Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18_Sec4.13_Utilities_web 4.13 Utilities 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 Su pply Domestic Water The California Water Service Company-Bayshore District (CWSC) serves the portion of the City east of 1-280, 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 Water 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 Analysis 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. Existing Proposed Net Increase 0.060 0.155 0.096 0.131 0.092 -0.039 0.004 0.021 0.016 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 capacity 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 f1te protection services is included in Section 4.12 Public Services. This section addresses the infrastructure to deliver the required water used for f1te protection. The delivery of water for f1te 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 f1te systems for the Upper and Lower campuses. There are several buildings within the Genentech Campus that have water storage tanks and/or f1te pumps installed for local pressure control. Wilsey Ham (2005) prepared a f1te flow model for the campus. The model assumed f1te requirements ranging from 360 to 2000 gpm based on building size. The model identified potential deficiencies in the system. There have been no f1te flows measured on site since the addition of the new high pressure force main. 4.13-2 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems Wastewater Wastewater collection system Sewage and wastewater generated within the City is collected through the City's sewer system and is disposed of and treated at the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (wQCP). 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 (1/1) problems. 1/1 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 System Master Plan for the City's wastewater system, Pump Station 8, located in the Lower Campus, has an existing f1tm 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 serving 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 system 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 Analysis 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 improvements 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 citywide 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 payoff the bonds would be collected through increased rates charged to current and future users of the sewer system. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-3 Chapter 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. 4/1/2003 Oil and Grease daily maximum, mg/L 20 35 7/1/2003 Cyanide daily maximum, IJg/L 10 19 10/4/2003 BOD weekly average, mg/L 45 52 10/11/2003 BOD weekly average, mg/L 45 54 1 0/31/2003 BOD monthly average, mg/L 30 37 SOURCE: RWQCB NO R2-2004-0075 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, anaerobically 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 4.13-4 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems treatment, graywater 1trlgation, 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. Surface 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 City'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 City'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 City, 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 City 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 1 997) . Industrial and commercial development could degrade water quality through industrial pollutant discharges. Indirect degradation of surface water quality could affect fish and wildlife species in local water 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 body. 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 (P 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. 4.13-6 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 layers. 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 City'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 (EP A) 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 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Sol id 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 City 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.20 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 (pG&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 20 According to the Genentech Corporate Environmental Peiformance Report (Genentech 2004), Genentech's South San Francisco facility generated a total of 2,775 metric tons per year of non-hazardous waste in 2004. The daily generation rate was calculated by dividing the annual tonnage by 52 weeks per year, then by dividing the weekly tonnage by five operation days per week. 4.13-8 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities 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 secondary 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 (pG&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 property, 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 Grandview 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 safety 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 Environmental Analysis Most of the remainder of the Genentech's greenhouse gas emlSS10nS 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 f1tst 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 CW A 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 CW A was enacted in 1977 as a series of amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. Section 303(d). Section 303(d) of the CWA requires each state to identify waters that will not achieve water quality 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 s::: .6 :E III C (,!) c "E G.I :; <c c >- Z "C C) ~ ~ CIIl:: :B w 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit system was established in the CW A 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, authority for issuing NPDES permits has been delegated by the EP A 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 activity 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 activity. Stormwater NPDES permitting for certain classes of industrial activ1ties, 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 Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program," below. State Urban Water Management Planning Act The Department of Water Resources (DWR) provides urban water management planning services to local and regional urban water suppliers. In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management 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 (UWMPs) as well as how Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-15 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 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-$16,076.38 . BMP 02 Plumbing Retrofit-$3,743.50 . BMP 06 High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate-$18,373.00 . BMP 07 Public Education-$6,964.56 . BMP 08 School Education-$8,227.80 . BMP 14 ULFT Rebates-$22,047.60 . Large Landscape Program (ET Controller)-$16,659.00. 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 (WSA) 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 Water 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 Utilities and Service Systems Pretreatment Program and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program The City'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 Waste 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 City 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 Countywide 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 a space- conditioning component and a water-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 City requires all new buildings to meet Title 24 standards. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-17 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis Regional Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Region Prepared by the RWQCB, the Water Quality 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) 1S 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 f1tst 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. Loca I 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/County 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 Utilities 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 serves 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 CW A. Because individual projects proposed under the 2006 FMPU would apply 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 property, 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 Safety 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 5.3-1-1 and 5.3-1-2 of the Parks, Public Facilities, and Services Element call for the City to work with CWSC and W estborough 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 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis . Actively 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 conservation 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 5.3-1-6 Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, state, and regional standards; treatment costs would remain affordable. Policy 5.3-1-7 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 8.3-1-1 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 Waste 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 City 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 Utilities and Service Systems Policy PF-8 Specific development proposals in the East of 101 Area shall be evaluated individually to determine drainage and flood protection requirements. Policy PF-9 All development in the East of 101 Area shall comply 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 Utility 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 City'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 Utility lines serving new development shall be installed underground, unless the City finds that undergrounding would be financially infeasible for a specific project. Financing 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 how 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 they 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 Analysis 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 City. 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 a cost-effective overall solid waste and recycling program for the citizens, businesses, and institutions of the City. 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 CW A. 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 Utilities and Service Systems general requirements for all users, the chapter authorizes monitoring and enforcement activities, requires user reporting, assumes that existing customer's capacity 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 City. 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 property 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 by 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 (N ovember 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 efficiency21 by 10 percent by the year 2010, compared to 2004. . Greenhouse Gas Goal: Improve energy efficiency22 by 10 percent by the year 2010, compared to 2004. 21 Water efficiency is measured as total water use divided by kilograms of marketed product produced (Genentech 2004). 22 Energy efficiency is measured as the total weight of energy-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 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 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 f1tst 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 capacity 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 Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities 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.23 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."24 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 supply 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 23 Westside Basin GMP: Table 3.3-3 from 2005 Draft SSFD UWMP, page 24 as referenced in City of South San Francisco, Water Supply Assessment for the Proposed Genentech Facilities Master Plan, July 2006, page 14, Table 2-2. 24 2005 Draft South San Francisco Urban Water Management Plan, page 31. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-25 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 4. Recycled Water Use 5. Source Water and Wellhead Protection In an effort to expedite the data gathering process the partic1pants 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) MM 4. 13-1(b) The prqject applicant shall include methods of water conservation in the proposed prqject's buildings and landscaping. These methods shall include, but not be limited, to the following: · Install water-conserving dishwashers and washing machines, and water-efficient centralized cooling !}stems in all new buildings (this method would not applY to process development or research development laboratory equipment) · Install water-conserving imgation !}stems (e.g., dnp imgation and Evaportranspiration- based imgation controllers) · Grqy water imgation !}stem (as detailed in General Plan Poliry PF-7, but other elements of that poliry do not applY here, such as wastewater treatment facilities)) · Deszgn landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants · Install water-saving devices such as water-efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads The prqject applicant shall install separate water meters for buildings and landscapingfor parcels with greater than 10,000 if imgated area. 4.13-26 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities 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 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 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) Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the prqject applicant shall develop a SWPPP prior to construction to protect water quality during and cifter construction. The prqject SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures for the construction period: · Erosion co ntro 1/ soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching, erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and f?ydro-seeding, shall be utilized, in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association of Bqy Area Governments (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. Silt fences used in combination with fiber rolls shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Fiber rolls shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets. · BMPs for preventing the discharge of other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment ~.. e., paint, concrete, etc.) to downstream waters · After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected for accumulated sediment, and these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment 4.13-27 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis PR4. 13-1(b) The applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City of South San Francisco in cOf!junction with the Grading Permit Application. The Erosion Control Plan shall include controls for winterization, 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 resultingform both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned access routes. Public works stciff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note af!Y 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 designed 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 significant. 4.13-28 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities 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- significant level. 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 Water 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 a less-than-significant level. MM 4. 13-2(a) The prqject applicant shall develop an operational SWPPP prior to construction to protect water quality cifter construction. The prqject SWPPP shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures for prqject operation: · Descnption of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the prqject site. Industn.al activities and significant maten.als and chemicals that could be used at the proposed prqject site shall be descn.bed. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. 4.13-29 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis · Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the prqject site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls uses as needed. · Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequenry shall be carefullY described including vector contro~ clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/ landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs mqy be hazardous; therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared on a dailY basis of debris that mqy enter the storm drain .rystem. · The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequenry agreed upon ~ the RWQCB and/ or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annuallY in coordination with the 5 TOPPP. The swppp shall be acfjusted, as necessary, to address af!Y inadequacies of the BMPs. · The prqject applicant shall prepare itiformational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all emplqyees at the prqject site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: (1) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping chemicals; (3) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and (4) prohibition of af!Y washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. MM 4. 13-2(b) The prqject applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/ water or oil/ grit separator) on-site to remove oils and heary particulates from stormwater. Appropriate si~!ng of the unit relative to the impervious suiface drainage area is important and should be taken into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit model and size. MM 4. 13-2(c) The prqject applicant shall incorporate alternative drainage solutions around suiface parking lots and near large areas of impervious suifaces such as public plazas. Such solutions mqy include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/ tree boxes, and ponds. MM 4. 13-2(d) The prqject applicant shall incorporate rooftop or downspout retention into all buildingplans. 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 Utilities and Service Systems buildings in the 2006 FMPU have water storage tanks and f1te pumps for local pressure control (Dyett & Bhatia, 2005). The automated fire suppression systems in existing buildings significantly reduce the risk of f1te 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 potentially 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 f1te flow demands to a less-than- significant level. MM 4. 13-3 (a) Prior to first building permit, the prqject applicant shall consult a NCEES certified Fire Protection Engineer to prepare an analYsis of the proposed prqject and determine the required design fire flow and fire duration. A certified report shall be submitted to the South 5 an Francisco Fire Department for review and comment. MM 4. 13-3 (b) Prior to receiving a building permit, the prqject applicant shall peiform fire flow tests for all f?ydrants within 500 feet of the prqject site pursuant to American Water Works Association filed testing standards (A WW A 1989) to verify if adequate fire flows defined in mitigation measure MM 4. 13-3 (a) are achieved. Atry deficienry measured shall be corrected and retested prior occupanry. MM 4. 13-3 (c) California Water Service Compatry shall certify that reservoir storage, bryond their operational and emergenry allotments, required for 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 designed 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 by 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 Analysis 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 a less-than- significant 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 County. 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 (BA WSCA). The BA WSCA 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 BA WSCA 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.25 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. 25 Approved SFPUC, 2005, UWMP and SAA language (Appendix 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, BA WSCA 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.26 In terms of water supply reliability, the SFPUC UWMP defines system "f1tm delivery capability": (System supply reliability is expressed)...in terms of the system's ability to deliver water during historically experienced droughts."27 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 hydrologic periods; however, the MSA allows the SFPUC to curtail deliveries during droughts, emergencies and scheduled maintenance activities.28 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.29 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.30 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.31 The SFPUC and the wholesale members developed a long-term strategy to accommodate or rectify the potential of future water shortages throughout its wholesale and retail operations.32 The methodology for determining water supply reliability during drought years is the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan (IWSAP). In 2000, the SFPUC and BA WSCA 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?3 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. 26 SSFD Purchase Request Estimates: Year 2015 (7.2 mgd); Year 2020 (7.5 mgd); Year 2025 (7.7 mgd); Year 2030 (8.0 mgd). 27 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water SupplY Master Plan, April 2000, page 20. 28 Approved San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UWMP Language. 29 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Water SupplY Master Plan, April 2000, page 20. 30 Nicole Sandkulla, Water Resources Analyst, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Personal Communication, February 3, 2006. 31 The reliability will increase to 4.8 percent chance of a 24.2percent reduction after 2012 following reservoir improvements. 32San Francisco Public Utilities Commission UWMP, 2005, page 22. 33 Approved San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UWMP Language. Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13-33 Chapter 4 Environmental Analysis 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 f1tst 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 h 34 S ortage. 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 BA WSCA 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 200535. 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 dry 36 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.37 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. 34 Approved San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UWMP Language. 35 Water Supply Reliability Letter (Appendix A) 36 SFPUC, 2005 UWMP, p. 31. 37 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2005, UWMP, page 22-29. 4.13-34 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities 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 quality 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 Analysis 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 ITS 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 City. 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.38 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 significant. 38 Although specific land uses (office, lab, manufacturing, amenities) in the MEIR Study Area would not consistently double in square footage across all land uses under the 2006 FMPU (see Table 3-1), it is assumed that the waste generated by the culmination of activities in the designated Business and Technology Park land use would directly correlate with the square footage of the Business and Technology Park land use. According to the Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts (Ventura County Solid Waste Management Department, May 1998), a solid waste generation rate of 0.0108 pounds per square foot per day 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 directly relate to the increase in development proposed under the 2006 FMPU. 4.13-36 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR 4.13 Utilities 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 by 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 City 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 City's compliance with AB 939, this impact would be no impact. 4.13.4 References A WWA .1989. A WWA M17-Installation, Field Testing, & Maintenance of Fire Hydrants, American Water Works Association. Brady and Associates for the City of South San Francisco. 1994. East of 101 Area Plan, July. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2004. California's Groundwater: Bulletin 118, Westside Groundwater Basin, February 27. California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). 2006a. Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov /Profiles /Facility /Landfill/LFProfilel.asp?COID=41 &F ACID=41- 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 Analysis Carollo Engineers for the City of South San Francisco. 2002. City of South San Francisco East ofHighwqy 101 Sewer Master Plan, September 2002. .2006. Addendum to the City of South San Francisco East ofHighwqy 101 Sewer Master 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. Drcift 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 Peiformance Report. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFB RWQCB). 1995. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)for the San Francisco Bqy Basin. 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 ofHeary Metals to Storm Water From Automotive Disc Brake Pad Wear, Woodward-ClYde Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Program, City of Palo Alto Public Works Department, 2501 Embarcadero Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 4.13-38 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EIR