the employees in the East of 101 Area. Such uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office parks or technology campuses In addition, Alternative 2 would meet Genentech's objectives, as follows: ^ First, allow Genentech to keep its key scientific personnel in proximity, so that they many continue to work together in support of its research, development and production goals. ^ Second, to keep certain central aspects of its business, both scientific and administrative, together physically for efficiency and maximum support. ^ Third, to assure Genentech's proximity= to world-class scientific and academic institutions. ^ Fourth, to foster a sense of community among its employees, creating interconnectivity and ease of access. Further, Alternative 2 would also comply with five General Plan policies that also serve as project objectives: ^ Articulate vision and policies that will serve as general guide for the placement and desilm of individual buildings and other Genentech Campus elements, as well as an overall development program to provide the basis for future approvals ^ Foster development of a Genentech Campus befitting its setting on the City's eastern bayshore, that capitalizes on views and access to the waterfront ^ Promotes alternatives to automobile transportation to further the City's transportation objectives by emphasizing shuttles, linkages, transportation demand management, and pedestrian access and ease of movement between buildings ^ Establishes the basis for the zoning provisions to be contained in an amended Genentech R&D Overlay District ^ Provide design guidelines that are proposed to be enacted after adoption of the 2006 FMPU and that will serve as a basis for design review and approval for development in the 2006 FMPU area. Thus, Alternative 2 would meet most of Genentech's growth objectives and in addition would meet all of the objectives of the City and Genentech related to the East of 101 Area. 6-12 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 ARematlves to the Proposed Protect 6.4.4 Comparison of Alternatives Table 6-2 (Comparison of Alternatives to the Proposed Project), provided at the end of this section, presents a summary comparison of post-mitigation project impacts with those of each alternative, assuming that feasible mitigation measures are also implemented for each alternative. This table presents the level of significance for impacts resulting from each project alternative, by issue area, as compared to the impacts of the proposed project (e.g., "LTS (greater)" indicates that although the level of significance of the project alternative is "less than significant," the impacts are greater than the proposed project). A'oAused Ak 1 At 2 E-n~iarrnerNaltssue/l~ Ao~ea6r~ (AftarA~Uar-) 199~iMasOer Pls-- fi~~ed Oetieigpmeni~ BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the NI/LTS Less Similar California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or LTS Less Similar by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to , , marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, NI Similar Similar hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or LTS Similar Similar impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? LTS Similar Similar f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state NI Similar Similar habitat conservation plan? FLOOD AND INUNDATION HAZARDS-Would the project: a. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? NI Similar Similar b. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? LTS Similar Similar c. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? LTS Similar Similar d. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? LTS Similar Similar AIR QUALITY-Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or pollution control district maybe relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? LTS Similar Similar b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or LTS Less Similar projected air quality violation? Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Cr13 Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Project Pror~need AIL 1 At 2 Rojecipnpact 1995Mesb~' Redixoed Fir-aFarnerxslls~ueArea (AfEerA~Har-) Plen Detiebpment c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for SU Less Similar which the project region isnon-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? LTS Similar Similar e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? LTS Similar Similar NOISE AND VIBRATION-Would the project result in: a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards LTS Less Similar of other agencies? b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or LTS Less Similar groundborne noise levels? c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity SU Less Similar above levels existing without the project? d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project LTS/NI Similar Similar vicinity above levels existing without the project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the NI Similar Similar project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose NI Similar Similar people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? GEOLOGY AND SOILS-Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, in'u , or death involvin i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for LTS Similar Similar the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic groundshaking? LTS Similar Similar Iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin liquefaction? LTS Similar Similar iv. Landslides? LTS Similar Similar b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? LTS Similar Similar c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site LTS Similar Similar landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building LTS Similar Similar Code (1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems, where sewers are not available for the NI Similar Similar disposal of wastewater? HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine LTS Similar Similar transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 6-14 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chante- 6 Altematlves to the Pmnncarl Pmtd•t • ~ - • • i . • • • ~ • • • • ~ • F~Nrarnerxal~SUeAraa ~~p~ 1^~~ ~ ~ l~Bl~ ~~ ~t b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous LTS Similar Similar materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? NI Similar Similar d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would LTS Similar Similar it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not , been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the NI Similar Similar project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? NI Similar Similar g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? LTS Similar Similar h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or NI Similar Similar where residences are intermixed with wildlands? TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC-Would the project: a. Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic LTS Similar Similar load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established SU Less Similar by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic LTS Similar Similar levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase vehicular and/or pedestrian safety hazards due to a design LTS Similar Similar feature or incompatible uses? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? LTS Similar Similar f. Result in inadequate parking capacity? LTS More Similar g. Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus LTS More Similar turnouts, bicycle racks)? LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? NI Similar Similar b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with , jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of LTS More Similar avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? NI Similar Similar AESTHETICS-Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? LTS Similar Similar Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR G15 Chapter 6 Altemati'ves to the Proposed Project Rupaged At2 AIL2 P-ofectbnpect 1.995A~esber Reduced Ern6ar-~erMAl~eueArea (~1 ~ ~ b. Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, NI Similar Similar and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its LTS More Similar surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day LTS Similar Similar or nighttime views in the area? CULTURAL RESOURCES-Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as LTS Similar Similar defined in Section 15064.5? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological LTS Similar Similar resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique LTS Similar Similar geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal LTS Similar Similar cemeteries? POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING-Would the project: a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through LTS Less Less extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction NI Similar Similar of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of NI Similar Similar replacement housing elsewhere? PUBLIC SERVICES-Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a. Fire protection? LTS Less Less b. Police protection? LTS Less Less UTILITIES AND SERVICES-Would the project: a. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- LTS Less Less existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? b. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would LTS Less Similar result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase LTS Less Similar the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site? 6-16 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 6 Alternatives to the Proposed Protect I~ 1 /~ Z +[ i~TJ ~WYU4~{/ y~,,~w~ F./~~~IODIRevCp ~~p~ irrwr d. Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or LTS Similar Similar planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause LTS More Less significant environmental effects? f. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant LTS Similar Similar environmental effects? g. Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? LTS Less Less h. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or , may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's LTS Less Less projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? i. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? LTS Less Less j. Comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste? All - AI.. 1 NI Similar Similar ~~~ ~~~ ~,.,~u~~ - ~oaa .hall algnlncani au = aigniricani and Unavoidable Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Cr17 CHAPTER 7 Report Preparers CEQA LEAD AGENCY City of South San Francisco Marty Van Duyn Assistant City Manager Susy Kalkin Acting Chief Planner Mike Lappen Senior Planner Dennis Chuck Senior Engineer Ray Razavi City Engineer CSG Consultants, Inc. Cyrus Kianpour Vice President of Engineering Curt Luck Project Manager PROJECT SPONSOR Genentech Lisa Sullivan Strategic Facilities Planning Shar Zamanpour Principal Planner Meg Fitzgerald Senior Legal Counsel Mark Cuzner Project Engineering Consultant Minitier & Associates Jim Harnish Principal Dyett Bhatia Rajeev Bhatia Principal Sarah Nurmela Project Planner Wilsey Ham- Utilities Master Plan Kristin J. Parsons, P.E. Principal Ken Selby Senior Engineer Kevin Okada Project Engineer AEI Affiliated Engineers- Hydrology Modeling James N. Sharpe, P.E., LEED AP Principal FEHR & Peers- Transit Matt Haynes, P.E. Transportation Engineer NelsonlNygaard- Traffic Report Ria Hutabarat Senior Associate Ty Lin InternationallCCS- Traffic Impact Analysis Shusuke Lida Civil Engineer Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 7.1 Chapter 7 Report Preparers .Warne lssueAraq/R+cle EIR CONSULTANT TEAM EIP Associates Kim Avila, AICP Project Manager Daniel Kenny Deputy Project Manager Julian Capata Deputy Project Manager Linda Tatum Planning Lead Jordan Smith Water Resources Lead Sam Anderson Technical Analysis Jessie Barkley Technical Analysis Kevin Beauchamp Technical Analysis Demian Ebert Technical Analysis Erin Efner Technical Analysis Christina Erwin Technical Analysis Shannon Kimball Technical Analysis Ruta Kshirsagar Technical Analysis Fan Lau Technical Analysis Shraddha Navalli Technical Analysis Sheldon Nylander Technical Analysis Seema Sairam Technical Analysis Marissa Staples Technical Analysis John Steere Technical Analysis T.J. Weule Technical Analysis Joel Miller Administrative Manager Christopher Perry Administrative Support Ron Arzaga Administrative Support Pedro Vitar Administrative Support James Songco GraphicslCover Design Korve Engineers, Inc.-Traffic Report Tim Erney, AICP Principal Transportation Planner Ryan Niblock Traffic Engineer 7-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR