Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 01-2017 (16-879)MNumber: 16-879 Enactment Number: RES 01-201-1 WHEREAS, AP#-SF2 CT South LLC and AP#-SF3 CT North LLC (Genesis South San Francisco) ("Applicant") owns property commonly known as Terrabay Phase III of the Terrabay Specific Plan, located at One and Two Tower Place in South San Francisco, California, which is a development consisting of Research and Develo-,oment-. Commercial Of_fice. Retail and various amenities includinUA4= space ("Terra bay Project"); and WTr.#► # TV 17JJ0&'M9VflJ1VT4W-=1r&W7P Plan Alternative identified in the 1998/99 SEIR; and IMA ".x4mm-07UN the 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan, in July of 2008 by Resolution # 88-2008 and # 88-2009; and -!7m-m M-7� YY01Y.7 01-Al", 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") for Terrabay Phase III by Resolution 81-2006, all of which remain in effect; and City of South San Francisco Page I File Number. 16-879 Enactment Number. RES 01-2017 the 2006 Plan Amendment on October of 2006 by Resolution #82-2006; and WHEREAS, pursuant to consideration of the 2000 and 2006 Addenda and certification of the 1998/99 and 2005/06 SEIRs, for those impacts of the 2006 Plan Amendment and Final Terrabay Specific Plan that would remain significant and unavoidable, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations-, and j '41 all, 'ww'41; -IRV V=1 M a V,J �l No Y ", ITF"XIMMLY 01, hotel, restaurant and wellness center where the 2008 Product Design Studio was previously approved ("2016 Project' '); and WHEREAS, environmental analysis was conducted pursuant to CEQA, included as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by reference, to determine if additional environmental review was required for the 2016 Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and 2000, 2006, 2008, 2012, and 2015 Addenda, the 2005/06 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR; and the Terrabay Project and Project site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, included as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated by reference ("2016 Addendum"), was prepared for the 2016 Project, which identifies the project changes and their relationship to the analysis in the previous Addenda, SEIRs, and EIR; and as supporting documents, prior to making a recommendation on the 2016 Project; and ITAMIZA City of South San Francisco Page 2 File Number. 16-879 Enactment Number.- RES 01-2017 MMI 111�11111111111 ill ill MORI 11 111 1111", The City Council, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has considered the Addendum prepared for the 2016 Project including the related environmental analysis and 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, along with the previously certified EIRs and SEIRs. a hotel, wellness center, restaurant and retail uses, will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEOA Guidelines section 15162 that would reciuire further enviromnental review throue-b—nrmu'vinni-A rdlwlml� . . . . ............ --- ...................... . . . ................. City of South Son Francisco Page 3 File Number: 16-879 Enactment Number. RES 01-2017 Accordingly, the City Council finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any ftuther CEQA review, and that an addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriatfi- environtnental document for approval of the 2016 Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the 2016 Addendum and determines that the 2016 Addendum, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference is the appropriate environmental document for the 2016 Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. 4111"1102121f. "Ik Yes: 4 Vice Mayor Normandy, Councilmember Matsumoto, Mayor Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego City of South San Francisco Page 4 CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND GENESIS CAMPUS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING PROJECT ADDENDUM TO THE 1998/99 and 2005/06 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (SEIR) OCTOBER, 2016 BACKGROUND On June 24, 2015 City Council approved a modification to the Terrabay Specific and Precise Plans, and various other legislative and discretionary approvals to allow the Centennial Towers project at One and Two Tower Place to be occupied with Research and Development (R&D) as well as retail, amenities and office uses (City Council Resolution No. 64- 2015). The application was filed by Myers Development Company WC). Additionally, on July 23, 2008 City Council approved an optional 15,007 square foot `Product Design Studio' to be constructed adjacent and connected to the North Tower (Resolution 89- 2008). The Product Design Studio was to be an amenity to the occupant of the project then anticipated to be Sony Enterprises. On November 17, 2015, the current owner and applicant AP # -SF2 CT South LLC and AP # -SF3 CT North LLC (Genesis South San Francisco) assumed ownership of Centennial Towers and renamed the campus Genesis. The development team led by Phase 3 Real Estate Partners, Inc. (Phase 3) immediately begun fulfilling the construction and development obligations of the project. Construction on the second half of the parking garage is underway, and building permits for the North Tower and North Access Road are filed and under review by the City. Phase 3 continues to lease space on the campus and identify amenities and designs to improve the campus experience. The following table summarizes the 2015 approvals. An addendum to the 1998/99 and 2005 Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports was prepared, considered, and adopted by City Council (City Council Resolution 63- 2015). October, The following legislative and entitlement actions are proposed for the 2016 Amenity Building Project: 1. Amend the South San Francisco General Plan (1999) text (page 116 and Table 3.8-1) to clarify and refine the mixed use land use designation approved in 2015. The amendment would permit a hotel, restaurant, wellness center and support services in a seven -story building (defined as the Amenity Building) adjacent and connected to the North Tower. Note: The land uses requested have been permitted on the site since 2006 with the exception of a more inclusive definition of fitness or gym use to wellness center. The text amendment would allow the uses to be placed in the Amenity Building. 2. Amend various sections of the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District SSFMC 20.240, including permitted uses SSFMC Chapter 20.240.003.B.4, 13 and 16 and 20.240.015.S to define "Wellness Center" and clarify that the Wellness Center and various other permitted uses as ancillary to the anchor (dominate) land uses on the Genesis Campus. The anchor land uses are R &D, Office and Hotel. Amend SSFMC Chapter 20.240.013.E to trigger implementation of the valet parking amenity as defined in the Terrabay Transportation Demand Management Program. 3. Amend the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Phases II and III to add the Amenity Building, and clarify and define permitted uses. 4. Amend the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) to define the implementation of valet parking to begin after the Certificate of Occupancy for the Amenity Building. The mode shift requirement would remain at 34 %. 5. Amend the Precise Plan Drawings to include a seven story 73,495 square foot .Amenity Building housing a hotel, wellness center and restaurant as opposed to the two story 15,007 square foot Product Design Studio approved in 2008. PROJECT DETAILS Phase 3 is requesting legislative and entitlement approvals to construct an amenity /mixed use building (Amenity Building) where the Product Design Studio (PDS) was approved in 2008. The requested design would result in a considerably smaller cut into the hillside and less grading than the 2008; approximately 450 as opposed to 18,000 cubic yards of cut. The Amenity Building would be connected to the North Tower on the first and second floors similar to that of the approved 2008 PDS plan. Therefore, some R&D use would be converted to amenity space. Table 2 identifies the uses and approximate sizes. GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Backgroun4 October, 2016 The Amenity Building, so named because the structure would include a boutique hotel (70- 110 rooms), hotel lobby, Wellness Center, and restaurant. The Amenity Building, as shown on the attached SOM drawings, would be keeping with the overall design of the Genesis Campus. The shape and treatment of the facade, in addition to the scale of the building is intended to provide an active center between the South and North Towers. This central link provides the type of collision space where tenants and the community can meet, and is designed to create the vibrant and active life science community center that is central to Phase 3's vision for Genesis South San Francisco. Valet parking was approved for the campus in 2006 (SSFMC Section 20.240.013.E.4) and would activated when the project meets occupancy thresholds identified in the'fDM and based upon the annual audits of the TDM. The TDM is Attachment A to Chapter 2 of this document. Phase 3 Genesis believes that valet parking is a functional service that will improve the experience of visitors to the project. A drop off and pick -up area is proposed in front of the Amenity Building as shown on the Precise Plans. GENESIS 2016 AMENUW BUILDING-- October, 2016 The CEQA analysis for the 2016 GENESIS Amenity Building Project tiers upon a 34 -pear planning and environmental history, summarized below. CEQA BACKGROUND 19822015 1982) 1996, 1998/99 and 2005 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports (SEIR) The Terrabay project was first envisioned in 1980. The land was within the County of San Mateo's jurisdiction and required annexation into the City of South San Francisco. The project began with an environmental impact report (EIR) prepared by Thomas Reid and Associates ('M) on the formation of the first Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in the nation under auspices of the Endangered Species Act of 1978. The TRA EIR, managed by San Mateo County, assessed the formation of the HCP that involves the cities of South San Francisco, Brisbane, Daly City and San Mateo County. One of the requirements identified in the HCP is to construct Terrabay in three separate phases to reduce dust impacts to the food plants for protected and endangered species on San Bruno Mountain. Historically the Project site is known as Terrabay Phase III in the HCP and the HCP EIR. The overall Terrabay phasing is identified as: Phase I Village and Park residential, Phase II Woods, Pointe and Commons East and West residential and Phase III commercial. The project names have changed over the years; Terrabay Phase III, to Centennial Towers and now Genesis Campus. An environmental impact report (EIR) for all phases of the Terrabay project was prepared by EIP Consultants and certified by the City in 1982'. The Terrabay Zoning District (Chapter 20.240 South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)- Zoning) was adopted in 1982 and accompanied by both a specific and precise plan. Residential, retail commercial, commercial office, open space, habitat preservation and recreation are the permitted land uses. Various modifications and refinements to the original land use plan have been requested and conditionally approved since 1982. Three supplemental environmental impact reports (SEIRs) were prepared and certified by the City; in 1996 by John Wagstaff Associates, in 1998/99 by Nichols Berman and in 2005/06 by Placemakers. Five addenda to the environmental documents have been prepared and adopted in 2000, 2006, 2008, 2012 and 2015. ' San Mateo County Board of Supervisors also certified the EIR as the 1982 project involved annexation of land into the City of South San Francisco. GENESIS 2016 AMENITY UI 1 G Chapter 1 Project Description d. Envizonmebtal Background October, 2016 1982 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Analysis The following table outlines the Terrabay development proposal analyzed in the 1982 EIR. 'I'AI�I.F 3 1982 TERRABAY EIR ANALYSIS Residential — Phase I roved 1982 As -Built 2005 Village 181 161 units Park 136 125 units Phase II Woods 200 135 units Commons East 57 0 (Recreation Parcel for City) Commons West 77 182 units (Commons West and Point merged into one area in 2000 referred to as "Me Pointe' Point 99 Commercial Phase III 663,000 Sq. ft. office, health club, restaurants, hotel, seminar and hi technology center 0 The alternatives analyzed in the 1982 EIR include: a No project /no development of the site. a Mined use consisting of 745 dwelling units, a 200 room hotel inclusive of a 150 seat restaurant /bar, two additional restaurants consisting of 300 and 150 seats and 210,000 square feet of office. 1,036 residential units and a 10.4 -acre shopping center of undefined square footage and location. • 985 dwelling units including 30% for seniors and 20% for low and moderate income households. 1996 Terrabay SEIR The 1996 SEIR analyzed the impacts associated with extending the terms of the development agreement for the Terrabay Project. Phase I Terrabay Village and Park residential subdivisions were under construction at the time, as were the Terrabay Fire Station, Terrabay Recreation Center, Sister Cities Boulevard, Terrabay water tank (potable), Terrabay linear park, grading improvements to Hillside School and construction of South San Francisco Drive. The 1996 SEIR analyzed Terrabay Phases II and III as shown in Table 3, above. The 1996 SEIR noted the presence of but did not analyze the impacts to wetlands, special species habitat and a cultural resource (archaeological) on the Phase III lands. GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING — October, 2016 1998/99 Terrabay SEIR The 1998/99 SEIR was prepared in response to an application from Sunchase, G.A. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed the development proposal shown in Table 4. In response to City of South San Francisco direction, the Final 1998/99 SEIR analyzed a "Mitigated Plan Alternative." The Mitigated Plan Alternative concentrated development on three "pads" south of the archaeological site, entirely avoiding disturbance to the 5,000 -pear old shell mound, wetlands and special species habitat, and consisted of the following: A 4.9 -acre development pad with 340,000 square feet of office and a five level parking garage (situated in front of the office tower); A 1.8 -acre development pad with a hotel, 7,500 square foot restaurant or office use and surface parking; and A 2.9 -acre development pad with a 150 room hotel. The following alternatives were analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. • No Development - Analyzed the impacts of no development on the Terrabay Phase II and III sites. • Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Analyzed 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. • Deduced Residential - Analyzed 316 residential units and no commercial. • Reduced Commercial - Analyzed 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. • Permanent Open Space - Analyzed the impacts associated with dedicating Phase II and III parcels as permanent open space. The 1998/99 SEIR (State Clearinghouse #97- 82077) was certified by South San Francisco City Council, Resolution 19 -99. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed geology, soils and seismicity, . GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1. Project Description and E i .. Cd Background October, 2016 TABLE 4 1998/99 SEIR ANALYSIS Residential Phase II Number of Units/Type of Units Woods 135 single family detached Commons 32 duplex attached Pointe 181 duplex and triplex attached TOTAL PHASE II 348 units Commercial Phase III Square Footage Hotel 235,000- 280,000 Restaurant 12,000 - 18,000 Retail 6,000- 10,000 Mixed Use 30,000 - 35,000 TOTAL PHASE iii 1 283,000 - 343,000 In response to City of South San Francisco direction, the Final 1998/99 SEIR analyzed a "Mitigated Plan Alternative." The Mitigated Plan Alternative concentrated development on three "pads" south of the archaeological site, entirely avoiding disturbance to the 5,000 -pear old shell mound, wetlands and special species habitat, and consisted of the following: A 4.9 -acre development pad with 340,000 square feet of office and a five level parking garage (situated in front of the office tower); A 1.8 -acre development pad with a hotel, 7,500 square foot restaurant or office use and surface parking; and A 2.9 -acre development pad with a 150 room hotel. The following alternatives were analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. • No Development - Analyzed the impacts of no development on the Terrabay Phase II and III sites. • Existing 1996 Specific Plan - Analyzed 432 residential units, 669,300 square feet commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant. • Deduced Residential - Analyzed 316 residential units and no commercial. • Reduced Commercial - Analyzed 293,000 square feet of commercial consisting of retail, office, hotel and restaurant and no residential. • Permanent Open Space - Analyzed the impacts associated with dedicating Phase II and III parcels as permanent open space. The 1998/99 SEIR (State Clearinghouse #97- 82077) was certified by South San Francisco City Council, Resolution 19 -99. The 1998/99 SEIR analyzed geology, soils and seismicity, . GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1. Project Description and E i .. Cd Background October, 2016 hydrology and drainage, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, public services (police and fire) and hazards as well as the wetlands, biological and archaeological resources that were not previously analyzed. 2005/06 SEIR In 2005, an application was submitted by Myers Development Company (MDC) for a mixed -use development on the Phase III lands only. The Preservation Parcel was dedicated to the County of San Mateo in 2004 as permanent open space. The 2005 Project application requested entitlements for 357,500 gross square feet of retail; a 295,500 gross square foot office building; and 351 residential units (see Table 5). A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (2005/06 SEIR) was prepared for the 2005 project. TABLES 20.05/06 SEIR ANALYSIS Phase A Gross Square Feet Retail Restaurant, retail, multi -plex cinema with shared performing arts use, grocery store, police substation or designated emergency operations area 357,500 Residential 474,000 Market rate 248 units Below market rate 103 units Service Areas Loading, storage, mechanical, restrooms, supervised p la areas 70,000 Phase B Gross Gross Square Feet Commercial Office Office Child care center or fee 295,000 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 1,198,000 TOTAL PARKING Constructed 2,413 et 3,090 The 2005 SEIR analyzed two alternatives intended to build upon the alternatives analyzed in the previous environmental documents. The two alternatives analyzed are: • 357,500 gross square feet of retail, a 300 -room hotel and 351 residential units. • 357,500 gross square feet of retail and 531 residential units. The 2005 SEIR (State Clearinghouse #1997082077) was certified by City Council by Resolution 81 -2006. MDC, prior to the hearing before the City Council, withdrew the application stating that the project was too expensive to build. The 2005 SEIR was certified and it along with the 1998/99 SEIR comprise the baseline for environmental review of subsequent proposals. 7 GENESIS 2016 .AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 Environmental Addenda 20002012 2000 Addendum In 2000, MDC applied to the City requesting entitlements and legislative approvals to develop a 665,000 - square foot office tower inclusive of a 150 -seat shared use performing arts center, 7,500 square feet support retail and a child care center designed to accommodate 100 children. on the Phase III parcel. The application also included a request for a 96 -unit condominium tower (later approved for 112 units) and 70 paired units on a portion of the Phase II site (see Table 6). A request for lot line reconfigurations and a change in the land use designation of the "Commons Parcer' from residential to Open Space /Recreation and approximately 26 acres of the Phase III site from commercial to Open Space (known as the Preservation Parcel) for preservation of the archaeological site, wetlands and endangered species habitat was part of the application that was approved by the City. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to San Mateo County in 2004 for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain Park. The open space designation and conveyance implemented biological and archaeological mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR given that wetlands, special species habitat and an archaeological resource would be protected in perpetuity. Specifically, the mitigation measures are: Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.2 avoidance of take of callippee silverspot butterfly habitat. • Biology Mitigation Measure 4.3.3 avoidance of take of wetlands. • Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.1 avoidance of impacts to CA- SMA -40. • Archaeology Mitigation Measure 4.9.2 avoidance of impacts to CA- SMA -92. TABLE 6' r: , 2000 PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE 2000 ADDENDUM TO THE 1998/99 SEIR PARCEL LAND USE ACRES Preservation Parcel Open Space Preserve 25.73 Buffer Parcel Surface Paddng 2.69 Office Parcel 665,000 sq. ft./ Office (child care and performing arts theatre 18.08 Residential Parcel 96Condominium /Apartments 70 single family attached 14.96 Recreation Parcel 25,000 - 30,000 s . ft. Recreation Center 6.48 TOTAL 67.94 PORTION DEVELOPABLE 35.73 PORTION OPEN SPACE 32.21 8 GENESIS 2016 AMENT 17Y BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 The following figure shows the location of the Terrabay parcel dedications approved in 2000. FiGuRE 1 TERRABAY L.AtI-m T)T?nTrATTnWQ LEGEND OPEN SPACE/PRESERVE ® OPEN SPAWRECREATioN Preservadon Parch I Conveyed to County of San Mateo for inclusion In San Bruno Mountain County and State Park August 11, 2001 i Open Space I Recreation Parcel C Dedication accepted by City of South San Francisco } t April 2007 (Resolution 86.2007) ./I, 2006 Addendum On October 11, 2006 City Council approved the 2006 Project (Resolution 82 -2006) for the construction of 665,000 square feet of office in two towers (not a single tower as approved in 2000). Additionally, 24,000 square feet of commercial retail use and at a minimum one quality restaurant was approved, along with a shared use 200 -seat performing arts center, a 100 -child day care facility, and a public art program. Parking would be provided in an eight level garage which includes 1,896 spaces and 56 additional surface parking spaces for a total of 1,952 spaces (see Table 7). A TDM Program was approved for the project. The TDM Program targeted a 30% mode shift. Table 7 identifies the land use analyzed and approved for the 2006 Project. The South Tower is constructed and 55 percent occupied. The North Tower is not constructed. The 2006 Project along with the 2008 Project (described below) and Addenda are referenced throughout this document as the baseline approvals. The 2006 Project approved the land use configuration and uses and the 2008 Project approved a second level on the North Tower retail concourse. r October, 2016 TABLE 7 2006 PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE 2000 ADDENDUM TO THE 1998/99 SEIR Gross Squate Feet SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 Commercial Retail 11,544 Child Care 5,644 Child Care Outdoor Space 7,500 Perfomiin Arts 1 4,433 Sub Total 334,123 Puking 962 spaces NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 Commercial Retail 12,465 Sub Total 364,482 Parldng 990 spaces TOTALS Office 665,028 Commercial Retail 24,009 Child Care 5,644 Child Care Outdoor Space 7,500 Perfomiing Arts 4,433 .Total 706,614 Total Parldng 1,952 spaces Parcel Division On February 7, 2008 the City approved a Parcel Map separating the Development Parcel into two parcels consisting of a 14.83 -acre South Tower Parcel and 2.91 -acre North Tower Parcel with various reciprocal easements. 2008 Amendment On July 23, 2008, Council approved a request by Applicant to allow a 15,007 square foot "Product Design Studio" (PDS) above the ground floor retail concourse associated with the North Tower (Resolution 89- 2008). The PDS would support the office component in the North Tower, and not be open to the public. The addition would be constructed on top of the approved retail concourse connected to the North Tower thereby creating a second floor in this area. Approximately 2,500 square feet of office use in the North Tower would be converted to circulation area to provide the connection. The PDS was approved as an optional use, not a required one, and is tied to the North Tower office, only. Table 8 identifies the 2008 Project analyzed in the 2008 Addendum. The 2016 Project proposes to construct the seven story Amenity Building in a slightly smaller footprint in this location where the PDS was approved in 2008. 10 NES S 2016 AMEN C ITY BUILDING hapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October-, 2016 TABLE 8 2008 PROJECT ANALYZED IN THE 2008 ADDENDUM Land Use Gross S ware Feet Office 665,000 Commercial Retail 24,009 Second Floor Permitted Retail 5,644 Outdoor:Amenity Space 7,500 Performin Arts 4,433 Product Design Studio 15,007 Total 719,121 Total Paz ' 1,952 s aces 2012 Project December 12, 2012, an amendment was approved to clarify the Final Terrabay Specific Plan Permitted Retail Uses (see definition contained in Section LE.2 of the Specific Plan); to allow Terrabay Permitted Retail Uses on the second floor of the South Tower in an area consisting of 5,800 interior square feet and an outdoor public and private amenity area consisting of 7,500 square feet (City Council Resolution 107 - 2012). The new use replaces what was approved for a day care center and outdoor play area. The 2012 Project approvals stipulate the payment schedule for child care in lieu fees; and approve modifications to the TDM Program to achieve a 34% mode shift (see Table 9). TABLE 9" , TERRABAY PROJECT ANALYZED IN TAE 2012 ADDENDIJHv- 2012 "PROVED 'Y'ERRABAY Pl—RO CT Gross Square Feet SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 Commercial 11,544 Second Floor Retail 5,794 Outdoor Public Amnat-7 7,500 Performing .Arts 4,433 Sub Total 334,773 Parkin 962 s aces NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 Commercial 12,465 Product Design Studio 15,007 Sub Total 379,486 Parking 1 990 spaces TOTALS Office 665,028 Commercial 24,009 Second Floor Retail 5,794 Pedoanig Arts 4,433 Product Design Studio 15,007 Total 714,271 Total Parkin 1,952 s Paces Im GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDI14—G- October, 2015 PROJECT The 2015 Project was a request by MDC to convert the Commercial Office land use to R&D. Table 9, above reflects the CEQA analysis documented in the 2015 addenda with the exception that the Commercial Office uses were analyzed as R&D. A CEQA analysis was conducted and found that the 2015 Project resulted in less vehicle trips than the Commercial Office land use. The entirety of the Terrabay Project (Phases I. II, and III) was mitigated on the Residential and Commercial Office land use proposed and approved in 2000. To date, the modifications in the project result in less environmental impacts, largely due to the revised site plan (2000 and 2006), the TDM program and implementation of the traffic mitigations identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ALL CEQA DOCUMENTS ARE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE FOR THE GENESIS CAMPUS AMENITY BUILDING ANALYSIS 1. 1982 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Terrabay Development Project Environmental Impact Report. 2. 1996 Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Deport for the Terrarky Specific Plan and DevelopmentAgnement. 3. 1998/99, Terrabay Phase II and III Draft and Final Supplemental Envirnnrnenfa! Impact Report (1998/99 SEIR). 4. 2000 Addendum. 5. 2005106 Phase III Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. 6. 2006 Addendum. 7. 2008 Addendum. 8. 2012 Addendum. 9. 2015 Addendum. UPDATED CONDITIONS SINCE 1998/99 SEIR CERTIFICATION • The 25.6 -acre Preservation Parcel on the Phase III site was dedicated to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County /State Park. The conveyance of the Preservation Parcel took place on August 11, 2004 pursuant to the City of South San Francisco General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance and the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement. This action is a biological and cultural mitigation measure. • The 6.22 -acre Recreation Parcel was dedicated to the City. This action is a recreation mitigation measure. 1,2 GENESIS 201.6 AMEN-11Y BUILDING Clr.apter 1, Project Description and Environmemd Background October, 2016 • The modified Phase III site includes a `Buffer Parcel" and "Development Parcel". The Buffer Parcel comprises 2.69 acres, which would be used for a roadway for emergency vehicle access which is a permitted use by the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement and the General Plan, Terrabay Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This action is a biological and cultural mitigation measure. + On February 7, 2008 the City approved a Parcel Map separating the Development Parcel into two parcels consisting of a 14.83 -acre South Tower Parcel and 2.91 -acre North Tower Parcel with various reciprocal easements. • The South Tower is constructed and is 55 percent occupied. • Utilities, landscaping, retaining walls and roadways are in place save for the remainder of the North Access Road and landscaping adjacent to the unconstructed North Tower building. • The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife(CDFW) [then Fish and Game] issued permits to conduct streambed alterations and wetlands take and mitigation. The permit authorization from the Corps, CDFW and RWQCB allowed the construction of Phase II and III Terrabay, inclusive of the mitigation identified above as well as the City sponsored hook ramp project from Highway 101 to Airport Boulevard. This action is a biological mitigation measure. • A Wetland Mitigation Plan (WMP) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA 2000) to address the impacts of the City's Oyster Point Book Ramp Project and development of the Terrabay Phase III Project site. The WMP serves to address the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Airport (then Bayshore) Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (the City's Oyster Point Flyover Transportation Improvement Project) and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Terrabay Phase III project site. As defined in the WMp, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were to be mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site (now the Preservation Parcel). The wetland restoration was completed January 10, 2011. This action is a biological mitigation measure. The City completed the Oyster Point Interchange including the hook ramp construction in front of the Project site; a project and City -wide traffic mitigation measure. • The Applicant has paid the City a fair share amount for the review of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4 -8 2005 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and has found that there is adequate IV GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental. Background October, 2016 capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer); a hydrology and water quality mitigation measure. The 2006 project was the most intense project proposed on the site to date. • The South San Francisco ferry service at Oyster Point is operational. This is an area - wide traffic and circulation mitigation measure. • The South San Francisco Dash shuttle bus program is operational. This is an area - wide traffic and circulation mitigation measure. • The Peninsula Congestions Relief Alliance provides shuttle services from the Terrabay Phase III /Centennial Towers site to BART, the ferry terminal and CalTrans stations. • A Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) serves the Centennial Towers Project. This is a traffic and circulation mitigation measure. • A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) analysis was required and conducted in 2008. The methodology and background conditions have changed since 2008 and an updated GHG study was conducted for the 2015 and 2016 Projects and the 2016 analysis is contained herein. • An air quality analysis was conducted in 2008 using the URBEMIS model. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has replaced the URBEMIS methodology with the Ca1EEMod methodology. An updated Air Quality analysis using the Ca1EEMod model was conducted for the 2015 and 2016 Project and the 2016 analysis is contained herein. • Hazard Risk Assessments (HRA) are now required for projects. An HRA was conducted for the 2015 and 2016 Project and the 2016 analysis is contained herein. • The East of 101 Capital. Improvement Program and Traffic Model to assess traffic impacts was adopted in 2007 and the model was updated in March, 2015. The capital improvement program is a traffic and circulation mitigation measure. • South San Francisco adopted a Climate Action Plan in 2014 (2014 CAP) and the requirements of the 2014 CAP are identified herein in the Air Quality section. This is a greenhouse gas /global warming mitigation measure. • The Cal Green Building Code has been adopted by the City and a summary of the requirements are contained herein in the Project Description. This is a greenhouse gas /global warming mitigation measure. • Terrabay Phases I and II are constructed and occupied. 1.4 G ` TESIS 2016 El' 11'Y BUILDIN G Chapter I Project Description and . Environmental Background October, 26116 • The remainder of the parking garage on the Project site is under construction. • Construction on the North Tower and North Access Road will commence in late autumn, 2016 or early spring, 2017. • A Site Activity Review was conducted by the County of San Mateo Department of Parks and Recreation County pursuant to the HCP. The is a procedure wherein a County representative informs the construction team of the habitat protections required, insure all personnel understand the requirements, and sign an affidavit attesting thereto. Compliance with the review was issued to Phase 3 on September 1, 2016 by Ramona Arechiga, Natural Resources Manager for the County of San Mateo Department of Parks and Recreation. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS As a matter of law, the Project is required to comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations. These regulations are verified as satisfied and incorporated into the Project as a matter of demolition, grading, and /or building permit issuance, or the permits will not be issued by the City of South San Francisco. As such, these requirements are considered a part of the Project, not a separate and distinct requirement levied through CEQA review. The City's project processing requires that applications for projects are first reviewed by the City's Technical Advisory Group (TAG). TAG is comprised of representatives from Planning, Building, Police, Fire, Engineering, Parks and Recreation, and Water Quality Control. TAG review identifies changes and additions to a project that are required for the project to comply with local, state, and federal laws that are implemented through the City's Municipal Code. The City's Planning Division, subsequent to TAG review, issues a letter to the applicant identifying the changes in project plans and supporting materials necessary to comply with prevailing laws pursuant to site development, construction, and land use. The applicant is requested to revise the plans and supporting documentation or the application may not be certified as complete. Revised plans and documentation are submitted to the Planning Division to be recirculated to all affected City departments and divisions in order to evaluate the application in light of earlier comments and requirements. The process results in an application that can be certified `complete' as well as identification of the recommended Conditions of Approval (COAs) that would be required should the Project be approved by the Planning Commission. Many of these COAs implement environmental mitigation measures that were historically identified through the environmental review process and now have become a part of the City's legislative requirements, through its general, specific and /or area plans, municipal code, special district regulations, or memoranda of understanding (i.e., its police power). After a project application is complete it is subject to environmental, public, and discretionary review through and by the City's Planning Commission and /or City Council, depending upon the type of project, as defined by the City's Municipal Code and state law. The COAs identified through staff review of the project, and any additional ones identified through the public review process become required of the project as a matter of law GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 pursuant to the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Prior to the City issuing a building, grading, and /or demolition permit, all City departments and divisions (identified above) review the project plans for compliance with the identified COAs and any additional conditions added pursuant to the public review process. Permits are not issued by the City's Building Division in the absence of authorization from City staff or in the absence of the identified requirements being incorporated into the Project plans. STANDARD PROJECT CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY EXISTING LAW THAT ADDRESSES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The following project requirements are designed and implemented as part of the Project Description to reduce environmental impacts and are required through the City of South San Francisco's standard review and permitting procedures. Therefore, these measures are not separately identified as mitigation measures in Chapter 2. Failure of the Applicant to meet the required measures and /or elements of their Project Description relating to environmental issues could result in environmental impacts and require subsequent or supplemental CEQA review. In summary, the Project as proposed coupled with the Project requirements is the baseline from which environmental impacts are evaluated for the Project. 1. AESTHETICS AESTHETICS — LIGHT AND GLARE: Project signage is required to be reviewed by staff, and, in some instances, the City's Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. Lighting, size, color, placement, design, and compatibility with surrounding land uses is addressed and assured through this process. The City's sign regulations as set forth in Chapter 20.360 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code are intended to preserve and improve appearance, protect from visual clutter and blight, protect property values and enhance community appearance, minimize diversion of vehicle operators' attention, and safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare. Potential environmental impacts and the need, or lack thereof, for environmental clearance is also addressed and undertaken as a part of the Sign Permit procedure. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. Projects are reviewed by the City's Design Review Board consisting of professional architects and landscape architects. The Planning Commission, and in some cases the City Council, adds design elements to projects. Projects that are within a state or local scenic corridor are further addressed through the CEQA process. 2. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AIR QUALITY — DUST CONTROL: All construction projects are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are imposed by the City's Engineering Division on all projects as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and /or City consultants. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures, Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures, and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the B.AAQMD as of May 2011. The City requires projects to: 16 GENESIS 2,016 .. E NITY BUILDING Chapter I Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 a) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e) Sweep streets (with wet power vacuum sweepers), if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. f) Hydroseed or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h) Install sandbags or other erosion - control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break -up of Pavement. k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1) Use dust -proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, or other materials that can be blown by the wind. n) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. o) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. p) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. q) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour and slower, should wind and dust conditions necessitate. r) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. s) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxic control measure detailed in Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California IM GERNESIS 0;;; Chapter 2016 Code of Regulations. Clear signage regarding this requirement shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. t) Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within twenty -four (24) hours. The applicable Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. AIR QUALITY ® TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead -based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the City's Building Division in compliance with federal, local and BAAQMD regulations, in particular BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 pertaining to asbestos. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures that may contain asbestos, and the manufacture of materials known to contain asbestos. The BAAQMD shall be notified at least 10 business days before: (1) Any renovation involving the removal of 100 square feet or more, 100 linear feet or more, or 35 cubic feet or more of asbestos; and (2) Every demolition regardless of asbestos content.Z 2 Subpart M, National Emission Standard for Asbestos, of Part 61 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) and the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (FED OSHA) classify asbestos - containing material (ACM) as any material or product that contains greater than 1% asbestos. Nonfriable ACM is classified by NESHAP as either Category I or Category I1 material defined as follows: Category I — asbestos - containing packings, gaskets, resilient floor coverings, and asphalt roofing products. Category II — all remaining types of nonfriable asbestos- containing material not included in Category I that when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Regulated asbestos - containing material (R.ACM), a hazardous waste when friable, is classified as any material that contains greater than 1 % asbestos by dry weight and is: Friable: or Category I material that has become friable; or Category I material that has been subjected to sanding grinding, cutting or abrading; or Category Il nonfriable material that has a high probability becoming friable. Activities that disturb material containing any amount of asbestos are subject to certain requirements of the Cal /OSHA asbestos standard contained in Title 8, CCR Section 1529. Typically, removal or disturbance of more than 100 square feet of material containing more than 0.1% asbestos must be performed by a registered asbestos abatement contractor, but associated waste labeling is not required if the material contains 1% or less asbestos. When the asbestos content of a material exceeds I%, virtually all requirements of the standard become effective. Materials containing more than 1% asbestos are also subject to NESHAP regulations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M). RACM (friable ACM and nonfriable ACM that will become friable during demolition operations) must be removed from buildings prior to demolition. Certain nonfriable ACM and materials containing 1% or less asbestos may remain in buildings during demolition: however, there are waste handling/disposal issues and Cal /OSHA work requirements that may make it cost ineffective to do so. Contractors are responsible for segregating and characterizing waste streams prior to disposal. With respect to potential worker exposure, notification, and registration requirements, Cal /OSHA defines asbestos - containing construction material (ACCM) as construction material that contains more than 0.1% asbestos (title 8, CCR 341.6). For a solid waste containing lead, the waste is classified as California hazardous when: 1) the total lead content equals or exceeds the respective Total Threshold Limit Concentration (rTLC) of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (Mg/kg); or 2) the soluble lead content equals or exceeds the respective Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) of 5 milligrams per liter (mg /1) based on the standard Waste Extraction Test (WET). A waste has the potential for exceeding the lead STLC when the waste's total lead content is greater than or equal to ten times the respective STLC value since the WET uses a 1:10 dilution ratio. Hence, when total lead is detected at a concentration greater than or equal to 50 mg /kg, and assuming that 100 percent of the total lead is soluble, soluble lead analysis is required. Lead - containing waste is classified as `Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act' (RCRA) hazardous, or Federal hazardous, when the soluble lead content equals or exceeds the Federal regulatory lever of 5 mg /1 based on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). 18 1 GENESIS 2016 E T ' BUILDING bapter 1 Project Description and Environmental ental Sac amud October, 2016 Lead contamination is regulated through a myriad of laws on the state, federal and local level. Lead is a pollutant regulated by many laws administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the Toxic Substances Control Act MCA), Residential Lead -Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X), Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) among others. Lead is also regulated by many California laws including the training and accreditation of training programs and certification of individuals that conduct lead - related construction activities (California Health & Safety Code section 105250). California. Labor Code sections 6716 to 6717 establishes standards that protect the health and safety of employees who engage in lead - related construction work, including construction, demolition, renovation and repair. California Health & Safety Code section 17961, 17980, 124130, 17920.10 deems a building to be in violation of the State Housing Law if it contains lead hazards, and requires local enforcement agencies to enforce provisions related to lead hazards and criminalizes specified acts related to lead hazard evaluation, abatement, and lead- related constructions unless certified or accredited by the California Department of Public Health Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch. The law permits local enforcement agencies to order the abatement of lead hazards or issue a cease and desist order in response to lead hazards. Chapter 3, Section 3.3 Air Quality describes many of the laws implemented through the air district. The removal of buildings suspected of lead based paints (typically defined as buildings constructed prior to 1978 when laws were promulgated to remove lead from paint and other volatile organic compounds) requires surveys and removal of lead -based paints by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. The. City Building Division requests information and certification from persons applying for demolition, scaffolding and building permits Qim Kirkman, previous Building Official, October 16, 2008). AIR QUALITY — VEHICLE EMISSI ®NS: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by the City's Transportation Demand The above regulatory criteria are based on chemical concentrations. Wastes may also be classified as hazardous based on other criteria such as ignitability; however, for the purposes of this investigation, toxicity (i.e., lead concentrations) is the primary factor considered for waste classification since waste generated during the construction activities would not likely warrant testing for ignitability or other criteria. Waste that is classified as either California hazardous or RCRA hazardous requires management as a hazardous waste. Potential hazards exist to workers who remove or cut through LCP coatings during demolition. Dust containing hazardous concentration of lead may be generated during scraping or cutting materials coated with lead- containing paint. Torching of these materials my produce lead oxide fumes. Therefore, air monitoring and /or respiratory protection may be required during the demolition of materials coated with LCP. Guidelines regarding regulatory provisions for construction work where workers may be exposed to lead are presented in Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1. GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background Ocwber, 2016 Management (TDM) program, contained in Chapter 20.400 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. Table 20.400.003 in the South San Francisco Municipal Code establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for all projects is twenty -eight percent below standard trip rates modeled for the project without TDM measures in place. Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. AIR QUALITY — HEARTH EbuSSIONS: The BAAQMD adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3: Wood- Burning Devices, to reduce the harmful emissions that come from wood smoke. The Rule requires cleaner - burning (e.g., natural gas or propane), U.S. EPA- certified stoves and inserts in new housing construction. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN: The City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) on February 12, 2014. The CAP identifies strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 15 percent below baseline (2005) levels by 2020. The City has and continues to implement GHG reduction measures. Some examples include the installation of solar facilities at City buildings; requiring bioswales in private development; adopting and enforcing a construction and demolition waste recycling ordinance; adopting and implementing a TDM program, and providing electrical car charging stations at City facilities. The City actively participates in the San Francisco International Airport noise insulation program which also reduces heat loss and hence GHG emissions in older buildings. The City also spearheads educational programs to reduce GHG emissions. Through conditions of approval, development projects are required to implement a variety of GHG reduction measures. Some measures include use of renewable and alternate energy including solar and cogeneration, electric car facilities, water conservation, and waste seduction. 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE TITLE 24: All construction projects are required to comply with the California Building Code (CBC), as periodically amended. Design specifications are identified and required for projects located on sites subject to liquefaction, differential settlement, and severe groundshaking. These requirements are enforced and monitored by the City's Engineering Division. Compliance with the CBC is also implemented and monitored by the City's Building Division. GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS: The City Engineering Division also requires geotechnical reports as a part of the permit package for projects to be constructed on vacant land, for demolition and rebuilding and for additions to buildings that require grading and additional loading (Sam Bautista, City Engineer, meeting July 22, 2009; conditions of project approval, see Chapter 3, Geology and Soils; and SSFMC 20.170.002). The geotechnical reports are required to be prepared by a licensed geologist, geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. The geotechnical reports address design and construction specifications for the project including grading, site drainage, utility and infrastructure design 20 GENESIS 2016 EN BUILDING Q hapter 1. Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 specifications, and placement and building design. The geotechnical reports are peer reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant, and are modified as recommended by the City's consultant. Geotechnical approval by the City's geotechnical consultant and the City is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The geotechnical professional of record is required to sign all project drawings. The City's geotechnical consultant provides construction inspections, oversight and monitoring for the City. The Engineering Division implements and monitors this requirement. 4. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Properties suspected of containing hazardous materials, due to their location or use history, are required by local, state, and federal law to undergo site characterization and if necessary remediation. Permits from the South San Francisco Fire Department, San Mateo County Environmental Health Division (SMCEHD), and /or BAAQMD are required. The following table identifies the standard, industry- accepted protocol for site characterization and remediation. 14ieiia` r�poalay v 7H�az�a�rdo�us Soil Remediation (ex -situ) Fuels 0 Reuse on Site (if concentration is less than 100 ppm). • Haul and Dispose at appropriate landfill. • Capping and vapor barrier. • Treat on site (see below). Soil Remediation (ex -situ) Volatile Organic • Consult the SMCEHD for requirements. Compounds • Haul and Dispose. (VOCs) (gasoline fuels, solvents) • Aeration — requires a notification to BAAQMD, daily volumes are limited. • Vapor Stripping — apply vacuum system to covered piles, notify BAAQb3D. • Bioremediation - apply bio- treatment materials, moisture and "work" soil piles. • Thermal Desorption — various vendors provide mobile treatment units. • Capping and vapor barrier. Soil Remediation Inorganics • Consult BAAQMD and SMCEHD for (ex -situ) (metals) requirements. • Haul and Dispose. • Chemical Stabilization. • Sorting — reduce waste volume by screening to target contaminant article size. Soil Remediation VOCs • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. (in-situ) • Soil Vapor Extraction — apply vacuum to vapor wells, notify BAAQMD. • In -situ chemical oxidation. • In -Situ Vitrification — use electricity to melt waste and surroun ding soils. Soil Remediation kinivolatile • Consult SMCEHD for requirements. (in -situ) Organic • Bioremediation — saturate soils with bio- treatment GENESIS 2016AMENM BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 Itiiedia Hazardous 3ppzoacla; X atcrials Compounds materials. (SVOCs) o Chemical Stabilization — saturate soils with chemicals to immobilize contaminants. • In -Situ Vitrification. • Capping. Groundwater - All s If contaminants are detected in the 20 -foot below Investigation ground surface soil sample an additional boring should be completed to groundwater. Analyze sample for contaminants detected in soil. • Report results to the Sh10EHD and consult on remedial alternatives. Groundwater Remediation VOCs • Consult BAAQb1D and SMCEHD for requirements. • Pump and Treat — pump from wells, treat and discharge treated water. • Air Sparging — inject air to volatilize contaminants and create aerobic groundwater conditions suitable for natural bioremediation, Generally applied in conjunction with Soil Vapor Extraction to control released volatiles. • Bioremediation — inject bio- treatment materials into affected groundwater. Chemical Oxidation — inject oxidation chemicals into affected groundwatex. Groundwater Remediation SVOCs • Consult BAAQ.NID for requirements. • Pump and Treat • Bioremediation. • Chemical Oxidation. Groundwater Remediation Inorganics + Consult BAAQIVID for requirements. • Pump and Treat. • Chemical Immobilization — inject chemicals to precipitate or chemically fix contaminants to soil particles. 5. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: The following is a summary of applicable requirements in Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.c.i.2 of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Storxnwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ("Municipal Regional Permit" or "MRP'). All projects that are required to treat stormwater will need to treat the permit - specified amount of stormwater runoff with low impact development methods. These methods include rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or .biotreatment (filtering stormwater through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system). However, biotreatment will be allowed only where harvesting and reuse, infiltration, and evapotranspiration are infeasible at a project site. Vault -based treatment will 22 GENESIS 2016 A E°N TY BUI NG Chapter I Project Description and Environmental . Background October, 2016 not be allowed as a stand -alone treatment measure. Where stormwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault -based treatment measures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids (see Provision C.3.c.i.2 of the MRP). Projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface related to auto service facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and /or surface parking are required to provide low impact development treatment of stormwater runoff. This requirement applies to uncovered parking that is stand - alone, or included as part of any other development project, and it applies to the top uncovered portion of a parking structure, unless drainage from the uncovered portion is connected to the sanitary sewer (see Provision C.3.b.ii.1 of the MRP). For all other land use categories, 10,000 square feet is the regional threshold for requiring low impact development, source control, site design, and stormwater treatment, although municipalities may have the authority to require treatment to the maximum extent practicable for smaller projects. The new requirements are built into the following (see below) standard requirements. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (OPERATIONAL): All Projects are required to comply with the San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP), an organization of the City /County Association of Governments (C /CAG) of San Mateo County holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge permit. The City requires the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for new development and construction as part of its storm water management program, as levied through standard City COAs. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the Engineering and Water Quality Control Divisions. The measures address pollution control and management mechanisms for contractor activities, e.g. structure construction, material delivery and storage, solid waste management, employee and subcontractor training. Stormwater pollution prevention measures also affect site development and operations in order to prevent pollution due to Project occupancy. Typical storm water quality protection measures include: a) Walking and light traffic areas shall use permeable pavements where feasible. Typical pervious pavements include pervious concrete, porous asphalt, turf block, brick pavers, natural stone pavers, concrete unit pavers, crushed aggregate (gravel), cobbles and wood mulch. b) Parking lots shall include hybrid surfaces (pervious material for stalls only), concave medians with biofilters (grassy swales), and landscaped infiltration /detention basins as feasible. c) Landscape design shall incorporate biofilters, infiltration, and retention /detention basins into the site plan as feasible. d) Outdoor work areas including garbage, recycling, maintenance, storage, and loading, applicable storm water controls include siting or set back from drainage paths and water ways, provision of roofing and curbs or berms to prevent run on and run off. If the area has the potential to generate contaminated run off, structural treatment t, ENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description En ° e ental Background Octobe4 2016 controls for contaminant removal (such as debris screens or filters) shall be incorporated into the design. e) Roof leaders and site drainage shall be filtered and directed to the City storm drain system and harvesting of rainwater shall occur. f) Drainage from paved surfaces shall be filtered through vegetated swales, buffer or sand strips before discharge to the City's storm drain system. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTION (CONSTRUCTION: The City of South San Francisco requires, through COAs, project compliance with the State Water Quality Control Board's general permitting requirements which require the applicant to secure a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit, complete a Notice of Intent (NOI) and prepare and obtain approval of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The state issues a Waste Discharge Identification number within 10 days of receipt of a complete NOI and SWPPP. The applicant is then required to submit copies of the NOI and SWPPP to the City of South San Francisco's Technical Services Supervisor within the Water Quality Control Plant of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. The requirements are implemented and monitored by the City's Water Quality Control personnel. Typical construction stormwater protection measures include: a) Identify all storm drains, drainage swales, and creeks located near construction sites and prevent pollutants from entering them by the use of gter fabric cloth, rock bags, straw wattles, slope hydroseeding, cleaning up leaks, drips or spills immediately, use dry cleanup methods to clean up, spills, use of berms, temporary ditches, and check dams to reduce the velocity of surface flow. b) Place rock bags at all drain inlets to filter silt and along curb and gutter to filter water before the drain inlets. c) Place straw wattles and hydroseed the sloped areas. d) Place straw matting at the temporary sloped areas for erosion control. e) Place drain systems to filter and then drain into drain inlets. Use silt fencing with straw mats and hand broadcast seed for erosion control. g) Construct temporary drainage systems to filter and divert water accordingly. h) Construct temporary rock and asphalt driveways and wheel washers to buffer public streets from dirt and mud. i) Use part- and full-time street sweepers that operate along public streets and roads. j) Cover all stockpiled soils to protect from erosion. Use berths around stockpiled soils. k) Cover and protect from erosion plaster, concrete and other powders which create large amounts of suspended solids. 1) Store all hazardous materials (paints, solvents, chemicals) in accordance with secondary containment regulations and cover during wet weather. 2,1 GENESIS 2015 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 m) Use terracing to prevent erosion. n) Through grading plan review and approval, phase grading operations to reduce disturbed areas during wet weather, limit vegetation removal, delineate clearing limits, setbacks, easements, sensitive or critical areas, trees, drainage courses and buffer zones to prevent unnecessary disturbance and exposure. Limit or prohibit grading during the wet weather season, October 150i to April 150'. o) Prevent spills and leaks by maintaining equipment, designating specific areas of a site for such activities that are controlled and away from water courses, and perform major maintenance off -site or in designated areas only. p) Cover and maintain all dumpsters, collect and properly dispose of all paint removal wastes, clean up paints, solvents, adhesives, and all cleaning solvents properly. Recycle and salvage appropriate wastes and maintain an adequate debris disposal schedule. q) Avoid roadwork and pavement stotmwater pollution by following manufacturers' instructions. 6. NOISE INTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates noise exposure through state law and its General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, for projects located in the East of 101 area. A chapter of the CBC, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels in habitable rooms for multi- family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise from exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or L.) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. The code requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or L &). Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the City's Building Division. The City, through its General Plan, adopted the Noise Guidelines of the State Department of Health Services in its Noise Element (1999). Table 9.2 -1, Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, (General Plan, page 280) guides land use decisions based upon noise thresholds correlating to land use classifications, acoustical analyses, and mitigations. The City implements the Federal Aviation Administration adopted noise contours, participates in an aircraft noise insulation program and City /County Association of Governments (C /CAG) airport noise planning efforts. Figure 9 -1 of the General Plan Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (General Plan, page 279) identifies the noise contours and program area for these planning efforts. GENESIS 2016 AMENITY UI ING . Chapter 1. Project Des `ptid d. En m ern l B . ackground Octoberi 2016 C /CAG updated the San Francisco International Airport noise impact boundaries in October, 2012. The new boundaries for South San Francisco are on page 118 of the Comprehensive Aport Land Use Compadbility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport for Cityl County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Redwood City, California (Ricondo Associates, Jacobs Consultancy, Clarion Associates. October 2012) C ALUP "). Therefore the maps contained in the South San Francisco General Plan must be used in conjunction with the updated ALUP. The East of 101 Area Plan requirement for interior ambient noise for commercial, office and retail is 45 dBA, Leq, echoing state law. Residential land uses in the East of 101 are prohibited. The Noise Guidelines are implemented by the Planning Division through new project review. NOISE EXTERIOR AMBIENT NOISE: The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through the South San Francisco Municipal Code (Chapter 8.32). The Municipal Code identifies maximum noise exposure corresponding with land use and time of day. Low density residential maximum noise exposure (excluding vehicle horns and emergency vehicles) is restricted to 50 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 60 db from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. Higher density residential and commercial land use noise exposure is restricted to 55 dB from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M. and 65 db from 7 A.M. to 10 P.M. Industrial land uses are restricted to 70 dB anytime of the day. These noise standards are implemented largely through enforcement actions (i.e., citizen complaint and governmental response). The City's Fire Department's Code Enforcement Officer implements these regulations. The following text and table are excerpted from Section 8.32.030. (a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to exceed: (1) The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table 8.32.030 for a cumulative period of more than thirty minutes in any hour; (2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any hour; (3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour; (4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any hour; or (5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of time. 26 C GENESIS 2016AMENITYBUILDING hapter I Ptoject Desctiption and. Environmental Background October, 2016 aource: k-Ary or boutn ban rrancisco Municipal Code Construction noise exposure is also regulated by the Municipal Code (Section 8.32.050(d), provided below). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction and maximum temporary noise levels may be granted by the Chief Building Official. The following text is excerpted from Section 8.32.050. (a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dB measured at a distance of fifty feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity. (b) Vehicle Horns. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall be used only when the vehicle is in a situation where life, health or property are endangered. (c) Utilities and Emergencies. Utility and street repairs, street sweepers, franchised garbage services and emergency response warning noises are exempt from this chapter. (d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 Table 8.32.030 NOISE LEVEL, STANDARDS Land Use Category Time Period Noise Level (dB) R -E, R -1 and R -2 zones 10 p.m. —7 a.m. 50 or any single- family or 7 a.m. -10 p.m. 60 duplex residential in a specific plan district R -3 and D -C zones or 10 p.m. —7 a.m. 55 any multiple- family 7 a.m.-10 p.m. 60 residential or mixed residential /commercial in any specific plan district C -1, P -C, Gateway and 10 p.m. —7 a.m. 60 Oyster Point Marina 7 a.m. -10 p.m. 65 specific plan districts or any commercial use in any specific plan district M -1, P -1 Anytime 170 aource: k-Ary or boutn ban rrancisco Municipal Code Construction noise exposure is also regulated by the Municipal Code (Section 8.32.050(d), provided below). Hours of construction are exempt from the standards identified in the preceding paragraph and are limited to 8 A.M. to 8 P.M. Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 8 P.M. on Saturdays and 10 A.M. to 6 P.M. on Sundays and holidays. The Building Division enforces and monitors these regulations. Exceptions to the hours of construction and maximum temporary noise levels may be granted by the Chief Building Official. The following text is excerpted from Section 8.32.050. (a) Sound Performances and Special Events. Sound performances and special events not exceeding eighty dB measured at a distance of fifty feet from the loudest source are exempt from this chapter when approval therefore has been obtained from the appropriate governmental entity. (b) Vehicle Horns. Vehicle horns, or other devices primarily intended to create a loud noise for warning purposes, shall be used only when the vehicle is in a situation where life, health or property are endangered. (c) Utilities and Emergencies. Utility and street repairs, street sweepers, franchised garbage services and emergency response warning noises are exempt from this chapter. (d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 1 Project Description and Environmental Background October, 2016 eight a.m. and eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty -five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty -five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. 7. CALIFORNIA GREEN STANDARD BUILDING CODE New California Green Building Code Standards became effective on January 1, 2014. The mandatory and voluntary measures for residential, non - residential, and mixed use buildings are designed to reduce our carbon footprint and promote environmental sustainability; i.e., decrease impacts incumbent upon the environment resulting from human activities. The collection of regulations is contained in the California Building Standards Code. The regulations prescribe measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and reduce energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building. The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The Green Building Code also regulates the exposure (i.e., off gassing) of VOCs (volatile organic compounds), aerosols, and formaldehyde, and moisture and dust penetration in the use and application of building materials. Regulations address the types of sealants, coatings, finishes, flooring (wood, carpet, particle board), and architectural finishes that are not permitted based upon the performance and potential toxicity of the substances. Design standards limit and, as appropriate, prohibit the amount of building heat loss and light pollution incident upon adjacent properties. Standards address the use of potable, grey, and recycled water for interior and exterior, residential, and non - residential uses. Maximum Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings are also identified and apply to interior exposure levels and noise levels at property lines. Distance thresholds are identified that trigger additional STC ratings for buildings within prescribed proximity to freeways, airports, and 65 dB exceedances at property lines. Amenities to support people using bicycles are identified and include lockers, showers, and secure lock -up areas. Provision of preferential parking spaces for low -fuel vehicles at a percentage of overall parking provided on a site is also specified. 28GENESIS 21116 AMENITY BUILDING t;hapter 1. Project Description and Environmental 1111ackground October, 2,016 CHAPTER 0 ENVlR0NME'L-TT#l_,,,,, Xit-JiLL-�A FIGURE 1 2008 APPROVED PRODUCT DESIGN STUDIO FIGURE 2 PROPOSED 2016 AMENITY BUILDING 11 W041 SIS 2016 AMENT11Y BUILDING Chaptet 2 Environmental A.nabfsis October, 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Definition of Parcels and Uses The Genesis Campus ( Terrabay Phase III site) consists of three parcels: the 14.83 -acre South Tower parcel (constructed with the South Tower and half of the parking structure with the second half under construction); the 2.91 -acre North Tower parcel (developed with the foundation and retaining walls and building permit under review for the approved 21 -story North Tower); and the 2.91 -acre Buffer Parcel. The North and South Towers are zoned Terrabay Mixed Use. The Buffer Parcel is designated Open Space (General Plan Land Use Map). Permitted uses on the Buffer Parcel are the North Access Road (restricted to maintenance, service, delivery and emergency vehicles), surface parking, pedestrian seating areas, native landscaping, retaining walls, and a small kiosk -type structure providing interpretative information about the site (SSFMC 20.240,003.C). The Buffer Parcel is identified as parcel 13, the South Tower is parcel 14 and the North Tower is parcel 14, on Figure 3. The 25.61 -acre Preservation Parcel was part of the Terrabay Phase III development site from 1982 until 2000. In 2000, then -owner Myers Development Company requested a land use change from " Terrabay Phase III Commercial" to Open Space for the preservation of the Oholone shell mound, wetlands and Callippee Silverspot butterfly habitat. The Preservation Parcel (parcel 12 on Figure 3) was conveyed to San Mateo County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park in 2004. FIGURE 3 TERRASAY AND GENESIS CAMPUS PARCEL USES ANn DF3zT nm-. 2 GENESIS 20'1.6 :Mif NIT BU:IT-1 I:NG I.',h.apter 2 Environmental Analysis t ctober, 201.6 ORGANIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Amenity Building addition would add approximately 53,000 additional square feet over that approved in 2008.1 The CEQA analysis for the Amenity Building Project includes modeling of air quality, greenhouse gas and hazard risks. The CEQA analysis also updates the 2015 noise analysis using the Appendix G, CEQA Guidelines checklist format. The remaining environmental resource areas identified in Appendix G, CEQA Guidelines. Are updated in summary paragraphs. Based upon the following analysis the 2016 Amenity Building Project would not result im any new or increased impacts. Would the Prolect•. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of neonle? INTRODUCTION Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Sia*ficant No Impact _ _ with impact Impact KI 0 Q. 0 The following air quality section updates that which was prepared in 2015. The 2015 Research and Development (R&D) Project analyzed 50 percent office and 50 percent R&D at both the North and South Tower. Each Tower would include a small retail commercial land use component and a parking structure.' This updated air quality analysis estimates the construction and operational 1 The square footages of the additional area vary somewhat from the architectural drawings that state 50,412 square feet to be conservative. Numbers vary because some of the North Tower office and lobby space would be converted to conference and amenity area- 2 The North Tower would allow up to approximately 176,000 square feet of R &D use, approximately 176,000 square feet of office land use, and approximately 12,500 square feet of retail; all within 2.91 acres. Kl] �. ENlMS 2.016 METNllTY 111.:1 IJAING Chapter 2 Envixotuvtental Analysis October, 2,016 emissions of the Amenity Building which would be located adjacent and connected to the North Tower. The Amenity Building would be constructed along with the North Tower; and thus, the air quality impacts of the North Tower construction and operations were included in this air quality analysis. The Amenity Building, as analyzed, would include a first floor lobby (2,335 square feet), a first floor retail /restaurant /fitness (6,325 square feet), a second floor retail /restaurant /fitness (6,965 square feet), and a 110 room hotel within floors three through seven (a total of 57,870 square feet). Therefore, the total for the hotel /retail /restaurant /fitness is 73,495 square feet. The supporting information, methodology, assumptions, and detailed results used in the air quality analysis are provided in Appendix A -1: Air Quality Calculations, Appendix A -2: CaIEEMod Output Files, Appendix A -3: Health Risk Assessment Methodology and Assumptions, and Appendix A -4: Detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R &D Air Quality Results for the North Tower. SETTING This air quality analysis was performed using methodologies and assumptions recommended within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA AirQuali* Guidelines (dated June 2010, updated in May 2011, and revised in May 2012).4This section describes existing air quality and air pollutant construction and operational impacts. Analyzed air quality pollutants include: carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic compounds (ROG), nitrogen dioxide (NOS, sulfur dioxide (SO), particulate matter equal to or less than 10 micrometers (coarse particulates or PM10), and particulate matter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulates or PM2.5). Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is also a concern with regard to health risk assessment. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are separately addressed. The Project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin), which 3 Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R &D Environmental Analysis, May, 2015 and Centennial Tower Development Alternative 2 Phase II R &D Revised Operational Emission Estimates, April 28, 2016. 4 The BAAQMD's June 2010 adopted thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the Air District had flailed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA and ordered the Air District to examine whether the thresholds would have a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their use. The court did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus valid on the merits. Although the BAAQMD's adoption of significance thresholds for air quality analysis has been subject to judicial actions, the City of South San Francisco has determined that BAAQIv1D's Revised Draft Options and Justification Report (October 2009), provide substantial evidence to support the BAAQMD recommended thresholds. Therefore, the City of South San Francisco has determined the BAAQMD recommended thresholds are appropriate for use in this analysis. California's First District Court of Appeal issued a decision in California Building industry Association o. Bay AreaAirQuakly Manggement District (Case No. A134335, August 13, 2013), laying the groundwork for the reinstatement of the BAAQMD's air quality thresholds, including for greenhouse gas emissions and toxic air contaminants. In addition, on December 15, 2015, the California Supreme Court (5213478) concluded that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project's future users or residents. Nevertheless, an analysis of the health impacts from existing sources such as rail activities and major roadways on the nearby sensitive re tors, as well as the health im acts of the construction activities from the Pr 'ect, is resented within this document El GENESIS 2016 AMENITY I1UII...DING Chapter 2 Envitonm.ental. A.nalysis October, 7016 encompasses .Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, and Napa Counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma Counties. The Air Basin is characterized by complex terrain which distorts normal wind flow patterns, consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys, and bays. The Air Quality Conditions of Approval that are required to be implemented as part of the Project pursuant to the City of South San Francisco's project review and building permit process are as follows: AIR QUALITY DUST CONTROL: All construction projects axe required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (B QMD) dust control measures. These measures are levied by the Engineering Division as a condition of building permit issuance and are monitored for compliance by staff and /or special City Engineering and /or Planning inspectors. The measures include all the Basic Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Additional Fugitive Dust Emissions Reduction Measures identified by the BAAQMD May, 2012. The City requires Projects to: a) Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. e) Sweep streets daily (with wet power vacuum sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. f) Hydroseed or apply (non - toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). g) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiled materials. h) Install sandbags or other erosion - control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. i) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. j) Watering should be used to control dust generation during the break -up of pavement. k) Cover all trucks hauling demolition debris from the site. 1) Use dust -proof chutes to load debris into trucks whenever feasible. m) Water or cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind. AIR QUALITY COMBUSTION EXHUAST CONTROL: All construction projects are required to eomply with the BA.AQMD's combustion exhaust control measures. The measures include Basic Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures and some of the Enhanced Exhaust Emissions Reduction Measures identified GENESIS 2016 AM.ENI°I` .' BUI:IMIN Chapter 2 Environmental Ana ysis October, 201.6 by the BAAQMD May, 2012. The City requires Projects to: n) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be in proper running order prior to operation. o) Use alternative fueled construction equipment, if possible. p) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. q) All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. r) Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than five minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. s) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2484 of the California Code of regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. t) Post a visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 24 hours. The Air District phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. u) All off -road equipment greater than 25 horsepower and operating for more than 20 total hours over the entire duration of construction activities shall meet the following requirements: 1. Where access to alternative sources of power are available, portable diesel engines shall be prohibited; and 2. All off -road equipment shall have: a. Engines that meet or exceed either USEPA or CARB Tier 2 off - road emission standards, and b. Engines that are retrofitted with a CARB Level 2 Verified Diesel Emissions Control Strategy (VDECS). Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low - emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after - treatment products, add -on devices such as particulate filters, and /or other options as such are available. AIR QUALITY TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS: The potential for toxic air contaminants (asbestos and lead -based paint) to be released into the environment is regulated and monitored through the City's Building Division in compliance with federal, local and BAAQMD regulations in particular BAAQMD Regulation 71, Kale 2 pertaining to demolition activities. The BAAQMD regulates the demolition and renovation of buildings and structures that may contain asbestos. Under Regulation 11, the BAAQMD shall be GENESIS 2016 AMENITY . BUILDING Chapter 2 EnAron ental Analysh, October, 2016 notified at least ten business days before any demolition activities.-' The purpose of the notification process is to assure that buildings are demolished in compliance with procedures that assure asbestos is not released into the environment. Secondly, the removal of buildings suspected of lead -based paints (typically defined as buildings constructed prior to 1978 when laws were promulgated to remove lead from paint) requires surveys and removal of lead - based paints by licensed contractors certified in the handling methods requisite to protect the environment and public health and safety. AIR QUALITY ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS: BAAQMD Regarintion 8, Rule 3 forArchiiectural Coatings Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits, contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8 -3). Rule 8 -3 was revised on January 1, 2011 to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits specify that the use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces shall be required. AIR QUALITY VEHICLE EMISSIONS: The potential for air quality degradation from vehicle emissions is regulated to some extent by Section 20.400.003 of the South San Francisco Code. Table 20.400.003 in the Zoning Ordinance establishes specific program requirements for a project generating one hundred or more vehicle trips per day or a project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus. The required alternative mode (mode shift) use for all projects is twenty -eight percent below standard trip rates modeled for the project without transportation demand management measures in place. Projects with an increased FAR are required to increase their alternative mode use accordingly. The Planning Division implements and monitors this requirement. AIR QUALITY HEARTH EMISSIONS: The BAAQMD adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3: Wood - Burning Devices to reduce the harmful emissions that come from wood smoke. The Wood - Burning Devices Rule requires cleaner- burning (e.g., natural gas or propane) USEPA- certified stoves and inserts in new construction. REGIONAL METEOROLOGY .Air quality is affected by the rate, amount, and location of pollutant emissions and the associated meteorological conditions that influence pollutant movement and dispersal. Atmospheric conditions, including wind speed, wind direction, stability, and air temperature, in combination with local surface topography (i.e., geographic features such as mountains, valleys, and San Francisco Bay), determine the effect of air pollutant emissions on local air quality. The climate of the greater San Francisco Bay Area, including San Mateo County, is a Mediterranean- 5 BAAQMD Demolition Regulation 11, Rule 2 Notification Form, Fs c�aw.lsaa and. ov mediant1c Corn li n °a and% L'nfor rent For s 11(12 de g 7 GENESIS 2016 . E I °. Y II1 ITf)Il." G Chapter 2 EnAroru... ental. Analysis October, 2016 type climate characterized by warm, dry summers and mild, wet winters. The climate is determined largely by a high- pressure system that is often present over the eastern Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of North America. In winter, the Pacific high- pressure system shifts southward, allowing storms to pass through the region. During summer and fall, air emissions generated within the Bay Area can combine with abundant sunshine under the restraining influences of topography and subsidence inversions to create conditions that are conducive to the formation of photochemical pollutants, such as ozone and secondary particulates, such as sulfates and nitrates. The Project lies in peninsula climatological subregion of the Air Basin, which extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to an elevation of 500 feet in South San Francisco, where it terminates. San Francisco is at the north end of the peninsula and because most of the topography of San Francisco is less than 200 feet, the marine layer is able to flow across most of the City, making its climate relatively cool and windy. However, the area of South San Francisco and San Francisco International Airport (SFO) experience lower winds and a greater frequency of calm winds (approximately 13 percent of the year), especially during the nighttime and cooler season, due to sheltering effect of terrain to the west. Meteorological data collected at the SFO, which is approximately two miles southeast of the Project site, are representative of general Project conditions. Average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures at SFO are 56 and 42 Fahrenheit (°F), respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 72 and 54 °F, respectively. Precipitation at SFO averages approximately 20 inches per year.' Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour (mph) throughout the peninsula. The east side of the mountains has a westerly wind pattern; however, it is influenced by local topographic features. That is, a few hundred feet rise in elevation will induce flow around that feature instead of over it during stable atmospheric conditions. This can change the wind pattern by as much as 90 T over short distances. On mornings without a strong pressure gradient, areas on the east side of the peninsula often experience eastern flow in the surface layer, induced by upslope flow on the east - facing slopes and by the bay breeze. The bay breeze is rarely seen in the afternoon because the stronger sea breeze dominates the flow pattern.' REGULATORY CONTEXT The Project site is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin under the jurisdiction of the BAAQMDD. The BAAQMD regulates air quality pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and the California Clean Air Act. The BAAQMD adopts and enforces controls on stationary sources of air pollutants through its permit and inspection programs. Other BAAQMD responsibilities include monitoring air quality, preparation of clean air plans, and responding to 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology m v Divisions Commun° Lions- d- 7 Western Regional Climate Center, Local Ch*ate Data Summaries for San Fmnasm International Alvport, California. htti)e//www,wrcg.dri.eduLcV-bin/cldcd.r)l?ca23234 8 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. October 4, 2010, Bay Area Climatology GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental.Analysis October, 2016 c �vulur: ,jay area nir yuatuty management oistnct, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries, h i o ato ns- and-Outreach Area/ ° - -S es tax 2016. citizen air quality complaints. The BAAQMD has also published C.EQA A,irQttality Guidelines,q to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD operates a regional monitoring network for ambient concentrations of six criteria pollutants. Currently, the criteria pollutants of most concern in the Bay Area are ozone and particulate matter. The monitoring station closest to the Project site is in San Francisco on Arkansas Street. This air quality monitoring station monitors levels of ozone, particulate matter in the form of PM10, PM2.5, CO, NO2, and SOT Air Quality Table 1 summarizes the most recent three years of data published by the California Air Resources Board (CARS) for the San Francisco, Arkansas Street air monitoring station, which is approximately eight miles to the north of the Project site. The federal 24 -hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded twice in 2013. No exceedances of the air quality standards occurred during 2014 and 2015. The Bay Area is considered a nonattainment area for ground -level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. The area is also considered nonattainment for respirable particulates (PM10) under the California Clean Air Act, but not the Federal Clean Air Act. The area has attained both State and National .Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO, SO,, and NOx. As part of an effort to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, the BAAQMD has established thresholds of significance for these air pollutants and their precursors. These thresholds are for ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx), PM10 and PM2.5, and apply to both construction period and operational period impacts. AIR QUALITY TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY FRANCISCO, SAN 9 Bay mrlvw Area Air Quality Management District. CE—OA Air Qmhty GuideEne.. May ' 2012. ®/02 ®2012 ashx 11= ww �� a li o dog M oo B % uiclelixaes i�ars.l R u IN UENE,S1S 2,01.(i 11 NI" f' BUlrl:: )Nfi Chapter 2 Envi.romummental Analysis October, 201.6 SENSinw RECEPTORS People within the general population that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. Recreational receptors are also susceptible to short-term or acute health impacts. The Project is located along the southeastern flank of the San Bruno Mountain; 100 feet and 300 feet to the west of Airport Boulevard and Highway 101, respectively. Commercial and industrial land uses are located to the east and southeast of the Project site, while residential units are located to the west and southwest. Several hotels are located to the east across Highway 101. BAAQMO considers the relevant zone of influence for an assessment of air quality health risks to be those areas within 1,000 feet of the Project impact area. The nearest existing residences (Mandalay Point) are located to the west of the Project site; approximately 700 feet from the South Tower, approximately 1,100 feet from the North Tower, approximately 900 feet from the Amenity Building, and within approximately 500 feet of the parking structure. Martin Elementary School is located approximately 3,300 feet (or 0.6 miles) to the southwest of the Project site. IMPACTS a) Conflicts with the Current Air Quality Plan Si gnicance Criteria: Any project that would not support the goals of the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan (Bay Area CAP) would not be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. On September 15, 2010, the BAAQMD adopted the 2010 Bay Area CAP. The 2010 Bay Area CAP updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and GHG emissions in a single, integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 through 2012 tirneframe. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP are to: • Attain air quality standards; • Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and o Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate. The recommended measure for determining Project support of these goals is consistency with BAAQMD- approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project would be considered consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP. The Project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts and would. 1.0 GENESIS 2016 AM.ENI'.'I' 111411L1.11.NG Chapter 2 Environmetaal Analysis October, 2,016 therefore be consistent with the 2010 Bay Area CAP, thus this impact would be less than significant. b and c) Violation of Standards and a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it would exceed BAAQMD's construction and /or operational mass emission thresholds for exhaust emissions and /or if appropriate air pollutant control measures are not implemented. The significance thresholds are designated to assess whether a project would potentially violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Projects with impacts less than the significance thresholds with implementation of mitigation measures are presumed to not violate air quality standards. The BAAQlvlD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These thresholds were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant regional air quality impact. Air quality impacts are associated with both construction and operation of a project. BAAQMD rules and regulations govern certain aspects of the construction phase of projects. BAAQMD regulations applicable to the construction of the Project relate to portable equipment (e.g., gasoline- or diesel- powered engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, and cranes), architectural coatings, fugitive dust, and paving materials. Project construction and operational impacts are discussed within the following sections. Construction Related Impacts The Amenity Building would include a hotel /retail /restaurant /fitness center with a total of 73,495 square feet. No demolition of existing buildings would be required. Construction activities are assumed to require approximately 13 months to complete; starting in January of 2017. Construction of the Amenity Building would generate short -term emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust emissions. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines recommend quantification of construction - related exhaust emissions and comparison of those emissions to significance thresholds. Therefore, this analysis includes quantification of construction emissions and comparison of the emissions to the BAAQMD's construction significance thresholds. The CalEEMod (California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2013.2.2)i0 was used to quantify Project construction emissions of criteria pollutants. Air Quality Table 2 provides the estimated short-term construction emissions (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law and part of project design) that would be associated with the Project and compares those emissions to the B.AAQNM's thresholds for construction exhaust emissions. As the construction phases (i.e., minimal site preparation, minimal grading, building construction, paving, and coatings) are sequential, the average daily construction period emissions were compared to the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Construction activities would take place Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with some minor work occurring on 10 CaUbmia Air Resources Board, Ca1BEMOd User'. Guide Vernon _ 2013.2, July 2013, :fLMn r d SJIrCei bdlrspecanvl�al6Jaa­`D old jfdef i lu GENESIS 201.6 AMENITY lll..i11DING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2 1.6 Saturdays. The Amenity Building would be constructed along with the North Tower; and thus, the impacts of the North Tower construction and operations were included in this air quality analysis. All construction - related emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. The results of the construction emissions inventory are shown in Air Quality Table 2. AIR QUALITY TABLE 2 CONSTRUCTION CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (wounds Der dav) Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 Notes: Refer to Appendices A -1 and A -2 for all emission assumptions for the Amenity Building. Refer to Appendix A -4 for detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R&D Aix Quality Results for the North Tower. BAAQMD's CEQA Aar r�ualfty Guadelines provides a number of Constructaon Mitigati ©n Measures (related to fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions) for construction activities which are required of the Project through the City's standard review and approval. The Applicant would also use low ROG coatings and finishes, as required by the BAAQMD and implemented through the City Building Division." All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds with the implementation of these measures that are required by law. Project construction emissions would be very similar to construction emissions associated with office use12, and those construction emissions were also determined to have a less- than - significant impact with implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Otierational Impacts The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with motor vehicle use, space and water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur after the Project construction is complete and operational. The Project land use types and size and other Project - specific information (i.e., a 110 -room hotel on a two -acre site) were input into the model. Unless otherwise noted, the CalEEMod defaults for San Mateo County were used. CalEEMod provides 11 Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC as ROG) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8 -3). Rule 8 -3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits, which will be effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coating applications. The applicant shall use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces. 12 This document as identified in the Introduction Chapter is an addendum to the 1998/99 and 2006 SEIRs. The Commercial Office approvals granted in 2006 still represent the worst case analysis and "project" as defined by CEQA. Additionally, all the mitigation measures were designed to mitigate the Commercial Office project impacts. The R&D, Office and 2016 Amenity Building Project remain less that the Commercial Office CEQA analysis. GENESIS 2010 AMENITY BUILDING T Chapter 2 Ettvi.xon ental An in sis ctober, 201.6 r � / 3.99 , , F XY/ll 23.4 Ty l %� 0.43 r y Ilw -. fl. a 0.43 T8. Construuction — Ameni Buildin Construction — North Tower 18.9 24.1 0.40 0.39 Total Construction 22.9 47.5 0.83 0.82 Significance Thresholds 54 54 1 82 54 - -- Si cant Impact? No No No No No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2 Notes: Refer to Appendices A -1 and A -2 for all emission assumptions for the Amenity Building. Refer to Appendix A -4 for detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R&D Aix Quality Results for the North Tower. BAAQMD's CEQA Aar r�ualfty Guadelines provides a number of Constructaon Mitigati ©n Measures (related to fugitive dust and combustion exhaust emissions) for construction activities which are required of the Project through the City's standard review and approval. The Applicant would also use low ROG coatings and finishes, as required by the BAAQMD and implemented through the City Building Division." All construction emissions would be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds with the implementation of these measures that are required by law. Project construction emissions would be very similar to construction emissions associated with office use12, and those construction emissions were also determined to have a less- than - significant impact with implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Therefore, Project impacts that would be associated with construction related emissions would be less than significant with implementation of the measures the City requires by law. Otierational Impacts The CalEEMod was used to estimate emissions that would be associated with motor vehicle use, space and water heating, and landscape maintenance emissions expected to occur after the Project construction is complete and operational. The Project land use types and size and other Project - specific information (i.e., a 110 -room hotel on a two -acre site) were input into the model. Unless otherwise noted, the CalEEMod defaults for San Mateo County were used. CalEEMod provides 11 Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC as ROG) due to the use of architectural coatings are regulated by the limits contained in Regulation 8: Organic Compounds, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings (Rule 8 -3). Rule 8 -3 was recently revised to include more stringent VOC limit requirements. The revised VOC architectural coating limits, which will be effective on January 1, 2011, are projected to result in a 32 percent reduction of VOC emissions in the Bay Area associated with architectural coating applications. The applicant shall use paints and solvents with a VOC content of 100 grams per liter or less for interior and 150 grams per liter or less for exterior surfaces. 12 This document as identified in the Introduction Chapter is an addendum to the 1998/99 and 2006 SEIRs. The Commercial Office approvals granted in 2006 still represent the worst case analysis and "project" as defined by CEQA. Additionally, all the mitigation measures were designed to mitigate the Commercial Office project impacts. The R&D, Office and 2016 Amenity Building Project remain less that the Commercial Office CEQA analysis. GENESIS 2010 AMENITY BUILDING T Chapter 2 Ettvi.xon ental An in sis ctober, 201.6 emissions for transportation, areas sources,13 electricity consumption, natural gas combustion, electricity usage associated with water usage and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport. Fireplaces, if proposed for installation in the proposed hotel (for example, lobby), shall use natural gas only. 14 The maximum daily trip rates used in the air quality analysis to determine the maximum daily emissions for the hotel were 899 daily trips per weekday (8.17 trips per room), 901 daily trips per Saturday (8.19 trips per room), and 655 daily trips per Sunday (5.95 trips per room). The maximum daily trip rates used in the air quality analysis to determine the maximum daily emissions for the restaurant were 569 daily trips per weekday (89.95 trips per 1,000 square feet), 597 daily trips per Saturday (94.36 trips per 1,000 square feet), and 457 daily trips per Sunday (72.16 trips per 1,000 square feet). The maximum daily trip rates used in the air quality analysis to determine the maximum daily emissions for the fitness center were 229 daily trips per weekday (32.93 trips per 1,000 square feet), 145 daily trips per Saturday (20.87 trips per 1,000 square feet), and 186 daily trips per Sunday (26.73 trips per 1,000 square feet). Maximum daily trip rates for the Project are consistent with the Project's Traffic Study by Crane Transportation Group15 and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Dip Generation Manual (9b Ediiion); as determined by CalEEMod. The maximum daily trip rates for the Project assume a 100 percent hotel occupancy rate because the Project could potentially be fully- booked on any given day. The annual average daily trip rates used in the air quality analysis to determine the annual emissions for the hotel were 756 daily trips per weekday (6.87 trips per room), 758 daily trips per Saturday (6.89 trips per room), and 550 daily trips per Sunday (5.00 trips per room).' Using the Project's maximum daily trip rates to generate the Project's average annual emissions would result in an overestimation of emissions because maximum daily trip rates assume a hotel occupancy rate of 100 percent. Since the Project's Traffic Study by Crane Transportation Group only focuses on a maximum daily case of 100 percent hotel occupancy, a 15.9 percent reduction was applied to maximum daily trip rates in order to generate annual average daily trip rates for the Project. This reduction is based on the average hotel occupancy rate of 84.1 percent for the San Francisco metropolitan area, which includes San Mateo County. t' The average annual trip rates assume a lower hotel occupancy rate compared to maximum daily trips rates because the Project, similar to other hotels, would not be fully- booked every day during a given year. The City's Finance Department (via email from Ryan Wassum to Allison Knapp, March 30, 2016) provided a 5.25 -pear occupancy analysis for South San Francisco hotels only. The average occupancy from 2011 to first quarter 2016 is 79.6 percent. The highest full year occupancy was 82.1 percent in 2013 and the lowest was 77.1 percent in 2012. Therefore, the San Mateo County average is a conservative analysis. 13 Operational emissions associated with hearths (natural gas /propane fireplaces), consumer products (various solvents used in non- industrial applications, which typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, and toiletries), area architectural coatings, and landscaping equipment. 14 On July 9, 2008, the BAAQIM adopted Regulation 6, Rule 3: Wood - Burning Devices to reduce the harmful emissions that come from wood smoke. The Rule requires cleaner burning (e.g., natural gas) USEPA- certified stoves and inserts in new construction. 15 Crane Transportation Group, Centennial Hotel, Brewpub, and Fitness Center Trip Generation, September 14, 2016 16 Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, a hotel occupancy rate of 84.1 percenrand 1.5 persons per occupied room. 17 San Francisco Chronicle, April 25, 2015, :il sfehro w c 1 b` rs�t cle ice _ m_F_ hotel -r rat - om _ r c rsla- 6224193.nhn IN GENESIS 2016 AMEN11Y BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2016 Estimated operational daily and annual emissions that would be associated with the Project (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law and part of project design as proposed by the Project), are presented in Air Quality Tables 3 and 4 and are compared to BAAQMD's thresholds of significance. The estimated emissions that would be associated with the Amenity Building and North Tower operations would be below the BAAQMD's daily and annual significance thresholds and thus, would be a less - than - significant impact. AIR QUALITY TABLE 3 PROJECT DAILY OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS (pounds per day) JJ ry F riia i,/ }}fdqq rrr r u r, rip j , [{ 5 r i .0 1.� l � l!/12 �; - % ' / Amenity Building Area 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Energy 0.08 0.77 0.06 0.06 0.65 Mobile 4.15 5.52 4.77 1.32 32.8 Operations - Amenity Building 6.01 6.29 4.83 1.38 33.5 Operations -North Tower 32.1 23.6 10.5 5.04 83.1 Total Operations 38.1 29.9 15.3 6.42 117 Significance Thresholds 54 54 82 54 --- Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendices A -1 and A -2 for all emission assumptions for the Amenity Building. Refer to Appendix A -4 for detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R&D Air Quality Results for the North Tower. AIR QUALITY TABLE 4 PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATIONAL CRITERIA POLUTANT EMISSIONS tons per ear 711 IUL tpPPY� j f�� c�iUr/�eil r2 r �d ✓v ! J ; N a �jl A y^ ^fit '@ a �'rol. Y�. h U �P N% �l" a °' r� ,fi A4 m ljn I Amenity Building Area 0.33 <0.01 0.00 0.00 <0.01 Energy 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.12 Mobile 0.60 0.82 0.71 0.20 4.67 Operations - Amenity Building 0.94 0.97 0.72 0.21 4.79 Operations - North Tower 5.05 2.76 1.30 0.51 1 9.30 Total Operations 5.99 3.73 2.02 0.72 14.1 Significance Thresholds 10 10 15 10 --- Significant Impact? No No No No No Notes: Refer to Appendices A -1 and A -2 for all emission assumptions for the Amenity Building. Refer to Appendix A-4 for detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R&D Air Quality Results for the North Tower. The BAAQMD has identified preliminary screening criteria for determining whether CO emissions would be exceeded. The screening criteria provide a conservative indication of whether the implementation of the Project would result in CO emissions that are potentially significant. This methodology includes the following: 14 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUT1,DI[NO Chapter 2 Euviro . ent:al Arraiysis October, 2016 Project is not consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per day. 3. The Project traffic would increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per day where vertical and /or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below -grade roadway). Based on trip generation information from the Project's Traffic Study by Crane Transportation Group, the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation, and calculations within CalEEMod, Project at 100 percent occupancy would generate 899 daily trips per weekday, 901 daily trips per Saturday, and 655 daily trips per Sunday. Therefore, Project traffic would not cause the daily traffic volumes to exceed the screening criteria shown in items 1 through 3 based on the circulation infrastructure and the projected traffic volumes. Therefore, impacts that would be associated with long -term operational CO exhaust emissions would be less than significant. c) Cumulative Impacts As shown in Air Quality Tables 2 through 4, Project - related construction and operational emissions would be less than the BAAQMD significance thresholds per BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Guidelines The BAAQMD CEQA Air Qmalit4 Guidelines recommend that cumulative air quality effects from criteria air pollutants also be addressed by comparison to the mass daily and annual thresholds. These thresholds were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant regional air quality impact. Project - related construction and operational emissions would be below the significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations Significance Criterier The significance of impact to sensitive receptors is dependent on the chance of contracting cancer from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TAC) such as DPM or of having adverse health effects from exposure to non - carcinogenic TAC. A project is considered to be significant if the incremental cancer risk at a receptor exceeds 10 in a million persons. For cumulative analysis of cancer risk, BAAQMD recommends that the risks from all sources within a 1,000 -foot radius of a project's impact area (i.e., centered at the maximum exposed residence located to the northwest of the Project) be assessed and compared to a cumulative increased risk threshold of 100 in one million persons. The non - cancer hazard index significance threshold of 1.0 is defined in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. For cumulative analysis of non - cancer hazard index, BAAQMD requires that the hazards from all sources within a 1,000 -foot radius of a project's impact area be assessed and compared to a cumulative hazard index threshold of 10. M ULINESIS 2016 AME; I1 7 BUILDING Chapter 2 Envir tunentai Analysis October, 2,016 Emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks. The BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold for PM2.5 to protect public health. For individual projects, the BA,.4QMD significance threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (µg /m). For cumulative analysis, BAAQbff) recommends that the PM2.5 concentrations from all sources within a 1,000 -foot radius of a project's impact area be assessed and compared to a cumulative threshold of an average annual increase of 0.8 pg /m3. For projects that are considered new sources of TAC or PM2.5 (such as construction activity, stationary sources, industrial sources, or roadway projects), it is generally appropriate to use both the project -level and cumulative -level thresholds because the project -level threshold identifies project's incremental contribution to health impacts, while the cumulative threshold assesses project's cumulative contribution to health impacts. However, for projects that consist of new receptors (such as proposed residences or schools), it is generally appropriate to use only the cumulative -level threshold only because the project itself is not a source of TAC or PM2.5 and, thus, the individual project -level threshold is not relevant. The cumulative risk threshold accounts for all potential sources of TAC and PM2.5 in proximity to the new receptors on the project site. Therefore, the Project was compared to both the project-level and cumulative -level thresholds as it represents a new emission source but not new receptors. People within the general population that are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution include children, elderly, and those that suffer from certain illnesses or disabilities. Therefore, schools, convalescent homes, and hospitals are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to localized air pollutants. Studies have demonstrated that DPM from diesel- fueled engines is a human carcinogen and that chronic (long -term) inhalation exposure to DPM poses a chronic health risk. The Project would be located near rail activities, Highway 101, Airport Boulevard, and permitted stationary sources; which are existing sources of DPM and air toxics. The Project site is bounded by Airport Boulevard, Highway 101, and rail activities to the east. Wind directions are predominately from the west with a moderate frequency of calm and low wind conditions and an average annual wind speed is seven miles per hour, and thus, blowing from the Project site to the emission sources (See Appendix A -3, Figure A -2). In accordance with OEHHA .Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments" this HRA was accomplished by applying the highest estimated concentrations of TAC at the receptors analyzed to the established cancer potency factors and acceptable reference concentrations for non - cancer health effects. Recent revisions by OEHHA to its Guidance Manual were primarily designed to ensure that the greater sensitivity of children to cancer and other health risks is reflected in HRA. For example, OEHHA now recommends that risks be analyzed separately for multiple age groups, focusing especially on young children and teenagers, rather than the past practice of analyzing risks to the 18 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Air Taxies Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Healtb Risk Assessments. Feb= 2015. . v t is 1 I 161 GENESIS 2016 A E 'I B1.1ILDI G Chapter, 2 Environmental.Anilysis October, 2116' general population, without distinction by age. OEHHA also now recommends that statistical 'age sensitivity factors" be incorporated into a HRA, and that children's relatively high breathing rates be accounted for. On the other hand, the Guidance Manual revisions also include some changes that would reduce calculated health risks. For example, under the former guidance, OEHHA recommended that residential cancer risks be assessed by assuming 70 years of exposure at a residential receptor; under the Guidance .Manual, this assumption is lessened to 30 years. Cancer Risks Air Quality Table 5 shows the cancer risk, hazard impact, and PM2.5 concentrations (in µg /m) associated with Project construction. As a result of construction activities associated with the Amenity Building (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law and part of project design), the maximum cancer risk for an adult receptor would be 0.08 per million and for a child receptor would be 1.80 per million (based on an annual average DPM concentration of 0.013 µg /m 3 during the construction period and risk exposure calculation methodologies within Appendix A -3). The Amenity Building would be constructed along with the North Tower; and thus, the impacts of the North Tower construction were included in this health impact analysis. As a result of construction activities associated with the Amenity Building and the North Tower (see Air Quality Table 5), the maximum cancer risk for an adult receptor would be 0.11 per million and for a child receptor would be 2.16 per million. The maximum cancer risks from the North Tower operations (i.e., fume hoods, backup generators, and boilers) would be 0.84 per million. 'Thus, the total cancer risk due to construction activities and operations associated with the Amenity Building and North Tower (3.0 per million) would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 per million and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. AIR QUALITY TABLE 5 PRO ECT HEALTH IMPACTS ���kx i x i rirc��rr,. rn { � am <o M s3 s✓` �h. Arnernty Boding Construction 0.08/1.80 <0.01/<0.01 0.01 North Tower Construction 0.03/0.36 0.03/0.01 0.03 North Tower Operations 0.84 <0.01 <0.01 Total Health Impacts 0.95/3.00 0.03/0.01 0.04 Significance Thresholds 10 1 0.3 Si cant rn act? No I No No Note: Project Cancer Risk reported for adult and child, respectively. Project Hazard Impact reported as acute and chronic, respectively, Refer to Appendix A -3 for all emission assumptions for the Amenity Building. Refer to Appendix A -4 for detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R&D Air Quality Results for the North Tower. Non - Cancer Hazard Impacts Both acute (short -term) and chronic (long -term) adverse health impacts unrelated to cancer are measured against a hazard index (HI), which is defined as the ratio of the predicted incremental exposure concentration from the Project to a published reference exposure level (REL) that could f (jILNESIS 2016AMEN117YBUILDING Ch.aptet 2 Environmental-Analysis October, 2016 cause adverse health effects. The RELs are published by OEHHA based on epidemiological research. The ratio (referred to as the Hazard Quotient [HQ) of each non - carcinogenic substance that affects a certain organ system is added to produce an overall HI for that organ system. The overall HI is calculated for each organ system. The impact is considered to be significant if the overall HI for the highest- impacted organ system is greater than 1.0. The chronic reference exposure level for DPM was established by the California OEHHA19 as 5 micrograms per cubic meter (µg /m3). Thus, the Project - related annual concentration of DPM cannot exceed 5.0 pg /m3; resulting in a chronic acute HI of greater than 1.0 (i.e., DPM annual concentration /5.0 gg /m). There is no acute REL for DPM. However, diesel exhaust does contain acrolein and other compounds, which do have an acute REL. Based on BAAQMD's DPM speciation data, acrolein emissions are approximately 1.3 percent of the total DPM emissions. The acute REL for acrolein was established by the California OEHHA20 as 2.5 }1g /m3. Thus, the Project - related 1 -hour concentration of acrolein cannot exceed 2.5 gg /m3; resulting in an acute HI of greater than 1.0 (i.e., acrolein 1 -hour concentration /2.5 gg /m). Please see Appendix A -3 for details on health risk assessment assumptions and methodologies. The acute HI would be 0.03. The acute HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. The chronic HI would be less than 0.01. The chronic HI would be well below the BAAQMD threshold of 1 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. PM2.5 Concentrations Dispersion modeling was also used to estimate exposure of sensitive receptors to Project - related concentrations of PM2.5. Because emissions of PM2.5 are associated with health risks, the BAAQMD has established a separate significance threshold to protect public health. For individual projects, the BAAQMD significance threshold for PM2.5 impacts is an average annual increase of 0.3 µg /m3. The BAAQMD guidance requires inclusion of PM2.5 exhaust emissions only in this analysis (i.e., fugitive dust emissions are addressed under BAAQMD dust control measures and are required by law to be implemented into Project construction. The maximum annual PM2.5 concentration as a result of Project construction would be 0.03 µg /m3. The annual PM2.5 concentration would be below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 11g /m3 and the impact of the Project would therefore be less than significant. Cumulative Health Impacts The BAAQMD's CE QA Air7ualily Guidelines also include standards and methods for determining the significance of cumulative health risk impacts. The method for determining cumulative health risk requires the tallying of health risk from permitted stationary sources, major roadways and any other identified substantial TAC sources in the vicinity of a project site (i.e., within a 1,000 -foot radius) and then adding the individual sources to determine whether the BAAQMD's cumulative 19 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment - Acute, 8 -hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, June 2014, 20 Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment - Acute, 8 -hour, and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels, June 2014, g GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chal.)ter 2 Environ. enral..A a.lysiis October, 201" health risk thresholds are exceeded. Results are summarized for the maximally exposed individual receptor. The BAAQMD has developed a geo- referenced database of permitted stationary emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and the Stationary Source Risk 60 Hazard Analysis Tool (May, 2012) for estimating cumulative health risks from the permitted sources. One permitted source is located within approximately 1,000 feet of the Project site. BAAQMD has also developed a geo - referenced database of roadways throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and has developed the Highway Screening Analysis Tool (dated May, 2011) for estimating cumulative health risks from roadways. Highway 101 is included in this database and is within 1,000 feet of the Project site. BAAQMD CEQA AirQuality Guidelines also require the inclusion of surface streets within 1,000 feet of the Project with annual average daily traffic (AADT) of 10,000 or greater. Upon review of nearby roadways, Airport Boulevard meets the criteria. CalTrain and Union Pacific operations also occur near the Project site. Thus, rail activities were included in the health impacts analysis. Air Quality Table 6 shows the cumulative cancer risk, hazard impact, and PM2.5 concentrations (in ug/m) associated with cumulative sources (developed by BAAQMD), as well as the Project. Air Quality Table 6 represents the cumulative health impacts on existing sensitive receptors. The total cancer risk is 24.6 per million. The cumulative impacts are below the BAAQMD significance thresholds. Given that the Project would not result in increased health impacts exceeding the project -level significance thresholds, the Project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to localized health risk and hazard impacts, resulting in a less than significant cumulative air quality impact AIR QUALI'T'Y TABLE 6 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS a Cancer Risk, Hazard ] mpact and PM2.5 Concentration values based on the assumption of the number of diesel locomotives passing by on a weekly basis. The AERMOD dispersion model was used to estimate maximum downwind concentrations and potential health risk at sensitive receptors from the rail line source. b Route 101 Cancer Risk, Hazard Impact, and PM2S Concentration values for Highway 101 are based on 6 foot height estimates provided by the BAAQMD developed geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions. IE GENESIS 20:1.6 AMENITY BUILDING INN Chapter 2 ;Envi.. mer.mtal i alysis Ctctobu,, 2016 e) Odor Impacts Significance Criteria: Though offensive odors from stationary and mobile sources rarely cause any physical harm, they still remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress, generating citizen complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors. Generally, odor emissions are highly dispersive, especially in areas with higher average wind speeds. However, odors disperse less quickly during inversions or during calm conditions, which hamper vertical mixing and dispersion. The BAAQMD's significance criteria for odors are subjective and are based on the number of odor complaints generated by a project. Generally, the BAAQMD considers any project with the potential to frequently expose members of the public to objectionable odors to cause a significant impact. With respect to the Project, diesel- fueled construction equipment exhaust would generate some odors. However, these emissions typically dissipate quickly and would be unlikely to affect a substantial number of people. Odor impacts could also result from siting a new sensitive receptor near an existing odor source. Examples of land uses that have the potential to generate considerable odors include, but are not limited to wastewater treatment plants; landfills; refineries; and chemical plants. The BAAQMD recommends odor screening distances for a variety of land uses in the BAAQMD CEOA AirQuality Guidelines (dated May 2011). Projects that would site a new receptor farther than the applicable screening distance from an existing odor source would not likely result in a significant odor impact. The odor screening distances are not used as absolute screening criteria, rather as information to consider along with the odor parameters and complaint history. The odor screening distances for a sewage treatment plant, refinery, and chemical plant are two miles .2' The Project is not within the odor screening distances for a sewage treatment plant, refinery, or other odor producing sources. Therefore, odor impacts associated with the location of the Project would be less than significant. Would the Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation Less Than Significant No Impact Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either X directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 21 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, May 2011, hC vw.bn rntP. qoY -m�S ii FS1i 4 1 l nnita v,'n2f zz @ al o/ f4 Ol 1 „hz 201 GENESIS 2016 .AMEI `FrY Bl1l.l. DIN Chapter 2 Envi o nment l Analysis October, 2016 SETTING BACKGROUND AND DEFINITIONS Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are referred to as greenhouse gases (GHG) because they capture heat radiated from the sun as it is reflected back into the atmosphere, much like a greenhouse does. The accumulation of GHG has been implicated as the driving force for global climate change. The primary GHG are carbon dioxide (COQ, methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (NO), ozone, and water vapor. While the presence of the primary GHG in the atmosphere are naturally occurring, CO2, CHO and X120 are also emitted from human activities, accelerating the rate at which these compounds occur within earth's atmosphere. Emissions of CO2 are largely by- products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas methane results from off - gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other GHG include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, and are generated in certain industrial processes. GHG are typically reported in "carbon dioxide- equivalent" measures (CO2e).22 There is international scientific consensus that human - caused increases in GHG have and will continue to contribute to global warming. Potential global warming impacts in California may include, but are not limited to, loss in snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years. Secondary effects are likely to include a global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.2' In 2012, the United States emitted about 6.526 billion tons of CO2e or about 21 tons per year per person. Of the four major sectors nationwide - residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation — electrical generation accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions (approximately 32 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. United States GHG emissions decreased by 3.4 percent from 2011 to 2012. Recent trends can be attributed to multiple factors including reduced emissions from electricity generation, improvements in fuel efficiency in vehicles with reductions in miles traveled, and year -to -year changes in the prevailing weather. GHG emissions in 2012 were 10 percent below 2005 levels.24 0 GIB, I'ICMS 20: 6 AMENrrY h1.11I„1)II14(3 Chapter: 2 Enviroi ental Analysis October, 2016 years from 13.7 in 2000 to 12.1 million metric tons of COZe per person in 2012.'"5 California has one of the lowest per capita GHG emission rates in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the state's GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise. Another factor that has reduced California's fuel use and GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to that of many other states. The transportation sector remains the largest source of GHG emissions in 2012, accounting for 36 percent of California's GHG emission inventory. Contributions from the transportation sector include emissions from on -road and off -road vehicles, aviation, rail and water -borne vehicles, and some other minor sources. Transportation- related GHG emissions have dropped 12 percent since reaching a maximum in 2007. In 2012, emissions from the on -road category decreased by 0.5 percent from the previous year.26 The California Environmental Protection Agency Climate Action Team reported that the composition of gross GHG emissions in California in 2002 (expressed in terms of CO2e) were as follows 2, • CO2 accounted for 83.3 percent; • CH4 accounted for 6.4 percent; • N20 accounted for 6.8 percent; and • Fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFC, and SFO accounted for 3.5 percent. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the transportation sector and industrial /conunercial sector represent the largest sources of GHG emissions, accounting for 36.4 percent each of the Bay Area's 95.8 million tons of COZe in 2007. Electricity /co- generation sources account for about 15.9 percent of the Bay Area's GHG emissions, followed by residential fuel usage at about 7.1 percent. Off -road equipment and agricultural/ farming sources currently account for approximately three percent and 1.2 percent of the total Bay Area GHG emissions, respectively.' The City of South San Francisco published a community -wide GHG emissions inventory for the year of 2005'' The inventory attributed the two largest sources of GHG emissions to transportation (34.9 percent) and to commercial /industrial (34.7 percent). The City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 560,414 metric tons of CO2e in 2005. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 22 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2.Envitonniental Analysis October, 201.6 California has increased focus on the need to control GHG emissions, to mitigate their effects and to prepare for adapting to the effects of global climate change. The following summarizes prominent regulations and initiatives in California that address global climate change and GHG: o Senate Bill 1771 (Sher, Chapter 1018, Statutes of 2000), signed on September 30, 2000, established the creation of the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) as a non- profit organization. SB 1771 required the California Energy Commission (CEC) to update the state GHG emissions inventory and to develop data and information on climate change — and to provide certain entities and interest groups with information on the costs, technical feasibility, and demonstrated effectiveness of methods for reducing GHG from in -state sources. SB 1771 required the inventory to be updated every five years. o Senate Bi11527 (Sher, Chapter 769, Statutes of 2001), which amended SB 1771, was signed on October 11, 2001. The bill revised the functions and duties of the CCAR and required the CCAR, in coordination with the CEC to adopt third - party verification metrics, develop GHG emissions protocols and qualify third -party organizations to provide technical assistance and certification of emissions baselines and inventories. o Assembly Bill 32 (W ez, Chapter 488, Statutes of 2006), the California Global WarminS Solutions Act of 2006, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, required the CARB to lower GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 -a 25 percent reduction statewide, with mandatory caps for significant emissions sources. AB 32 directed CARB to develop discrete early actions to reduce GHG while also preparing a scoping plan (i.e., the Climate Change Scoping Plan) in order to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. In September of 2016, the AB 32 was extended to achieve reductions in GHG of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The new plan, outlined in SB 32, involves increasing renewable energy use, putting more electric cars on the road, improving energy efficiency, and curbing emissions from key industries. o Senate Bill 97 (Dutton, Chapter 187, Statutes of 2007), signed on August 24, 2007, directed the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines to mitigate GHG emissions identified through the CEQA review process, including the effects associated with transportation and energy consumption. As directed by SB 97, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 97 became effective on March 18, 2010. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN CARB's Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARE projected statewide 2020 business -as -usual (BALD) GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year W GENESIS 201.6 AMEN11T BUILDING Ct apter 2 Environmental,Analysis October, 2 1.6 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32. Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and measures not previously considered within the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU without emissions standards enacted under Assembly Bill 1493 (Pa-cley) and the 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS). Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS),30 California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, RPS, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures that would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. In addition, newly constructed buildings are required to comply with the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The Project's GHG emissions would be reduced by compliance with statewide measures that have been adopted since AB 32. Therefore, the Project would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California's GHG reduction goals and strategies. In October of 2013, the CARB submitted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan for public review and comment. The First Update to the Scoping Plan was approved by the CARB on May 22, 2014, and builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and recommendations. The First Update identifies opportunities to leverage existing and new funds to further drive GHG emission reductions through strategic planning and targeted low carbon investments. The First Update defines CARB's climate change priorities for the next five years, and also sets the groundwork to reach long -term goals set forth in Executive Orders S -3 -05 and B-16-2012. The Update highlights California's progress toward meeting the "near- term" 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the initial Scoping Plan. It also evaluates how to alum the State's "longer - term" GHG reduction strategies with other State policy priorities for water, waste, natural resources, clean energy, transportation, and land use. In the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, nine key focus areas were identified (energy, transportation, agriculture, water, waste management, and natural and working lands), along with short -lived climate pollutants, green buildings, and the cap- and -trade program. These key focus areas have overlapping and complementary interests that will require careful coordination in California's future climate and energy policies. These focus areas were selected to address issues that underlie multiple sectors of the economy. As such, each focus area is not contained to a single economic sector, but has far - reaching impacts within many economic sectors. CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE On January 12, 2010, the State Building Standards Commission unanimously adopted updates to the California Green Building Standards Code, which went into effect on January 1, 2011. New 30 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court's rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB's motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB's appeal of the lower court's decision. In a separate case, on July 15, 2013, the State of California Court of Appeal, -Fifth Appellate District issued its opinion in POET, LLC v. California Air Resources Board. The Court held that the LCFS would remain in effect and that the CARB can continue to implement and enforce the 2013 regulatory standards while it corrects certain aspects of the procedures by which the LCFS was originally adopted. 24 GENESIS 2016 A . I» ITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, '2016 CALGreen standards were adopted and became effective January 14, 2014. CALGreen is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, carmnercial and school buildings. CALGreen does not prevent a local jurisdiction from adopting a more stringent code as state law provides methods for local enhancements. CALGreen recognizes that many jurisdictions have developed existing construction and demolition ordinances, and defers to them as the ruling guidance provided they provide a minimum 50- percent diversion requirement. CALGreen also provides exemptions for areas not served by construction and demolition recycling infrastructure. State building code provides the minimum standard, which buildings are required to meet in order to be certified for occupancy. Enforcement is generally through the local building official. The development of CALGreen is intended to (1) cause a reduction in GHG emissions from buildings; (2) promote environmentally responsible, cost - effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reduce energy and water consumption; and (4) respond to the directives by the Governor. In short, CALGreen is established to reduce construction waste; make buildings more efficient in the use of materials and energy; and reduce environmental impacts during and after construction. CALGreen contains requirements for construction site selection, storm water control during construction, construction waste reduction, indoor water use reduction, material selection, natural resource conservation, site irrigation conservation, and more. CALGreen provides for design options allowing the designer to determine how best to achieve compliance for a given site or building condition. CALGreen also requires building commissioning, which is a process for verifying that all building systems, like heating and cooling equipment and lighting systems, are functioning at their maximum efficiency. The following provides examples of CALGreen requirements: • Designated Parking. Provide designated parking in commercial projects for any combination of low- emitting, fuel - efficient and carpool /van pool vehicles. • Recycling by Occupants. Provide readily accessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified for the depositing, storage and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling. • Construction Waste. A minimum 50- percent diversion of construction and demolition waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and -75 percent for new homes and 80- percent for commercial projects. All (100 percent) of trees, stumps, rocks and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing shall be reused or recycled. • Wastewater Reduction. Each building shall reduce the generation of wastewater by one of the following methods: ' The installation of water - conserving fixtures or ■ Using nonpotable water systems. • Water Use Savings. 20- percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35, and 40- percent reductions. • Water Meters. Separate water meters for buildings in excess of 50,000 square feet or buildings projected to consume more than 1,000 gallons per day. • Irrigation Efficiency. Moisture - sensing irrigation systems for larger landscaped areas. • Materials Pollution Control. Low- pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring, and particleboard. fliialgESIS 20I6 'AMENITY III ILI)I G Chapter 2 E nviron.w ent:al Analysis ct#Aer, 2.016 o Building Commissioning. Mandatory inspections of energy systems. (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies. CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), representing California's 35 local air districts, launched the CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Aeduciton Exchange (G°HG 1;X).31 The GHG Rx provides a reliable, low -cost, secure platform to encourage locally generated, high quality GHG emission reduction credits that can be used to meet CEQA or other compliance requirements. The GHG Rx features locally generated and properly validated GHG emission reduction credits from voluntary projects within California and allow interaction between those who create the credits, potential buyers and funding organizations. BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. As part of its role in air quality regulation, BA-AQMD has prepared CEQA air quality guidelines to assist lead agencies in evaluating air quality impacts of proposed projects and plans. The guidelines provide procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the environmental review process consistent with CEQA requirements. The CEQA Air Quali/y Guidelines provide CEQA thresholds of significance for operational GHG emissions from land use projects for. the first time. The BAAQMD has not defined GHG thresholds from construction activities, but recommends that significance be determined in relation to meeting AB 32 GHG reduction targets. OPR's amendments to the CEQA Guidelines as well as BAAQMD's CE_1A AirQuadity Guidelines and thresholds of significance have been incorporated into the analysis of potential GHG impacts associated with the Project. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN The City of South San Francisco prepared a Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP)32 and a Climate Action Plan (CAP) 33 The City Council adopted the PMP and CAP on February 12, 2014. The CAP provides goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, climate change adaptation and support the goals of AB 32 and SB 375. The PMP provides a community -wide plan providing for a network of sidewalks and paths to facilitate increased walking to local destinations. The PMP includes an inventory and assessment of the current pedestrian facilities, a gap analysis, to identify and prioritize needed improvements and provide goals, policies, and measurable implementation measures. A key focus area is the Downtown Area and residential neighborhoods. The CAP contains the following goals, measures, and actions to reduce GHG emissions (measures/actions of particular applicability to the Project): Goal LUT1: Reduce Emissions from Transportation. 29 cAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Exchange, Available online at. htto: / /xarWrod.a�d.¢av /gh¢ru 32 City of South San Francisco, Pedestrian piaster Plan, February 13, 2014. hup: / /www.ssfnet /1531 /Pedestrian- Master - Plan.. 33 City of South San Francisco, Climate Action Plan, February 13, 2014. h=://www.ssfuct/1803/""Climate--Action-Plan uct /1803 /Climate -Action -Plan. 261 GENIES1S 2016 AMENITY BUILDlb1G- Chapter 2 Enviurortmettta.l Analysis October, 201 Measure 1.1: Expand active transportation alternatives by providing infrastr.- ticture and enhancing connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian access. Measure 1.2: Support expansion of public and private transit programs to reduce employee commutes. Measure 13: Integrate higher- density development and mixed -use developmert near transit facilities and community facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices. Goal LUT2: Improve Vehicle Efficiency Measure 2.1: Expand the use of alternative -fuel vehicles. Measure 2.2: Reduce emissions from off -road vehicle and equipment. Goal EE1: Increase Building Energy Efficiency Measure 3.1: Maximize energy efficiency in the built environment through standards and the plan review process. 1. Provide incentives to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards, such as expedited permitting and fee reductions, and prornote utility - sponsored and statewide initiatives for energy efficiency in new construction and rnaterials. 2. Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as preferred mitigation for CAP streamlining 3. Encourage the use of energy- efficient or smart -grid integrated appliances in new development. Measure 3.2: Support retrofits to existing residential structures. Measure 3.3: Encourage energy efficiency retrofits to the existing nonresidential building stock that reduce operating costs and increase industry competitiveness. Measure 3.4: Address heat island issues and expand the urban forest. 1. Encourage the use of high - albedo (reflective) surfaces and technologies, as identified in the CALGreen standards. 2. Continue to require tree planting in new development and encourage tree placement to maximize building shading. Measure 3.5: Promote energy information and sharing, and educate the community about energy - efficient behaviors and construction. Goal EE2: Increase Alternative Energy Options in South San Francisco Measure 4.1: Promote installation of alternative energy facilities M t. t°L EFUS 2016 AMENITY ]WILDING Chapter 2 ;En °rown.ental. Analysis October, 2016 1. Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, to comply with one of the following standards: a. Meet a minimum of 50 percent of modeled building electricity needs with on -site renewable energy sources. b. Participate in a power purchase agreement to offset a minimum of 50 percent of modeled building electricity use. c. Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20 percent or more. 2. Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar. 3. Promote on -site renewable energy or distributed generation energy systems in new and existing and nonresidential projects. Measure 4.2: Reduce the cost of alternative energy installations. Measure 4.3: Support green industries. Goal W1: Reduce Waste Disposal Rates and Volumes Measure 5.1: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials to achieve a 75 percent diversion of la.ndfilled waste by 2020. 1. Continue to provide recycling and compost bins to all tenants. 2. Continue to enforce the existing construction and demolition recycling ordinance, requiring 100 percent of inert waste and 65 percent of non -inert waste to be recycled from all eligible projects. 3. Continue to establish new and innovative residential and commercial green waste recycling /composting services. Measure 5.2: Reduce landfill emissions. Goal WE1: Conserve Water Measure 6.1: Reduce water demand. 1. Continue to support implementation of the Urban Water Management Plan to reduce potable water use by 20 percent. 2. Revitalize implementation and enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance by undertaking the following. a. Establishing a variable -speed pump exchange for water features. b. Limiting turf area in commercial projects. c. Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3 am and two hours after sunrise. d. Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors. e. Landscaping with native, water- efficient plants. f Installing drip irrigation systems. g. Reducing impervious surfaces. 21 G :' ESI:S 201.6 777777777 BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2.016 Measure 6.2: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation. IMPACTS a) Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Criteria: The BAAQMD CE_OAAirQuality Guidelines identify a project specific threshold for non - stationary sources of either a brightline threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO 2e per year or an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population (i.e., the number of residents plus the number of employees associated with a new developrnent) as resulting in a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact. The BAAQMD CEQA Air_Oyalitp Guidelines also identify a project specific threshold for permitted stationary sources of 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Alternatively, a project that is found to be consistent with a Qualified CAP would have a less - than - significant impact to global climate change. This analysis applies the 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population significance criterion for non - stationary sources and applies the 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year significance criterion for permitted stationary sources. This analysis also reviews the goals, policies, and measures within the South San Francisco CAP. The Project is adjacent to SamTrans bus routes as well as frequent shuttle bus service to CalTrain, BART and the ferry. Shuttles now serve the South Tower as well as major employment activity east of Highway 101. Shuttles can also be used by employees at the Amenity Building and North Tower. This convenience would tend to reduce motor vehicle emissions as it would tend to reduce daily trips by increasing the use of mass transportation. Secondly, the Project design would incorporate CALGreen building design. Specific measures to be incorporated into the project design which are intended to further reduce GHG emissions are included in City's standard review and approval procedures. CalEEMod was used to quantify GHG emissions associated with Project construction activities (for informational purposes), as well as long -term operations associated with natural gas space and water heating, electricity, landscape maintenance, and vehicles. CalEEMod incorporates local energy emission factors and mitigation measures based on the CAPCOA's Quantijing Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures34 and the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol" Estimated construction GHG emissions that would be associated with the Amenity Building and North Tower are presented in GHG Emissions Table 1. The estimated construction GHG emissions are 390 metric tons of CO2e for the Amenity Building. As indicated, 30 -year amortized annual construction related GHG emissions would be approximately 13.0 metric tons of CO2e. The BAAQMD does not recommend a threshold for GHG emissions from construction, so this analysis (similar to many other analyses prepared in the Bay Area Air Basin) will amortize the construction emissions over the lifetime of the Project (30 years) and will add amortized construction emissions sa CAPCOA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, August 2010, ell c �-� Font t/u icsads120101111CAPCOA -Our tifie -Re 14- ��o� f 35 California CkmateAchon Regst" General RebortinQ Protocol Mav 2008. h -I f. — GENESIS 2016 A 1. °.mN1T` "BUILL1C11NG Clrapttsr :2 Environmental , Analysis Oc.tr. ber, 2.01 to the annual operational emissions. GHG Emissions Table 1 also provides the estimated operational GHG emissions from non - stationary sources that would be associated with the Amenity Building and North Tower (with implementation of the measures the City requires by law and part of project design). The Amenity Building GHG operational (plus construction) impacts with implementation of the CALGreen standards and consistency with South San Francisco Climate Action Plan would be approximately 1,014 metric tons of CO2e per year, which equates to a GHG emission rate of 4.0 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population. The Amenity Building GHG emissions of 1,014 metric tons of CO2e per year is also below the BAAQMD Brightline threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. For the hotel the number of guests is based on 101 rooms times 84.1 percent occupancy rate times 1.5 persons per occupied room equals 139 hotel guests. The estimated number of employees were based on a rate of 1 employee per 1,124 square feet or 54 employees. For the restaurant, the number of employees were based on a rate of 1 employee per 134 square feet. For the fitness center, the number of employees were based on a rate of 1 employee per 549 square feet. Thus, the restaurant would have approximately 47 employees and the fitness center would have 13 employees.36 Therefore, the Amenity Building is expected to contain a service population of 253; while the North Tower would contain a service population of 900 as analyzed in 2015. GHG EMISSIONS TABLE 1 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Amenity Building Construction (30 -year amortized) 13.0 Operations (Area sources, Energy, Mobile, Solid Waste & Water) 1,001 Total GHG Emissions — Amenity Building 1,014 Total GHG Emissions per Service Population — Amenity Building 4.0 BAAQMD .Efcieng Threshold 4.6 Potentially Significant? No North Tower Construction (30 -year amortized) 43.2 Operations (area sources, Energy, Mobile, Solid Waste & Water) 1,432 Total GHG Emissions — North Tower 1,475 Total GHG Emissions per Service Population —North Tower 1.6 BAAQMD Efciency Threshold 4.6 Potentially Significant? No Source: CalEEMod Version 2013.2.2, US EPA AP -42 Notes: Refer to Appendices A -1 and A -2 for all emission assumptions for the Amenity Building. Refer to Appendix A4 for detailed Centennial Towers 2015 Development Alternative 2 Phase III R&D Air Quality Results for the North Tower. The Amenity Building and North Tower GHG operational (plus construction) impacts with implementation of the CALGreen standards and consistency with South San Francisco 36 US Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Type, 0 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUII..4DING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 201.6 Climate Action Plan would be approximately 2,489 metric tons of CO2e per year, which equates to a GHG emission rate of 2.2 metric tons of CO2e per year per service population. Thus, the Amenity Building and North Tower GHG operational (plus construction) impacts is below the BAAQMD threshold of 4.6 metric tons of Co 2e per year per service population and thus, is a less - than - significant impact. b) Potential Conflicts with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation The City of South San Francisco has adopted a CAP regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City has established a baseline government and community -wide inventory of GHG emissions. The Project would result in a significant impact if it would be in conflict with AB 32 State goals and the goals, policies, and measures of the applicable CAP for reducing GHG emissions. The assumption is that AB 32 and the CAP will be successful in reducing GHG emissions and reducing the cumulative GHG emissions statewide by 2020. The City and State have taken these measures, because no project individually could have a major impact (either positively or negatively) on the global concentration of GHG. The Project has been reviewed relative to the AB 32 measures and South San Francisco CAP and it has been determined that since the emissions are well below the thresholds of significance, the Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32 and the applicable CAP. The principal State plan and policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles and the LCFS are being implemented at the statewide level, and compliance at the specific plan or project level is not addressed. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with these plans and regulations.. The regulations, plans, and polices adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that are directly applicable to the Project include Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings and the Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code. As previously :discussed, the Project would be developed to exceed Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings by 30 percent and would be required to comply with Title 24 California Green Building Standards Code.37 Thus, the Project would be developed in compliance with the requirements of these regulations. In summary, the Project would not conflict with the plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. No impact would result and no mitigation is required. Finding: The Project would not result in a significant impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to GHG emissions. The Project would not conflict with the plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. A less -than- significant impact would result and no mitigation is required. 35 The Energy Commission's most recent standard, 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standard, is 25 percent more efficient than previous standards for residential construction and 30 percent better for nonresidential construction. The 2013 Building Energy Efficiency Standard, which took effect on January 1, 2014, offer builders better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses. 2016 Building Energy Effidency Standard becomes effective lanuary 1, 2017. U] GENESIS 016,1 MIS . Nil 1& UI.aD1.Jl.'"WG� Chapter 2 Ea isownental Analysis October, 2016 Would the Project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? SETTING potenUaw Less Than Less Than Significant significant Significant No Impact with Impact Impact Mitigation X X X X X Q The noise setting for the Project would be essentially the same as identified in the 2015 Addendum to allow a second development alternative (R&D uses) for Terrabay Phase III. (South San Francisco, 2015). The Project is located in the mixed -use JZBO) portion of the Terrabay Specific Plan District of South San Francisco which consists of residential and commercial land uses. The Project is located approximately 320 feet west of the centerline of U.S. 101, and 130 feet from the center of Airport Blvd. The noise in the area is primarily from roadway noise. According to the South San Francisco General Plan, the site is within the 70 dB noise contour for roadway noise (Figure 9 -2 Projected Rail. and Road Noise, page 283) and located outside of the 65 dB contour for airport noise (Figure 9 -1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Area, page 279). The airport's contours were updated in 2012, and the Project is outside of the 65 dB contour (Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compalibiko Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport, 32 3ENESIS 201..6 1I�,NiTY BUILDING ha:pxet 2 Environmental . alysis October, 2016 Ricondo Associates, 2012). m (AbNESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Envirownental Analysis October,, 2016 NOISE DEFINED Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Whether a sound is unwanted depends on when and where it occurs, what the listener is doing when it occurs, characteristics of the sound (loudness, pitch and duration, speech or music content, irregularity) and how intrusive it is above background sound levels. In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than daytime levels. However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes more noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to nighttime noise intrusion. To quantify the noise over a 24 -hour period, the Day /Night Average Sound level (DNL or Ldn) or Community Noise equivalent Level (CNEL) criteria are used. Both noise descriptors include a 10 decibel (dB) penalty (addition to the actual measured levels) during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) and a five dB penalty during evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) for the CNEL to account for people's sensitivity during these hours. Noise is measured and quantified with an A- weighted filter which closely approximates the way the human ear hears sound; a de- emphasis of low- frequency and high- frequency sound. The resulting measurement is quantified as an A- weighted decibel or dBA. Noise attenuates (reduces) the further it travels from the source. Stationary point sources of noise, including construction equipment, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on ground absorption. Soft sites attenuate at 7.5 dB per doubling because they have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. Hard sites have reflective surfaces (e.g., parking lots or pavement) and therefore have less attenuation (6.0 dB per doubling). Noise from a street with moving vehicles (known as a "line" source), would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 3 to 4.5 dB each time the distance doubles from the source, which also depends on ground absorption.38 The shell of a building (sometimes referred to as the envelope) attenuates noise 15 to 25 dBA or more depending on the type construction, number and type of doors and windows, and insulation contained therein. Physical barriers located between a noise source and the noise receptor, such as berms or sound walls, will increase the attenuation in addition to the attenuation that occurs by distance alone. Projects can result in an increase in noise (unwanted sound) from construction and /or operational activities. Construction is typically short -term in nature depending upon the construction schedule. Construction impacts can be annoying, but are relatively short -term and restricted to certain times of the day while "operational impacts" are not. Operational impacts run with the life of the Project and largely result from increased traffic, ventilation systems and /or land use activities that are conducted external to a building. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK STATE OF CALIFORNIA The California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 2.35 of the California Code of Regulation, collectively known as Title 24, contains acoustical requirements for interior sound levels 38Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Pra'ects, October 1998. 34 GENESIS 2011.6 AME I &:l: °" BUILI)IN Chapter 2 Etwirownental Analysis October, 2016 in habitable rooms for multi - family residential land uses. Title 24 contains requirements for construction of new hotels, motels, apartment houses, and dwellings other than detached single - family dwellings intended to limit the extent of noise transmitted into habitable spaces. The standard specifies the extent to which walls, doors, and floor - ceiling assemblies must block or absorb sound in between units and the amount of attenuation needed to limit noise frorn exterior sources. The standard sets forth an interior noise level of 45 dBA (CNEL or Ldn) in any habitable room with all doors and windows closed. The code requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been designed to meet this interior standard where such units are proposed in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 dBA (CNEL or LdJ. Title 24 requirements are enforced as a condition of building permit issuance by the Building Division. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN The South San Francisco Noise Element (South San Francisco General Plan, 1999) contains land use criteria for noise as it pertains to various land uses. These criteria define the desirable maximum noise exposure of various land uses in addition to certain conditionally acceptable levels contingent upon the implementation of noise reduction measures. For residential land uses, noise levels less than 65 dBA CNEL are acceptable and noise levels of 65 to 70 dBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable. For commercial land uses noise levels less than 70 dBA CNEL are acceptable, and noise levels of 70 to 80 DBA CNEL are conditionally acceptable (Table 9.2 -1 Land Use Criteria for Noise Impacted Areas, South San Francisco General Plan, page 280). The Noise Element contains the following policies pertaining to traffic noise: 9 -I -4 Ensure that new noise - sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals, churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. 9 -I -5 Require that applicants for new noise - sensitive development in areas subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, obtain the services of a professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures. 9 -I -6 Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise - sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL. This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NOISE ORDINANCE The City of South San Francisco regulates exterior noise levels through its Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32, South San Francisco Municipal Code). The Noise Ordinance contains special provisions for construction activities (Section 8.32.050). Construction activities authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of KM ENJUS:IS 2016 AMENIIN BUILDING DING Chapter 2 Envitomnental Analysis October, 2016 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, as long as they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: (1) No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty -five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty -five feet from the equipment as possible. (2) The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB. (Ord. 1088 § 1, 1990) SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Residential, schools, child care facilities and convalescent facilities are typically considered noise sensitive land uses. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project are residences (Mandalay Place) located southwest of the property, approximately 1,100 feet from the proposed North Tower and within 500 feet of the proposed parking structure expansion. Martin Elementary school is located approximately 3,850 feet (or 0.7 miles) to the southwest of the Project site. The Centennial Tower South is located within 75 feet of the proposed Amenity Building Building, and 50 feet from the proposed parking structure expansion. There are also several hotels located on the opposite side of U.S. 101 approximately 700 to 900 feet from the Project. NOISE MEASUREMENTS As identified in the 2015 Addendum, the dominant noise source during the noise measurements was traffic on U.S. 101 and Airport Boulevard (see Table 1). Other noise sources in the Project vicinity included aircraft noise, and noise from construction occurring on the opposite side of U.S. 101. These other noise sources were minor in comparison to the traffic noise. As shown in Noise Table 1, short -term sound level measurements on the fourth floor of the South Tower were collected Wednesday March 11, 2015 and exterior noise measurements at the Project site were collected Monday March 16, 2015. The long -term noise measurement on the balcony of the South Tower was conducted from Thursday March 12, through Saturday March 14, 2015. The average noise level for the 5- minute periods measured on the balcony of the South Tower (Site 1) was 73 dB Leq. The hourly noise levels at this site ranged from 64 to 73 dB Leq, and 24 -hour noise levels were 75 to 76 dB CNEL. The average noise level for the 5- minute periods measured inside of the building (Sites 2 and 3) was 44 dB Leq. The 5- minute exterior noise levels 120 feet (Site 4) and 90 feet (Site 5) from Airport Boulevard were 66 dB Leq and 69 -79 dB Leq respectively. 36 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BIJIL ING Chapter 2 Environmental An*sis October, 2016 NOISE TABLE 1 wnmip. MP_AQTTVVAXVXTVQ L o4zation, Traffic from U.S. 101 and Site 1. Fourth floor March 12,12:00 a.m. Hourly Leqs balcony of existing through March 14 ranged from: Airport 131vd. Safety glass South Tower, 410 feet 11:59 p.m., 2015 64-73 surrounding balcony provides from the center of U.S. about 2 dB of noise 101 Thursday-Saturday 24-hour attenuation. 72-hour CNELs: measurement 76,76,75 Site 1. Wednesday 5- minute Traffic on U.S. 101 is the March 11, 2015 Leqs: 73,73 predominant noise source as 2:27 p.m. to 2:37 well as traffic on Airport Blvd. P•m. Backup beepers from construction equipment southeast of the towers is audible. Site 2. Inside fourth Wednesday 5-minute Traffic noise is audible and floor of South Tower, March 11, 2015 Leqs: 44,44 increases to 44 dB when large directly inside of 2:27 p.m. to 2:37 truck passes. Backup beeps building from balcony p.m. from construction and elevator movement is audible, but do Site 3. Inside fourth Wednesday 5-minute not registrr on noise meter Traffic noise is audible and floor of the South March 11, 2015 Leq: sound level increases when Tower, on northern 2:40 p.m. to 2:45 44 large trucks pulling trailers side of building p.m. pass. Site 4: Project site, 120 Monday 5-minute— Noise from traffic is a steady feet west of the center March 16, 2015 Legs: 66,66 64-66 dB. Line of site to U.S. of Airport Blvd and 12:28 to 12:38 p.m. 101 is partially blocked 320 feet from the because Project site is elevated. center of U.S. 101 Semi-truck on Airport Blvd is 70 dB, traffic plus passing train is 70 dB. Site 5: Project site, 90 Monday 5-minute U.S. 101 is visible, traffic on feet west of the center March 16, 2015 Leqs: 69,70 Airport Blvd is 70 to 72 dB. of Airport Blvd and 12:40 to 12:50 p.m. Motorcycle on airport Blvd is 290 feet from the 82 dB. Two overhead planes center of U.S. 101 plus traffic noise is 68 dB. nn-i r Kh" GENESIS 201.6 AA41"WITY B(.TJLJ.)]1:NG Chapter 2 Enviroinnental Analysis October, 2016 IMPACTS a — d) Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of Standards, Exposure of Persons to or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise Levels, a Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels in the Project Vicinity above Levels Existing Without the Project. Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the South San Francisco General Plan or the City's Noise Ordinance. Construction noise would have a significant environmental impact if it occurs outside the hours specified in the Noise Ordinance or generates noise levels greater than those specified in the Noise Ordinance. POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS ON OCCUPANTS The 72 -hour noise measurement conducted on the fourth floor balcony of the South Tower was used to estimate noise levels at the proposed project, the 2016 Amenity Building, which would be located approximately the same distance to Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101 as the existing South Tower. As noted in the Introduction Chapter, the South Tower is constructed and approximately 55% occupied, and the North Tower (analyzed in 2015) and 2016 Amenity Building would be constructed simultaneously. Based upon these noise measurements, hourly exterior noise levels at the Project site as a whole would range from 66 to 75 dB Leq at the location of the North Tower building facade facing U.S 101 and Airport Boulevard.39 The estimated 24 -hour exterior noise levels would be 77 -78 dB CNEL. Exterior noise levels would be within the conditionally acceptable noise range (70 to 80 dBA CNEL) for commercial land uses. With estimated exterior noise levels of 77 to 78 dB CNEL at the Project site, the North Tower would require an indoor to outdoor noise reduction or STC40 of 33 dB or greater to comply with the 45 dB CNEL noise standard required by the California Building Code and contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. Based upon noise measurements conducted on the inside and the outside of the existing South Tower, the building envelope of the South Tower provides an STC of 29 dB. According to preliminary noise measurements, the North Tower would require an additional 4 dB of noise attenuation to achieve the STC of 33 dB required to reduce interior noise levels in the hotel units to 45 dB CNEL. Interior noise levels of the occupants would comply with the 45 dB CNEL noise standard as required by law. Since there is no practical way to reduce exterior noise levels in the hotel outdoor use area, and interior noise levels would be 45 dB CNEL or less, noise levels would comply with the standards of the California Building Code and South San Fhwe sco General Plan. Noise impacts to occupants of the 2016 Amenity Building Project would be less than significant. 39Noise levels were calculated using reference noise levels measured on the South Tower balcony, 410 feet from Highway 101. Two decibels were added to the estimates to account for the 2 dB noise attenuation of the safety glass that the long -term meter was behind. 40 Sound Transmission Class (STC) is a widely used rating for how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. STC ratings are used to rate interior partitions, ceiling /floors, doors, windows, and exterior wall configurations. STC is roughly the noise reduction a partition can provide in decibels (dBA) 38 G3,EN ESIS 201.6 AMENITY BU1:IIL IN Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis Octobe.t, 2016 PRojECT CONSTRUCTION Project construction is anticipated to last approximately 18 months and would result in a temporary increase of noise levels in the Project vicinity. Construction would include grading (450 cubic yards), the drilling of piers, construction of the Amenity Building, paving, and expansion of the parking structure west of the South tower. As shown in Noise Table 2, construction equipment noise levels can range from 76 to 85 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Pile driver noise can reach 101 dB, but pile driving is not expected to be used for the Project. NOISE TABLE 2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ouurr�c: rearra6 nzgnwg havmnuararron (rT'WA) Koadway GOtistmC40m Noue Mo&l User's Guide, 2006. The highest noise levels during construction would occur during the site preparation phase. This phase would include grading as well as drilling and installation of the piers for the Project. Graders can result in maximum noise level of 85 dB at 50 feet and drills produce noise levels of 79 -84 dB at 50 feet (FHWA, 2006). Maximum anticipated noise levels that would occur at nearby receptors during construction are shown in Noise Table 3. These noise levels would only occur when construction equipment is at the closest point to the receptor. KE 0:ir1-A,NESlIS 2011.6 AMENiTY BUILDING I G Chapter 2 Elnvirrosimer.aal Anal sir October, 2.016 76 Dump Truck Auger Drill Rig 84 Drill Rig Truck 79 Air Compressor 78 Crane 81 Concrete Mincer (Truck) 79 Scra er 84 Dozer 82 Paver 77 Generator 81 Rock Drill 81 Pile Driver 101 Front End Loader 79 Grader 85 Backhoe 78 ouurr�c: rearra6 nzgnwg havmnuararron (rT'WA) Koadway GOtistmC40m Noue Mo&l User's Guide, 2006. The highest noise levels during construction would occur during the site preparation phase. This phase would include grading as well as drilling and installation of the piers for the Project. Graders can result in maximum noise level of 85 dB at 50 feet and drills produce noise levels of 79 -84 dB at 50 feet (FHWA, 2006). Maximum anticipated noise levels that would occur at nearby receptors during construction are shown in Noise Table 3. These noise levels would only occur when construction equipment is at the closest point to the receptor. KE 0:ir1-A,NESlIS 2011.6 AMENiTY BUILDING I G Chapter 2 Elnvirrosimer.aal Anal sir October, 2.016 NOISE TABLE 3 MAXIMUM ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Receptor Distance ft Extenori dI3 Intenor dBd 562 South Tower 50 85 200 73 442 Homes at Mandalay Place 500 60 353 Hotels Across U.S. 101 700 -900 60 -62 35 -373 Source: RCH Group 2015 Notes: I Exterior noise levels were calculated using a reference noise level of 85 dB at 50 feet, and an attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. An attenuation rate of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance was used to calculate noise levels at Mandalay Place due to soft -site conditions between the homes and the project site. 2Interior noise levels in the South Tower were calculated using the 29 dB STC that was measured at the South Tower. 3 Interior noise levels were calculated for these location using an STC of 25 dB. Typical residential construction consistent with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) will provide an exterior -to interior noise level reduction of no less than 25 dB provided that exterior windows and doors are closed (Bollard, 2005, Burn, 1994). As shown in Noise Table 3, estimated noise levels from construction equipment would be 60 dB at the nearest sensitive receptors (homes on Mandalay Place), Due to the intervening topography which breaks the line of site between project construction and the homes, noise levels would likely be even lower than 60 dB, and would not result in a substantial noise increase at these residences. Noise levels from project construction would be 60 to 62 dB at the Hotels on the east side of U.S. 101, and would not be audible over traffic noise from U.S. 101. Construction equipment would result in highest noise levels at the South Tower, located 75 feet from the construction of the Amenity Building, and 50 feet from parking lot expansion. During construction of the Project, maximum short -term exterior and interior noise levels could be 73 and .44 dB respectively. During parking lot expansion, maximum short-term exterior and interior noise levels could be 85 and 56 dB respectively. Project construction is required to comply with the construction hours contained in the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance. The Noise Ordinance requires that construction activities shall take place on weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., and on Sundays and holidays between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. The loudest piece of equipment used for project construction would generate noise levels of 85 dB Lmax at 50 feet (Noise Table 2). Project construction would not result in noise levels exceeding 90 dB at the 25 feet from the property line of the Project site. Project construction would comply with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance, and temporary construction noise impacts would be less than significant. TEmFoRARY CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION Construction operations have the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction equipment used and operations involved. The ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Noise Table 4. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground 40 G] NESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Enviromuental Analysis October, 2010 and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. The effects of graund vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. NOISE TABLE 4 REPRESENTATIVE VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT source: reclew t ranslt Administration, 2006. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage. For most structures, a peak particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.5 inch per second or less is sufficient to avoid structural damage. The Federal Transit Administration recommends a threshold of 0.5 ppv for residential and commercial structures, 0.25 ppv for historic buildings and archaeological sites, and 0.2 ppv for non - engineered timber and masonry building (FTA 2006). The Project would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that woUd result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration (i.e., pile drivers that could be above 0.5 ppv). Ground vibration generated by construction operations would be primarily associated with on -site trucks, bulldozers, and drilling. As shown in Noise Table 3, these would result in vibration levels of less than 0.1 inch per second ppv at 25 feet. The predicted vibration levels at the raearest structure would not be anticipated to exceed the 0.5 ppv threshold for residential structures. The temporary construction vibration associated with on -site equipment would not be anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, a less - than - significant impact would occur. PROJECT OPERATION The operation of the Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3 -5 dB). M WI3ES1S 2016 A1NI . . IIIl.I1G Chapter 2 E'nviror . erktal Analysis October, 2016 y Pile Driver (impact) upper range 1.518 typical 0.644 Pile Driver (sonic) upperrange 0.734 typical 0.170 Large Bulldozer 0.089 Caisson Drilling 0.089 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Jackhammer 0.035 Small Bulldozer 0,003 source: reclew t ranslt Administration, 2006. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage. For most structures, a peak particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.5 inch per second or less is sufficient to avoid structural damage. The Federal Transit Administration recommends a threshold of 0.5 ppv for residential and commercial structures, 0.25 ppv for historic buildings and archaeological sites, and 0.2 ppv for non - engineered timber and masonry building (FTA 2006). The Project would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that woUd result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration (i.e., pile drivers that could be above 0.5 ppv). Ground vibration generated by construction operations would be primarily associated with on -site trucks, bulldozers, and drilling. As shown in Noise Table 3, these would result in vibration levels of less than 0.1 inch per second ppv at 25 feet. The predicted vibration levels at the raearest structure would not be anticipated to exceed the 0.5 ppv threshold for residential structures. The temporary construction vibration associated with on -site equipment would not be anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, a less - than - significant impact would occur. PROJECT OPERATION The operation of the Project could increase ambient noise levels in two ways, through the creation of additional traffic on local roadways and the operation of exterior mechanical equipment. Typically, traffic volumes need to double in order to result in a barely perceptible increase in noise levels (i.e., 3 -5 dB). M WI3ES1S 2016 A1NI . . IIIl.I1G Chapter 2 E'nviror . erktal Analysis October, 2016 The 2016 Amenity Building Project would result in 71 two-way AM trips and 150 two-way PM trips (Crane Transportation Group, March 2016). These trips would be distributed roadways in the Project vicinity such as U.S. 101 and Airport Boulevard, which contain high traffic volumes. The additional traffic generated by the Project would not result in a doubling of traffic. Project traffic would result in a less than one decibel increase, and would have a minimal effect upon ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. The Project would also include mechanical equipment used for ventilation and. air-conditioning. Due to the high background noise from U.S. 101, mechanical equipment on the top of the Amenity Building would not increase existing ambient noise levels at the Project site by more than three decibels. Operation of the Project would not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels, therefore noise impacts from operation would be less than significant. e) and f) Aircraft Noise Significance Criteria: The Project would have a significant environmental impact if it were located within an airport land use plan (or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two mile s of a public airport or public use airport) or in the vicinity of a private airstrip and were to expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The site is not within an aircraft insulation area as shown on Figure 9-1 Aircraft Noise and Noise Insulation Program (page 279, General Plan). The contours indicate the Project site is located outside the 65-dBA (CNEL) noise contour and within the 60 dB or less contour area. The Project is not located within two miles of a private airstrip, and is not located within the 65 dB SFO noise contour. There-fore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. Finding: Noise impacts to the occupants of the entire Project would be less than significant since noise levels are required by law to meet the 45 dB CNEL interior noise standard contained in the California Building Code and the South San Francisco General Plan. Project construction would comply with the South San Francisco Noise Ordinance and construction related impacts would be less than significant. Project operation (including mechanical equipment and traffic increases) would not result in a significant noise increase in the Project vicinity. The Project site is not located within the 65 dB contour interval for airport noise, so the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to excessive aircraft noise exposure. 421 GENESIS 2016 AM11L�?QI'1.'Y BIJ111 MING Chapter 2 Enviroumental Analysis October, 2016 SUMMARY OF REMAINING CEQA RESOURCE AREAS Aesthetics The Amenity Building Project would be constructed where the Project Design Studio (PDS) was approved in 2008. The Amenity Building would be five stories taller than the PDS, and two stories taller than the parking structure at 75 feet in height. The Amenity Building w ®uld be designed to be compatible with the two approved towers, in the curvilinear shape and facade. The Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the Amenity Building on September 20, 2016. DRB noted that the penthouse needed to include swooping crown elements similar to that of the two towers. DRB also noted that the Amenity Building pulls the project "together" and provides a pedestrian scale to the project. DRB also noted that the Project would further screen the parking gam- Lighting and glare would be less than significant. Lighting is required to be task oriented, and would be similar to that of the South Tower and parking garage. The aesthetics impacts would remain less than significant due to the task oriented lighting proposed by the project since 2006. Agriculture and Forest Resources There are no agricultural or forest resources on the Project site. There are no impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. Biological Resources As noted in the 2006/08 Addenda, the 2008 Project would not result in new impacts to special status species. The Amenity Building footprint is the less than that analyzed in 2008; and for CEQA purposes the analysis assumes the same footprint. The area where special species habitat is located (larval host plant for the federally - endangered callippe silverspot butterfly) remains on the Preservation Parcel. The Preservation Parcel was removed from any potential development impacts by its legal designation to open space during the 2000 Project entitlements. Biological mapping of the Project site was conducted as part of the 1998/99 SEIR and subsequent mapping of the Project site has been conducted by West Coast Wildlands as part of the annual site maintenance requirements, most recently in 2016. West Coast Wildlands are the biologists responsible for identifying plant species and eliminating invasive exotics pursuant to the Habitat Conservation Plan requirements and the project conditions of approval. No other special- status species have been found in the vicinity of the Project site. A Site Activity Review was conducted by the County of San Mateo Department of Parks and Recreation County pursuant to the HCP. The is a procedure wherein a County representative informs the construction team of the habitat protections required, insure all personnel understand the requirements, and sign an affidavit attesting thereto. Compliance with the review was issued to Phase 3 on September 1, 2016 by Ramona Arechiga, Natural Resources Manager for the County of San Mateo Department of Parks and Recreation. The Amenity Building Project would not impact special status species. EN GENESIS 201.6 AMENITY II1il:WING Chapter 2 Environmental AnAysis c.tobe,r, :201.6 FIGURE 4 PRESERVATION AND RECREATION PARCEL DEDICATIONS LEGEND � s.' � R H .�» J Orew Sanc>:JPAESSRSE �•-z is ® OPEN SPACURECREntlow preservation Force! / Conveyed to Cotray of San Mateo for Inclusion i .. n •: =L .L• In San Srano Moarztein County and State Park $Rieiisi AuOrot 11, 2004 ;Eyi M r l Open Space t Recreation Pamal Dedication accepted by City of Saudi San Francisco Apra 2007 (Resolution 081007) �' / �r s Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR has been implemented as a result of construction of the 2006 Project. The mitigation measure requires dust control, salvage and transplant of Monardella, posting signs along trails and vista points warning park users against illegal activities and required compliance with the landowner obligations identified by the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan with respect to the Project site. The transplanting is complete. Additionally, dust control measures are more conservative than those required in 2006, and are identified as conditions of 2016 Amenity Building Project approval as identified in the Introduction Chapter of his document. The redesign of Phase II and III as called for under Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 of the 1998/99 SEIR has been accomplished by the 2000 General, Precise and Specific Plan amendments, the 2006/08 Project design and the conveyance of habitat to the County as open space. No Viola pedunculata has previously been or would be disturbed by the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The provision in Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 for salvage of larval host plants for callippe silverspot no longer applies as all Johnny jump -up (Viola pedunculata) plants have been avoided as the result of the approved 2006/08 site plans. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not change these findings as there is habitat on the entire Project site. The Restoration Plan (required by Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 from the 1998 /99 SEIR) includes a component to salvage and transplant other nectar plants (especially natives such as Monardella) that may be used for nectaring by adult callippe silverspot. Restoration and salvage activities were conducted by West Coast Wildlands and others in 2007 prior to grading on the 44 GENESIS 2016 EN•I'. ,. BUIWING Chaptet 2 Environmental Analysis October, 201.6 Project site. The salvage effort was both conducted and supervised by the City and consultants (Knapp Consulting, McHuron Geosciences, West Coast Wildlands) and conducted by Friends of San Bruno Mountain,. San Bruno Mountain Watch and Western Pacific Housirig. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not impact these efforts; nor would more salvage be required. Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1(b) and 4.3 -1(c) from the 1998 /99 SEIR also required the Restoration Plan to include a salvage component for other native plant material and use of existing fire trails for any new pedestrian trails linking the site with the open space lands of San Bruno Mountain. This effort was also completed in 2007 by West Coast Wildlands and others, as supervised by the City. The 2016 .Amenity Building Project would not impact these efforts. Additionally, planting on the Buffer Parcel for the will use native species and native grown plants from nurseries in the area. The 2016 Amenity Building Porject is approximately 250 feet south of the Buffer Parcel. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would have no impact on the site design, avoidance and preservation measures and would continue to provide compliance with Mitigation Measures 4.3 -1(a) from the 1998/99 SEIR. This mitigation required the avoidance of freshwater marsh and riparian habitat to the greatest extent possible. The 2006 Project was substantially revised (from that analyzed in 1998/99) to avoid freshwater marsh, seeps and riparian habitat in. the northern portion of the Phase III site (now known as the Preservation Parcel). The 2006 Project take of 0.10 acres of an unvegetated intermittent stream was mitigated as discussed below. The 2616 Amenity Building Project would not alter these conditions. The 2006/08 Project avoided the jurisdictional wetland habitat in the northern portion of the Phase III site. The 2006/08/12 Project conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -3(a), 4.3- 3(b) and 4.3 -3(c) with respect to wetlands. A Wetland Mitigation Plan (ice) was prepared by Wetland Research Associates (WRA) in 2000 (WRA, 2000) to address the ]impacts of the City's Oyster Point Hook Ramp Project and development of the Terrabay Project site. The WMP mitigated the filling of 0.68 acres of wetlands to accommodate the widening of Airport Boulevard at the Hook Ramps (a City Project) and anticipated filling of 0.10 acres of unvegetated other waters to accommodate development of the Terrabay Project site. As defined in the WMP, identified impacts to jurisdictional waters were mitigated by creating, restoring and enhancing 1.82 acres of wetlands and portions of two drainage channels in the northern portion of the original Phase III site and removal of invasive exotics. The WMP was implemented and monitored by the Engineering Division of the City of South San Francisco and WRA. The wetlands restoration was completed in 2011. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not impact any of these efforts. The 2016 Amenity Building Project conforms with the provisions of Mitigation Measures 4.3 -3(a), 4.3 -3(b) and 4.3 -3(c) with respect to wetlands. The required agency authorization was secured and re- authorized from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to extend the wetland mitigations41 to complete the wetlands restoration. 41 This included re- securing authorization from CDFW, the Corps and RWQCB, if necessary. Reauthorization was received from the Corps July 31, 2005 and CDFW on September 22, 2005. This also included confirmation of the adequacy of the WMP in addressing the temporary loss of an estimated 500 square feet of potential wetlands affected by the 2006 Project driveway access improvements at Airport Boulevard. The Corps stated that this area does not constitute wetlands in a letter dated February 1, 2006 and that the existing plan is adequate. 45 GENESIS 2010 AMENII f" BI.;J,II DING Chapter 2 Envitroturnental Analydr, October, 201.6 The wetland restoration was completed on January 10, 2011. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not impact any of these efforts or conditions. Implementation of a detailed erosion and sedimentation control plan was accomplished as part of the required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the 2006 Project and addresses the area of the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The SWPP is required through conditions of project approval to be updated and approved prior to construction of the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The SWPP measures will be required to meet 2016 -17 standards through Engineering and Water Quality Control Plant conditions of approval. There were no significant impacts on wildlife habitat associated with the 2006/08 Project which is consistent with the conclusions from the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project included a Migratory Bird Survey conducted in January 2007, as required by the City. The survey was conducted by Wetlands Research Associates. No Migratory Birds were found on the Project site. The survey was conducted prior to issuance of grading permits for the 2006 Project. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not impact wildlife habitat or Migratory Birds as grading and vegetation removal was completed in 2007. The 2016 Amenity Building Project does not deviate from the 2006/08 Project with respect to the location of structures, improvements and roadways, as defined and shown on the precise plan drawings. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would continue be in conformance with local plans and policies. The 2006/08 Project conforms to the provisions of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. The restoration and enhancement efforts on the Preservation Parcel improved habitat values on this portion of the original Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.3 -2 ensures that the Project sponsor fulfill the landowner /developer obligations identified in the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Ms. Autumn Meisel and Ms. Victoria Harris of Thomas Reid Associates reviewed the proposed Phase III 2006 Project limits and found them in compliance with the 1999 HCP Certification hearing Ouly 12, 2006). The 2016 Amenity Building Project is wholly within those limits. The 2016 Amenity Building Project does not deviate from the 2006 /08 Project with respect to the location of structures, improvements and roadways, as defined and shown on the precise plan drawings. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would continue be in conformance with local plans and policies. The 2016 Amenity Building Project conforms to the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan. Cultural and Historic Resources Section 4.9 Archaeology of the Terrabay 1998199Pbase II and III Draft Supplemental EIR and Master Responses 7.3 -3, 7.3 -4, 7.3 -5, 7.3 -6 and 7.3 -7 of the Terrabay 1998199 Pbase II and III Final Smpplemental EIR are hereby incorporated by reference as noted in the Introduction section to this document. The evaluation presented below is based on a review of the 2005 Project site plan by Miley Holman, Archaeologist (Holman & Associates) for the 2005 Project and his supervision of the grading operations in 2007 for the 2006 Project. The Preservation Parcel contains a prehistoric archaeological site identified as CA- SMa -40. The 46 GENESIS 201.6 M E 11 . I UI:.I" DIN S" Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2016 archaeological site is anticipated to be approximately two acres in area (1998/99 SEIR, pps 276 -297) and is located within the 25.6 -acre Preservation Parcel. The Preservation. Parcel protects the archaeological site, wetlands and species habitat. The 2.69 -acre Buffer Parcel -was also proposed and approved in 2000 to provide and additional separation from then Preservation Parcel and development. The Preservation Parcel was conveyed to the County for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County /State Park in August 2004. The 2006/08 Project specific plan and precise plan avoided CA- SMa -40. The location of the proposed 2016 Amenity Building would be an additional 250 feet from the Buffer Parcel and would result in no impact to the archaeological site. Grading for the North and South Towers, garage, roadways and utilities ways conducted in 2007, under an approved and supervised grading permit. The 450 cubic yards of grading necessary for the Amenity Building Project is in an area previously disturbed by grading to create the development pad for the North Tower, retaining wall and upper maintenance road. Grading was monitored by archaeologist Miley Holman on behalf of the City to assure that no additional cultural resources were found outside of CA- SMa -40. Potential unforeseen impacts associated with 2007 grading did not occur; archaeologist Miley Holman, supervised project grading and no cultural artifacts or remains were found outside the mapped area. There will be an archaeologist on site during grading for the North Access Road. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not result in an impact to archaeological resources. There are no historic resources located on the 2006 Project Site. The 2016 Amenity Building Project does not alter this finding. There are no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features located on the Project Site. The 2016 Amenity Building Project does not alter these conditions. Geology and Soils The geotechnical environment has not changed since the 2006/08 Project and issuance of the 2007 building and grading permits. The 2016 Amenity Building Project is confined to an area already studied and graded. The geotechnical mitigation measures identified in the MMRP have been and will continue to be implemented in construction of the 2016 Amenity Building Project as well as conditions of project approval. Grading would continue to be monitored by the City's Public Works superintendents and by Cotton Shires, Associates, the City's consulting geologists. The findings of previous CEQA addenda, most recently in 2015, are summarized below. Subsequent to the 1998/99 SEIR, a geotechnical investigation program was conducted by URS Corporation for the Terrabay Phase III development (URS 2001a). The geotechnical investigation program included the following elements: geologic mapping of lithologic units, geomorphology, and structures (bedding and joint orientations); three joint surveys; 36 test borings; 20 test pits; 7 seismic refraction lines; 11 downhole velocity surveys; 9 piezometers; and 7 inclinometers. The investigation also included 10 geologic /geotechnical cross sections through representative portions of the previously proposed project as well as the results of a laboratory testing program to characterize the M GENESIS 2026 A. .I:.�•Nll'1 BUI;L I;Ni::i Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2016 engineering properties of soil and rock units. The field investigation and laboratory testing program served as the basis for engineering analyses, the results of which were submitted in a second geotechnical report (URS 2001b). Additional field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analysis was conducted to provide geotechnical recommendations appropriate for the 2006 /08 Project. The 2016 Amenity Building Project will be in the same geological environment as previously analyzed. The 1998/99 SEIR, based upon 20 years of field analysis, and implementing and monitoring of mitigation measures on the slopes of San Bruno Mountain (Phases I and II Terrabay) identified a list of mitigations for each geological condition facing the site; therefore, minor refinements to the mitigations are all that was required for the 2006 Project, including construction of the South Tower. The same conditions and mitigation measures would apply to the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The topography of the Project site has been modified as a result of grading and construction of the approved 2006 Project. The bedrock type is predominantly Franciscan sandstone overlain by man- made fill, debris slides, colluvial and alluvial deposits. The Project site is subject to landslides, debris slides, rockslides and rock falls. There are no known active faults located within the entirety of the Terrabay project area. Four active faults in the region include the: San Andreas fault, located approximately three miles southwest; San Gregorio, fault about ten miles southwest; Hayward fault about 15 miles northeast; and the Calaveras fault about 27 miles northeast. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the probability of an earthquake of at least magnitude 6.7 along the San Francisco Peninsula segments of the San Andreas fault zone is estimated to be 15 percent over the 30 -year period from 2000 to 2030 (U.S. Geological Survey 1999). Two inactive faults located close to the Phase III Project site include the San Bruno fault zone located about 1.5 miles southwest of the site and the Hillside fault which trends in a west - northwesterly direction approximately 1,000 feet west of the intersection between Airport Boulevard and Sister Cities Drive. A rock slope stability analysis was conducted for the 2006 Project, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.1 -4 (a) in the 1998/99 SEIR to identify slope stability conditions. Based on the rock slope stability analysis, the following measures were incorporated into the 2000 Project: Grade flatter slopes with benches, drainage ditches and access for maintenance; Install rock anchors; Install subdrains; Revegetate slopes; Install slope monitoring instrumentation; Locate fences below rock outcrops and above cut slopes; and Scale off loose rocks. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.14(a) and reduce potential rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures have been installed as a part of the overall site work associated with the approved grading plan. Cotton Shires Associates monitored the work. Annual and bi- annual maintenance of v- ditches and debris basins is required and is currently (as of April, 2015) in compliance. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not change these conditions. Rock fences are in place and operational as part of the 2007 construction permits. The 2006 Project was required to implement Mitigation Measure 4.1 -4(b) to include a Slope Maintenance Plan in the CC&R's. The CC&Rs require that the Project's Property Owners Association retain the services of a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist to maintain and inspect of the geotechnical mitigations. The City has reviewed and approved the Slope Maintenance Plan and the CC&R's. The slope monitoring is occurring on an annual basis as required. These 48 GIB ESIS 2016 AMEN171 :" Y BUILDING Chapter 2 Envir.onmenud Analysis October, 2016 conditions would not be affected or altered by the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The 2006 Project implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1 -4(a) and 4.1 -4(b) in the 1998/99 SEIR reduces rockslide and rockfall impacts that could occur as a result of seismic activity to a less than significant level. Implementation of 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.1 -6, which requires a slope stability analysis on representative slopes to assess Project seismic loading and groundwater conditions. The analysis was completed for the 2006 Project as envisioned in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project includes the 2016 Amenity Building Project site. The following measures were incorporated into the 2006 Project design including: Place keyways for fills through soft soils; Grade flatter slopes with benches, Install rock anchors; Install subdrains; Install retaining walls to minimize fill over sensitive areas; Design buildings in conformance with UBC Zone 4 and City standards; and, Remove rockfalls or encapsulate or fence them. These measures are listed in Mitigation Measure 4.1- 6 and reduce potential impacts from seismically induced landsliding and rocksliding impacts to a less than significant level. These measures have been installed as a part of the overall site work associated with the approved grading plan and are monitored annually and bi- annually. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not change these conditions. The surficial soil deposits at the 2006 Project site, including the 2016 Amenity Building Project, consist of very dense colluvium and alluvial fan deposits, which contain significant amounts of fines. These deposits are generally not susceptible to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction at the site is considered very low (URS 2001b). The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not affect these conditions. Landslides and debris slides are present within and above the 2006 Project site. Mitigation Measure 4.1 -3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR was implemented. The mitigation measures that were constructed include a debris basin, and, installation of deflection structures, perimeter drainage, retaining walls and monitoring equipment. Mitigation Measure 4.1 -3(b) requires a Slope Maintenance Plan (see discussion above) that provides for ongoing monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention and deflection structures. The annual monitoring is in compliance as of April, 2016. Implementation of Mitigation pleasures 4.1 -3(a) and (b) has reduced potential impacts from movements of debris flow slides to a less than significant level. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not affect these conditions. Rockfall and rockslide fences installed pursuant to Mitigation Measure 4.1 -4(a) and 4.1 -4(b) (see above) reduce rockslide and rockfall impacts to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures would not be changed as a result to the 2016 Amenity Building Project. No additional mitigation measures are required as a result of the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The 2006 Project resulted in a reduced area of cut slopes from the previous Phase III development plan. Mitigation Measures 4.1 -2(a) 4.1 -2(b) and 4.1 -2(c) in the 1998/99 SEIR required the 2006 Project grading plan to maximize slope stability, install appropriately designed retaining walls, install perimeter type A ditches, regulate the steepness of grade slopes (bedrock graded no greater than 1.5:1 and in soil 2:1), install subsurface drains; install slope and groundwater monitoring instruments and winterize exposed slopes and graded pads. These mitigation measures are in place as part of the approved grading plan, and have reduced erosion impacts to a less than significant level as evidenced LIZ GENESIS ,° 01.6 A ENI° " ' BTJ1LD.1NG Chapter 2 Erg " onwcnta1. , �°1aiysis October, 201. by eight years of annual monitoring data. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not change these conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.1 -3(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR was implemented to reduce the risk of landslides to less than significant. These measures include, and are a part of the approved grading plan, removing material, buttressing and building retaining walls. Mitigation Measure 4.1 -3(b), requiring the CC&Rs for the Property Owners Association to establish and fund a Slope Maintenance Plan to provide for the monitoring and maintenance of engineered slopes, perimeter drainage, debris slide retention, and deflection structures has been implemented. Potential landslide impacts are reduced to a less than significant level as a result of implementation of these mitigation measures. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not change these conditions. The entire project was and is primarily constructed on rock except for small areas where foundations would be constructed over alluvial fan deposits. Alluvial fan deposits are very dense. Estimated settlement would be low. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1 -5(a) in the 1998/99 SEIR requires design techniques to mitigate differential settlement which reduces potential damage to structures, roadways and utilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.1 -5(a) lists a number of measures that have been and will be incorporated into the all development and construction on the entire Phase III Genesis Campus including: Over- excavating cuts to provided benches in the fill; Surcharge fill with excess material to accelerate settlement; Postpone development of areas most sensitive to settlement for a construction season; Monitor rate of settlement and delay development until the rate of movement is within acceptable limits of the engineered structures; and Place structures on deep pier foundations. The 2006 Project and 2007 grading and construction implemented these measures and the 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter these conditions. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The 2016 Amenity Building Project would be connected to the North Tower on the bottom two floors. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would be required by code to fortify fire prevention measures between the R&D and Amenity Building uses, and add other fire suppression measures. These measures will be identified as conditions of project approval. The 2015 Amenity Building Project would not add additional users of hazardous materials to the site and would not alter the following 2015 findings: • The Project through the entitlement and permitting process is required as a matter of law to operate under all applicable, federal, state and local guidelines governing hazardous waste, the impact of the Project with regards to hazardous materials handling and waste would be less than significant. • There are no existing or proposed schools or day care centers or facilities within a quarter mile of the Project site. Additionally, the Project site is not listed on the Department of Toxic Substances Control Cortese List (DTSC, ENVIROSTOR website, accessed April 15, 2015, updated September, 2016) as per Government Code Section 65962.5. 50 GENESIS 2016 AMENrrY BUILDING Chapter 2 Enviro .. entaal alysis t. ctober, 201.6 • The Project would have no impact from the emission or handling of hazardous materials or wastes on schools or from any environmental contamination posed by the sites listed on the Cortese List. • The Project site is outside the 65 dB CNEL noise contour (Figure IV -5, Noise Compatibility Zones, ALUP) and is not within an airport noise impacted area. The Project site is not within any safety or land use compatibility zones (Figure IV -7 Safety Compatibility Zones, .ALUP). Potential airport related impacts are considered to be less than significant. • The Project includes a North Access Road with a turn around that would accommodate a fire engine. The North Access Road is for emergency and maintenance; not for general public use. The road would also connect to a maintenance road that travels approximately 1,000 feet up San Bruno Mountain (on the Buffer Parcel). A paved road and fire turnaround is required and proposed in front and behind the North Tower. • There are no formal emergency response or evacuation plans in effect in the Project vicinity. However, Police and .Fire required the radio coverage; the North Access Road; coordination of an opticom system at the Airport Boulevard intersection with the North Access Road; and fire truck access including truck turn around areas on the south and north sides of the North Tower. The Project would have no impact on the implementation of any adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The South Tower is constructed with a paved roadway completely around the building. There is adequate area for emergency access and firefighting. Emergency impacts would be considered less than significant. • The Project includes a 100- foot -wide fire break, as approved in 2006/08. The Project would have less than significant impact with respect to wildland fires. The 2016 Amenity Building Project with respect to hazardous and hazardous materials impacts would remain less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality identified in the 1998/99 and 2005/06 SEIR. The City did re- evaluate storm water /waste water conditions and as noted by the City Engineer adequate capacity does exist in the existing infrastructure for the Project and cumulative development. No new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The 2006 Project did not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. A SWPPP and compliance with the NPDES C -3 provisions was implemented and was and is being monitored by the City. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would require a new SWPPP inclusive of the updated best management practices. Im GIaN IESIIS 2016AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis cuke:r, 2016 Rob Lecel Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator, Water Quality Control provided the following comments that are conditions of approval and must be completed prior to the issuance of a permit (memorandum dated September 29, 2016): 1. Fire sprinkler test drain must be connected to the sanitary sewer. 2. Condensate drains from HVAC systems must be connected to the sanitary sewer. 3. Trash Enclosure must be covered and have a drain that connects to the sanitary sewer. 4. If food is being served, a grease interceptor shall be installed and be connected to all kitchen fixtures. 5. Sizing of the interceptor must be shown on the plans. 6. Cut sheet of the interceptor must be shown on the plans. 7. Elevator pit discharge shall be connected to an engineered size oil /water separator prior to be connected to the sanitary sewer. 8. Site is subject to Low Impact Development (LID) requirements; site must treat stortnwater prior to it entering the stormwater system. 9. Completed attached forms for Low Impact Development. 10. The onsite catch basins are to be stenciled with the approved San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Logo (No Dumping! Flows to Bay). 11. All condensate from HVAC equipment shall be discharged to sanitary sewer. Show location of the condensate drain on the plans. 12. Garbage disposal are not allowed in commercial facilities. 13. Boiler blow down must be discharged to the sanitary sewer. 14. Landscaping shall meet the following conditions related to reduction of pesticide use on the project site: a. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat stormwater runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain, and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolonged exposure to water shall be specified. b. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, 52 GENESIS 21116 AM NUTY BUI LI.1I`Nfl Chapter 2 Environmental.Analysis October, 201.6 air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. c. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent practicable. d. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. e. Integrated pest management (IPM) principles and techniques shall be encouraged as part of the landscaping design to the maximum extent practicable. Examples of IPM principles and techniques include: i. Select plants that are well adapted to soil conditions at the site. ii. Select plants that are well adapted to sun and shade conditions at the site. In making these selections, consider future conditions when plants reach maturity, as well as seasonal changes. iii. Provide irrigation appropriate to the water requirements of the selected plants. iv. Select pest - resistant and disease- resistant plants. v. Plant a diversity of species to prevent a potential pest infestation from affecting the entire landscaping plan. vi. Use "insectary" plants in the landscaping to attract and keep beneficial insects. 15. No decorative bark nuggets shall be used in landscaping. 16. A grading and drainage plan must be submitted. 17. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted. The 2006 Project development resulted in a reduction of development area by approximately 75 percent over that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The pervious area increased groundwater recharge at the 2006 Project site from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR and vetted in the 2005/06 SEIR. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would remain a less - than - significant impact as additional impervious areas are not proposed. As a result of the 2006 Project, a portion of an intermittent drainage upslope of the building was filled and the loss of jurisdictional waters was mitigated as discussed in the Biology section of this document. Storm water runoff is collected into a pipe system that conveys storm water to the existing storm drain facilities in Airport Boulevard. The 2006 Project constructed the debris basin to accommodate entrained sediments and rocky debris. Mitigation Measure 4.2 -11 from the 1998/99 SEIR is complete as a result of the 2006 Project. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter site conditions with respect to drainage patterns. The 2006 Project resulted in a reduction of storm water runoff compared to the previous development plans. 2006 Project - related storm water runoff was also evaluated in the 2005/06 53 GENESIS 201.6 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental *sis October, 2'0"1.6 SEIR. The City Engineer conducted the analysis required by Mitigation Measure a 3.4-8 from the 2005/06 SEIR and found that there is adequate capacity for Terrabay Phase III and cumulative development in the existing storm drain infrastructure. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter these existing conditions. The amount of surface runoff from the 2006 Project was substantially reduced from that analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR. The 2006 Project reduced the potential for flooding at the Project site. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter site conditions with respect to surface runoff and flooding and again, as noted would be required to comply, with updated water and water quality regulations, identified above. Erosion control and other measures are currently in place to minimize potential impacts to water quality. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter site conditions and would not result in a degradation of water quality and would be subject to updated measures as required by the Water Quality Control Senior Environmental Compliance Coordinator, as identified above. The Project site is not -within a 100-year flood zone (City of South San Francisco General Plan 1999 and Community Panel Number 0044E, Map #06081 C001-14E, September 8, 2013). The Project site conveys storm water runoff into a pipe and straw bale system (straw bales are used during construction in certain areas) that connects to the storm water facilities located in Airport Boulevard. The construction of the storm water facilities in Airport Boulevard (mitigation for the development of Terrabay as a whole) was installed by the Applicant in 2007. The 2006 Project design eliminated the need for a storm drain link as identified in 1998/99 SEIR Mitigation Measure 4.2-4. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter site conditions mitigated and approved in the 2006 Project. The improvements were constructed in 2007 and finalized by the City in 2009. The Project site did not and would not locate any structures within a 100-year flood hazard area and did not impede or redirect any flood flows (Community Panel Number is 0044E, Map #06081COOH4E, September 8, 2013). The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter site conditions and would not emplace structures within a 100-year flood zone. The Project site is not within the flood path of any levees or dams. The Project site is approximately 4.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean and about one-quarter mile from San Francisco Bay. The potential for inundation as a result of tsunami, seiche, or mudflow is considered low. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for The 2016 Amenity Building Project. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not introduce new chemical use an the site. The 2015 R&D approvals still in force require the project to: 1) Install a separate non - pressurized process line for sample monitoring before mixing with domestic waste in the sanitary sewer; 2) Wastewater pretreatment may be required at the time of the Tenant Improvement process (T1) to properly treat discharged waste to City standards prior to entering the City sanitary sewer system (Dependent upon the type of work being conducted); and 3) Facility will need approval from Environmental Compliance prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer. Land Use The 2016 Amenity Building Project would require text. amendments to the Terrabay Specific Plan and require a zoning and general plan text amendment as noted in the Project Description. 541 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY' BUILDING Chapter 2 Eavironmienta[Analysis October, 2016 The 2016 Amenity Building Project part of the final phase of development. The Project is a part of this planned community and would not divide an established community. The addition of an Amenity Building to serve both the project and the community would not result in the division of a community that is planned and developed with a different land use pattern. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would continue to comply with the General Plan, Specific Plan and the San Brreno Mountain Habitat Conremation Plan with respect to habitat and environmental (including cultural) preservation. The 2016Arnenity Building Project would be included in the existing and operational Genesis Campus Transportation Demand Management Program (MM Program). The TDM Program was revised and approved in 2012 and complies with SSFNfC Chapter 20.400. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not conflict with a plan or policy or zoning established to protect the environment. The 2016 Amenity Building Project is consistent with the San Brmno Mountain Habitat Consemation Plan. Additionally, CC &Rs are required and have been prepared as part of the overall Project. The CC&Rs language and enforcement mechanisms for HCP compliance including the payment of HCP fees, prohibition of pesticide use in certain areas, maintenance of a fire break and exotic weed control. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter these conditions. Mineral Resources There are no mineral resources on the Project site and no mineral resource impacts associated with the Project. Population and Housing The 2016 Amenity Building Project would be a part of the third and final phase of Terrabay. The Terrabay Project has provided housing, constructed a recreation center, a fire station, a sound wall along Sister Cities Boulevard, donated open space, paid child care fees, developed project - specific, and area -wide and regional infrastructure, and has been planned since the 1980's. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not displace any housing as there is no housing not has there ever been any housing on the Project site A conservative estimate of the service population for the Amenity Building is 253.42 The population would likely be derived from the local workforce as the service is not specialized in the manner of the biotechnology or technology workforce. The impact on housing and population would be less than significant. Public Services The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to public services from those identified in the 1998/99 and 2005/06 SEIRs. No new or additional 42 For the hotel the number of guests is based on 101 rooms times 84.1 percent occupancy rate times 1.5 persons per occupied room equals 139 hotel guests. The estimated number of employees were based on a rate of 1 employee per 1,124 square feet or 54 employees. For the restaurant, the number of employees were based on a rate of 1 employee per 134 square feet. For the fitness center, the number of employees were based on a rate of 1 employee per 549 square feet. Thus, the restaurant would have approximately 47 employees and the fitness center would have 13 employees. US Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Tvee_ :1 f —/n— s A —U;— /i-- .. i tr— __ � q q a 55 GENESIS 2016 A EN11:° BUILDING Chapter 2 Envirc m ruenlalll Analysis October, 2016 mitigation measures would be required for the 2016 Amenity Building Project. The previous conditions of approval still apply to the project. For example, Condition of Approval #17 requires all buildings to have Emergency Responder Radio Coverage throughout in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code. Fire extinguishers, building identification, fire alarms, Knox key boxes, fire alarm plans, fire sprinkler systems throughout, and payment of public safety impact fees will be required through conditions of approval. Cumulative development impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR (Mitigation Measure 4,7 -2 from the 1998/99 SEIR) requires one police officer position ($110,000) and one police vehicle $30,000. Sergeant Jon Callas (letter to Andrew Kawahara, May 5, 2009) approves payment of the $140,000 in two installments. The first installment was paid in 2009 and the second installment is due at the certificate of occupancy for the North Tower. These mitigations are still in effect and are required. The state required school impact fees are required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not alter this requirement. School impact fees would be assessed and paid prior to issuance of building permits for the 2016 Amenity Building Project. Recreation The Terrabay Project constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center in Phase I. The Project also dedicated 325 acres of restored land for inclusion in San Bruno Mountain County Park inclusive of a 6.22 acre parcel to the City which is designated in the City's General Plan as Recreation and Open Space. The Project also paid the City $300,000 to be used for recreational purposes and developed linear parks in Phase I and II and a history walk in Phase III culminating in an overlook area with seating and landscaping. The Amenity Building Project proposes a Wellness Center (fitness) that would be available to the project and he community at large. The history trail shown in Figure 5 is constructed and would remain. No new or increased impacts would be associated with the 2016 Amenity Building Project. TABLE 5 HISTORY TRAIL Traffic + r Circulation Ile mitigation measures that are identified (and completed) in the Mitigation Measuring ani 56 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 20116 Reporting Program (MMRP) are based upon a Commercial Office (CO) land use; what was approved in 2000. The CO land use results in more traffic impacts than the approved 2015 R&D Project. The 2016 Amenity Building trip generation assumes 100% occupancy of the hotel and considers no synergy of uses i.e., no internal or pass -by trip savings representing a very conservative analysis. Trip generation volumes shown in Traffic Tables 1 and 2 indicate that CO AM and PM trips represent the highest 2 -way volumes, 549 and 628 respectively. The 2015 R&D Project dropped 2- way volumes to 375 AM and 303 PM. The 2016 Amenity Building Project brings AM trips up 103 from the R&D Project and 103 trips less than the CO Project. The PM trips represent a similar shift, 175 less than the CO alternative and 150 more than the R&D alternative. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would result in less traffic volumes than the CO Project which the mitigations are based upon. Pedestrian tunnels are in place connecting the parking structure to the South and North Towers. Pedestrian circulation from the parking garage is lighted and pedestrians are funneled to underground tunnels and that daylight at the North and South Towers. Walkways are clearly marked. The as -built conditions are according to the specifications of police and fire for safety, as well as other City department regulations. The tunnels remove the bulk of pedestrians from vehicular areas (see Figure 5). The layout and land use pattern shown in the 2016 Amenity Building Project adds a drop off (out of the circulation stream) in front of the Amenity Building (see attached SOM drawings). RN FIGURE 5 APPROVED CIRCULATION PATTERN M aw.r. � �M � G t a) mwelrs�uVr /M GENESIS 2016 AMIENI'I'Y BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental ent l . al sls O c. rol er, 2016 kV ry 4 v� w."°• Wla tiVq a�wmoAWWp n. .. M ti. GENESIS 2016 AMIENI'I'Y BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental ent l . al sls O c. rol er, 2016 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TERRABAY CENTENNIAL TOWERS — OFFICE VERSUS R &D YEAR 2035 TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TERRABAY CENTENNIAL TOWERS — OFFICE (ALTERNATIVE 1) VERSUS R&D + HOTEL + RESTAURANT + HEALTH CLUB (2016 AMENITY BUILDING PROJECT) YEAR 2035 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hoar Trips AM Peak Hour Tri s In Out In Out Use Rate Vol Rate Vol 2-Way Rate Vol Rate Vol 2-Way Office .67 484 .09 65 549 .15 108 .72 520 628 R &D .43 310 .09 65 375 .06 43 .36 260 303 Net Change in .09 ( -174) 549 0 (174) .72 ( -65) 628 ( -260) (-325) Trip ( -32 %) ( -52 9/6) Generation R &D 721,476 .43 310 .09 65 375 .06 43 .36 R&D versus 303 S .FT. Office 2016 Hotel 110 (1) 32 (1) 24 TABLE 2 TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON TERRABAY CENTENNIAL TOWERS — OFFICE (ALTERNATIVE 1) VERSUS R&D + HOTEL + RESTAURANT + HEALTH CLUB (2016 AMENITY BUILDING PROJECT) YEAR 2035 (1) T = 0.78(X) -29.80 58% in /42% out T = Trips X = Occupied rooms = 100% Trip rate source: Office and R&D — East of 101 Traffic Study by TJKMAssocwtes; Hotel /Restaurant & Healtb Club - Trip Generation ManuaA 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Eqyheers, 2012 Compiled by Crane Transportation Group The 2016 Amenity Building Project would add additional square footage without adding additional parking. Taking the most conservative parking analysis in the Municipal Code, the project would be required to provide 2,114 parking spaces. This calculation considers all the uses stand -alone (i.e., no 58 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 7.016 AM Peak Hour Tri s PM Peak Hoar Trips In Out In Out Alternative Use Size Rate [.67 Vol Rate Vol 2- Rate Vol Rate Vol 2- W Way 1 Office 721,476 484 .09 65 549 .15 108 .72 520 628 SQ. . R &D 721,476 .43 310 .09 65 375 .06 43 .36 260 303 S .FT. 2016 Hotel 110 (1) 32 (1) 24 56 .34 37 .36 40 77 rooms Amenity Quality 6,325 0.61 4 0.20 1 5 5.02 32 2.47 16 48 Building Restaurant SQ.FT. Project Wellness 6,965 .071 5 0.70 5 10 2.01 14 1.52 11 25 Center S .FT. Total 2016 351. 95 446 126 327 453 Project Alt 1 minus - +30 -103 +18 - -175 Project 133 193 (1) T = 0.78(X) -29.80 58% in /42% out T = Trips X = Occupied rooms = 100% Trip rate source: Office and R&D — East of 101 Traffic Study by TJKMAssocwtes; Hotel /Restaurant & Healtb Club - Trip Generation ManuaA 9th Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Eqyheers, 2012 Compiled by Crane Transportation Group The 2016 Amenity Building Project would add additional square footage without adding additional parking. Taking the most conservative parking analysis in the Municipal Code, the project would be required to provide 2,114 parking spaces. This calculation considers all the uses stand -alone (i.e., no 58 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 7.016 synergy of uses). The Amenity Building Project will require the payment of the City's Oyster Point fee calculated at $143,751.15 (Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer. September 29, 2016)) The project provides 1,952 spaces and valet parking (approved in 2006), the Applicant proposed to use valet parking and the Zoning Ordnance permits valet parking on the Genesis Campus. Valet parking increases capacity of parking by a minim of 15% to 20% (Crane Transportation Group, Mark Crane, September 2016). The 1,952 spaces are based upon the approved 2.74 spaces per 1,000 square feet for the project; the Terrabay parking standard. Strictly interpreted, the 2016 Amenity Building triggers an 11% reduction in parking in absence of valet parking. Valet parking increases the parking availability on the site to 2,185 spaces, or 77 spaces more than the most conservative code interpretation. The project would result in less than significant impact associated with traffic, circulation and pedestrian safety based upon the traffic analysis, site plan and air quality and greenhouse gas analyses that considered valet parking and the trip generation of the 2016 Project. The 2016 Amenity Building Project results in a less than significant impact associated with safety and traffic congestion based upon the location of parking, pedestrian tunnels from the parking garage, drop off- and pick- up areas in front of all the buildings on site, presence of sidewalks, marked pedestrian crossings, street widths prescribed by the Terrabay Zoning District, and valet parking. Utilities and Service Systems The 2005/06 SEIR analyzed wastewater impacts on a more intense land use proposal. In 2006, the Applicant, paid the City a fair share amount for the inspection (televising) of the storm drain and sanitary sewer lines in Airport Boulevard (Mitigation Measure 3.4 -8 2005/06 SEIR). The Engineering Division completed the study and found that there is adequate capacity to serve the 2006 Project and cumulative development (Ray Razavi, City Engineer, August 17, 2006). The Project site is served by utilities and as a matter of law shall comply with the City's conditions of approval identified in the Introduction section to this document and in the legislative and entitlement staff reports associated with the 2016 Project. The City's storm drain outfalls operate under NPDES permits granted by the RWQCB. The South San Francisco Municipal Code (Title 14) contains regulations related to stomzwater management. As identified in the Introduction section and in Hydrology and Water Quality as a matter of law, projects are required to implement BMPs and LID measures and comply with SWPPP regulations. The City is in compliance with its RWQCB permit. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, resulting in a less . than significant impact. All wastewater produced within the City of South San Francisco is treated at the City's Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), which is located at the end of Belle Air Road, near the edge of San Francisco Bay, south of the project site. The WQCP is jointly owned by the Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno, and it treats all wastewater generated within the two cities. The WQCP also has contracts to treat most of the wastewater produced by the City of Colma and a portion of the wastewater produced by the City of Daly City. The City of South San Francisco has a current allocation of 8.74 million gallons per day (MGD), is currently generating 5.6 MGD. There is 6Z GENESIS 201.6 Al ENITY BI..lILI ING Chapter 2 I° �.nvitownental. aalysis October, 2016 adequate capacity to serve the project. Therefore, the 2016 Amenity Building Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to wastewater treatment. The existing 48 -inch storm drain system in Airport Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the 100 -year storm event. The 48 -inch line connects to a 60 -inch culvert which crosses under U.S. 101. The 60 -inch culvert drains to a concrete lined channel that discharges to the Bay. The downstream system is sized to accommodate the 100 -year event. (Corolett, 2005 whom was the City's engineer for the storm drain improvements). The Terrabay Project participated in the construction of these storm improvements in 2006. Additionally, as a matter of law, the 2016 Amenity Building Project shall comply with the NPDES Municipal Storm Water Permits including the C -3 requirements and as a matter law and as identified in Chapter 1 Introduction. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not require the construction of new or expanded storm drainage facilities, resulting in a less than significant impact to stormwater facilities. A project would have a significant environmental impact if it were to require additional water supply beyond that available from existing entitlements and resources. Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) was adopted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002, SB 610 requires cities to consider water supply assessments to determine whether projected water supplies can meet a project's water demand. SB 610 and the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15083.5) identify residential projects generally exceeding 500 units and commercial or industrial projects employing more than 1,000 persons as potential impact thresholds. Potable water is provided for the City of South San Francisco by the California Water Service Company (CWSC) and the Westborough County Water District (WCWD). CWSC provides water to the area east of Interstate 280 (I -280) in South San Francisco, including the Project site, and its service areas includes the City of Cohna and the Broadmoor area. WCWD serves the portion of South San Francisco west of I -280. CWCS receives water from the City and County of San Francisco, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. CWSC drafted and adopted an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in 2006. The UWMP was established in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act, (Division 6 Part 2.6 of the Water Code, Section 10610 - 10656). Water Code Section 10910 subd. (c)(2) and Government Code, Section 66473.7, subd. (c)(1) note that it is acceptable to use the most recently adopted UWMP to assess water supply in accordance with the California Urban Water Management Planning Act and SB 610. Between sources guaranteed by a settlement agreement and the purchase of the Los Trancos County Water District, CWSC has a total Supply Assurance Allocation of 35.5 million gallons a day (MGD) of water indefinitely.43 The T-JWMP projected that the South San Francisco District population would increase from 55,024 in 2000 to 64,050 in 2020; an increase of approximately 0.8 percent per year. CWSC developed an Integrated Long Term Water Supply Plan (ILTWSP) for its three peninsula districts in 2010. The findings of the ILTWSP recommend continuing with conservation and further evaluating desalination and water transfers. The population of the CWSC service area is projected to be 64,050 by 2020 and 70,548 by 2040. South San Francisco's total population is anticipated to be approximately 69,810 in 2020. The 43 CWSC, 2006 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Francisco, December 15, 2006. M GENESIS 2016 AMENITYBUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2016 service area population projections for CWSC are approximately 82 percent of the entire population of South San Francisco. Therefore, in 2020 it is anticipated that the CWSC service population area will be 57,678 providing adequate water supply for existing and projected development'; particularly in light of the conservation efforts identified below. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would also be required to comply with the California Green Building Code which identifies measures to reduce water consumption, reduce building construction waste, and energy consumption in both the construction and operation of buildings and for the life of the building (outlined in the Introduction section to this document). The regulations prescribe methods to test, report, maintain, and improve the measures employed to promote environmental sustainability. The significance threshold set by the Health and Safety Code contained in the California Coded of Regulations, Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 1 Section 10912 identifies the addition of 1,000 employees as the threshold for additional assessment of potential water impacts or residential development of 500 or more units. The Terrabay Project installed a water tank for the project as a part of Phase I. The Project also constructed the water distribution system and pump house on the Phase III site and has mitigated water impacts since its inception in 1982. Cal Water provided a will serve letter for the 2005 project (Appendix F of 2005/06 SEIR) which is based on a more intense land plan consisting of 1,198,000 square feet. Estimated employee numbers are 253, one quarter the significance threshold, as identified in the Greenhouse Gas analysis contained in this document. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) manages the waste generation and disposal data for South San Francisco. Non - recyclable or non - compostable waste is disposed at Ox Mountain landfill near Half Moon Bay. The closure date of Ox Mountain is 2023. CIWMB notes South San Francisco's solid waste generation is 7.76 pounds per resident per day. Solid waste projected at build -out (year 2020) is anticipated to be 276 tons per day. The Ox Mountain landfill has a maximum permitted disposal rate of 3,598 tons per day for South San Francisco. The total projected solid waste disposal needs for South San Francisco, based upon cumulative projections, is 7.7 percent of the daily permitted waste intake.'`5 The City requires construction waste diversion as outlined in the Introduction Chapter as well as recycling and composting waste associated with Project operations. Construction and operation of the 2016 Amenity Building Project would generate a less than significant amount of solid waste, and operation of the 2016 Amenity Building Project would be required by law to be in full compliance with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, again as required by law. 44 LT WW, 2006 and South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR and initial study. 45 South San Francisco's existing and projected waste stream generation include an approximate 50 percent demonstrated diversion rate (South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and EIR, City of South San Francisco, Dyatt and Bhatia, November, 2009, updated by Knapp Consulting, October, 2012 in the 475 Eccles EIR and initial study). 61 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILI.)ING__ Chapter 2 En ronnnnnMat:al Analysis October, 2016 There are no new or intensified impacts associated with the 2016 Amenity Building Project with respect to utilities and service systems. 2015 ADDENDUM Lead agencies are required to evaluate impacts to the extent feasible, and in doing so are governed by the "rule of reason ", thereby evaluating potential impacts to the extent that it is reasonably feasible to do so (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15151). Determinations must be supported by "substantial evidence ", facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinions predicated on facts rather than speculation or argument (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15384(a), Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)). Substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached ". Additionally, lead agencies may determine that an impact is too speculative. Therefore the lead agency is not required to analyze a speculative impact so long as it has conducted a thorough investigation before concluding that the impact is too speculative for further analysis. CEQA states that "if, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation; the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion of the impact" (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15145). Addenda to Environmental Documents When considering changes in a Project, and therefore changes or additions to a previously certified or adopted environmental document, the lead agency is required to evaluate if any of the following noted below has occurred pursuant to Section 15162, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. An addendum may be prepared if none of the following have been triggered. An addendum does not require recirculation or public review. 1. Substantial changes are proposed in a project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which a project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance becomes available and was not known at the time of the previous EIR that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant. CONCLUSION The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts compared to those identified in the 1996 and 1998/99 and 2005/06 SEIR. Significant and 622 GENESIS 201.6 AMENITY B1.11WINC Chapter 2 Errs Iron .ental. Analysis October, 201.6 unavoidable impacts were identified, analyzed, and mitigated to the extent feasible in 1998/99 and 2005 /06. The 2016 Amenity Building Project would not increase the severity of any of those impacts. No new impacts are identified. Nonetheless, Findings of Overriding Considerations will be re- adopted for the four significant unavoidable impacts adopted by the City Council in 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2008 relating to air quality and traffic. The impacts are: ➢ Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998 /99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality. ➢ Impact 4.4 -1 from the 9998199 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. ➢ Impact 4.4 -4 from the 9998199 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. ➢ Impact 4.4 -5 from the 9998199 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Adopted 2006 MMRP (City Council Resolution # 82 -2006) contains all the mitigation measures required of the Terrabay Phase III Project, including the 2016 Amenity Building Project. Attachments: Approved 2012 TDM Program w/ revision to trigger the implementation of valet parking. 6, GENESIS 2016 AME I T BUI L I G Chapter 2 JGi:: nviron en.tal Analysis October, x'01.6 19 Do ... IIII 0 "he Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program far Terrabay Phase III includes on -site transportation coordination, expanded transit, improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities, coordination with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance programs, incorporation of City conditions of approval and mitigation measures and support services designed to achieve a minimum 34% alternative use, as required by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400. Specifically there will be: 1. An on -site Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs; 2. Financiall incentives for using transit that entail either expanded SamTrans services in combination with a Commuter Check Program or Private Shuttle with service to Caltrain, BART and adjacent Terrabay neighborhoods; 3. Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities to reduce trips within the Terrabay area; 4. Reduced supply of parking to discourage driving and preferential, designated and free parking for vanpool and carpool parking spaces; 5. Emergency Ride Horne program; 6. Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options that allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite; 7. Project design that promotes walking and pathway connections to nearby neighborhoods; 8. Valet parking shall be initiated on the Genesis Campus after the 2016 Amenity Building receives a Certificate of Occupancy from the City, and once the hotel component is in operation. Valet services will be provided during peak restaurant tunes, such as lunch and dinner hours, and hotel check -in and —out times. The TDM annual audit will monitor the use and success of the valet service along with the parking and mode shift requirements and valet services may be altered, refined or augmented based upon these findings as well as the performance objectives of the project sponsor. 9. Annual City Monitoring and Program Update to assure program success in achieving the required 34% alternative mode use goal, and amendment as necessary to meet that goal; 10. Traffic and circulation monitoring at full project buildout and occupancy as required by Traffic Mitigation 3.1 -11 of the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and installation of an internal traffic light if needed; Program Goals; and, 11, The City /County Association of Governments (C /CAG) Project Guidelines. The following is a detailed explanation of each of the strategies listed, including the projected trip 64 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY 1 UlI:I.,I)Il G Chapter 2 Environ en.ta.l . ialysis October, 201.6 reduction where a trip reduction will result from a particular strategy. 1. Transportation Coordinator A part -time on -site Transportation Coordinator will be provided in Terrabay Phase III project and will coordinate the transportation programs and provide information and marketing materials to employees at Terrabay Phase III. The Transportation Coordinator will have a small office in the project and may be an employee of the building property management organization. The office will include an area sufficient to display copies of transportation services and schedules, a bulletin board, a desk, a computer and a telephone. The use may be a shared facility such as in the lobby of a building, or a portion of the property management office. The office will be staffed at a minimum of ten (10) hours per week. (One (1) C /CAG credit is given for each hour the center is staffed.) C /CAG Points: 10 (for the number of hours the office is staffed) Multiple tenants occupy Terrabay Phase III. Lessee /tenant fees will offset the cost of the Transportation Coordinator service. Each lessee /tenant will be required to designate an employee to serve as a point of contact for the Transportation Coordinator. Each lessee /tenant will cooperate with the Transportation Coordinator to share information about their employees that will be useful to TDAI programming (e.g. employee home zip codes and /or cross- streets). Compliance will be required through the lease agreements for office and commercial tenants. The City will be provided a standardized lease agreement for review and approval as to the form only for the implementation of this TDM Program. The Transportation Coordinator's marketing efforts will include at a minimum the following features: A. Coordination with the services of The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance ( "Alliance's. (Ten (10) C /CAG credits are given for working with the Alliance tc develop /implement a Transportation Action Plan.) The Transportation Coordinator will assure the availability of the following services of the Alliance (or equivalent services from successor or comparable organizations): C /CAG Points: 10 (for working with the Alliance) i. A web portal with descriptions of all TDM Programs, program forms, links to the regional rideshare agency's on -line ride matching system, transit /shuttle schedule information, and links to transit providers. ii. "Stock" materials (i.e. materials prepared by other agencies) that will be provided to the tenants of Terrabay Phase III. The Terrabay Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for distributing them to employees. iii. Customized materials that explain the TDM Program at Terrabay Phase III. The Terrabay Transportation Coordinator will distribute the materials to Terrabay GE NESIS 2016 Ah ENIT. BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 20,16 tenants who will in turn be responsible for distributing there to employees on an on -going basis as well as at new employee orientations. iv. An annual transportation event, such as a transportation information fair or piggy- back on a regional transportation event sponsored by the Regional Rideshare Program or orchestrate an annual transportation fair coordinated through the Alliance (or its successor organization). V, A quarterly on -line newsletter which provides rideshare information. The Transportation Coordinator will assure that the newsletter is available to Phase III tenants, employees. B. The Transportation Coordinator will hold an annual carpool registration drive to get names into the rideshare matching database. C. The Transportation Coordinator will maintain a permanent information board or kiosk that displays information pertaining to transit and rideshare services, bicycle programs and facilities, and other relevant programs or services. The center will have at least five (5) features in the center that may include the following; a computer kiosk, brochure rack, telephone with transit information numbers, on -site transit ticket sales; and carpool / vanpool assistance. (One (1) C /CAG credit is given for each transit feature offered to tenants.) C /CAG Points: 5 (for each transit feature offered.) D. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for and required to conduct annual audits of the tenants of Terrabay Phase III to insure that rideshare information and matching services are being provided to employees and tenants of Terrabay Phase III. All required audits will be submitted to the City Coordinator on an annual basis. E. The Transportation Coordinator will conduct annual transportation surveys (within a 95% confidence level) to identify the travel needs of the occupants of Terrabay Phase III, address the opinions of the transit service, and to document the effectiveness of the overall TDM plan in meeting the required 34% alternative mode use. These surveys and reports shall be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council through a City Coordinator who will be a designated contact at the City of South San Francisco. (Three (3) C /CAG credits are given for a survey developed to survey employees to examine use and best practices) C /CAG Points: 3 (to conduct annual survey) F. Centennial Towers is a member of the Alliance and will work to update and enhance transportation options for the Project. C /CAG Points: 5 (to participate in a TMA) 66 GENESIS 2016 AME NITY BUILDING G Chapter 2 Environmental. Analysis October, 2.01 16 2. Financial Incentives for UsinLy Transit Employees of Terrabay Phase III will be provided convenient access to transit and will receive a transit subsidy of at least $20 per month for one year. Programs like Commuter Check ( co utercheck,co and „ co ut he direct.co ) ot only increase employee awareness of transit options but also offer tax savings. Up to $110 a month ($1,320 a year) can be provided tax -free for transit and vanpools. Due to the tax savings, employees can save over $500 in annual commuting costs, while employers save approximately $96 per year per employee. Leases will be structured so that tenants will be required to implement this TDM measure necessary to meet the City's TDM goal. This may include tenant /employer funded transit subsidies. A minimum of 125 employees (5% of the employee population) will be required to receive transit subsidy. The leases shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved as to form with respect to the requirements to the TDM Program. (One (1) C /CAG credit is given for each transit pass subsidy of at least $20 per month for one year) C /CAG Points: 125 (for providing a subsided transit) Transit and shuttle stops are secure and easily accessible to all tenants and employees, There is a designated bus stop on Southbound Airport Boulevard which is connected to the project via a sidewalk ramp. There will also be a designated shuttle stop inside the boundaries of the project to service both buildings. The expanded shuttle service and possible subsidy will begin with the "Primary Plan" identified below. An "Alternate Plan ", described below, may be substituted for the Primary Plan. The Alternate Plan shall not be implemented without verification by the City Coordinator that parameters outlined below (or substantially equivalent parameters) are being met. ❑ Primary Plan Required at Onset of Occupancy: A private shuttle will be provided. The shuttle program will be funded by tenant /employer subscriptions. The shuttle will be available to employees and visitors of the Terrabay Phase III development (with no additional usage charge) and would provide a direct connection to Caltrain and BART with frequent morning and evening peak hour service (30- minute headways). (One (1) C /CAG credit is given for each peak -hour seat on the shuttle). C /CAG Points: 24 (for providing shuttle service) ❑ Alternate Plan Based Upon SamTrans Bus Schedules and Senices: The Alternate Plan would be for SamTrans to directly serve the site with its regular service and for the tenants of the Terrabay Phase III development to offer Commuter Checks to employees. Commuter Checks are vouchers that would be used to purchase transit passes from any transit agency. Such subsidy would provide employees at Terrabay Phase III with savings in the purchase of SamTrans monthly passes. The site is served by regional buses traveling along Airport Boulevard between the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco and points as far south as the Stanford Shopping Center. SamTrans Route 292 provides half - hourly service on Airport Boulevard connecting to downtown San Francisco, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the San Francisco International Airport. SamTrans Route 297/397 provides one -hour headways connecting to downtown San Francisco, San Francisco International 67 GENESIS 201.6 A. E l`11I Y BUILDING G Chapter 2 Environmental Aam.aalysis October, 201.6 women. Showers and changing facilities shall be provided free of charge to the user. The entry doors to the changing facilities shall be located within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard station. (Ten (10) C /CAG credits are given for each shower and changing room). Five (5) additional C /CAG credits for each 5 bicycle racks are given if bicycle racks are available in combination with showers). C /CAG Points: 50 (for providing showers) C /CAG Points: 40 (for providing combination of bicycle racks and showers) D. The development provides the required minimum of 27 clothing lockers (One (1) clothing locker per 25,000 square feet of commercial building space - at least 13 clothing lockers for Phase I and the balance of 14 lockers added for Phase II). Per the drawings, all 38 lockers are located in the South Tower (Phase 1). The 38 lockers are equally dispersed between the men's and women's changing facilities, at 20 and 18 respectively. Lockers are large enough to hold roller blades. 4. Parking Strategies The ground floor components of the project will employ shared parking concepts to reduce the total supply of on -site parking. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools shall be provided where applicable. Approximately six percent of the parking spaces will be reserved for rideshare vehicles (100 carpool spaces and 5 vanpool space) and will be located in close proximity to favorable and secure access points. (Two (2) C /CAG credits are given for each carpool parking space and ten (10) C /CAG credits are given for each vanpool parking space that is in connection with the ERH Program). C /CAG Points: 5 (for providing shared parking concepts to reduce parking supply of on -site Parking) C /CAG Points: 200 (for providing preferential carpool spaces) C /CAG Points: 50 (for providing preferential vanpool spaces) Marketing efforts by the Transportation Coordinator will target all site employees, regardless of their origins. Marketing efforts alone can increase the number of employees using transportation alternatives about one percent (1 %). They also enhance the effectiveness of other measures. This enhancement becomes apparent when the remaining strategies in this plan achieve their high -end trip reduction estimates. Tenant - specific vanpool programs shall be implemented for employees that live in the East Bay. At least three (3) vanpools will be provided that shuttle employees from the East Bay to South San Francisco running at peak hours in the morning hours from 7:30 — 9:30am and in the afternoon hours running from 4:00 — 6:00pm. These vanpools will be coordinated with the Transportation Coordinator. C /CAG Points: 21 (for providing vanpools) Tenants have multiple job sites and are encouraged to work among sites and office - share. One (1) credit is given for each opportunity created to use multiple office sites. It is estimated that at least 100 opportunities are created for tenants that have multiple offices. C /CAG Points: 100 (for providing opportunities to work at multiple sites) 9 GENESIS 2016AMENFrYBUIIJJING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2016 5. Emergency Ride Home The Transportation Coordinator will work with the Alliance to register tenants for the Emergency Ride Home Program (ERR). The registered tenants will accept a quantity opf ERH vouchers equal to at least 8% of the total employee population (a minimum of 200 ERH vouchers). The program reassures those commuters who do not drive alone have timely and paid trarisportation — usually in the form of a free taxi ride — to leave work in the event of a personal or family emergency, illness and related doctor appointments, or unexpected employment - related delay; such as unscheduled overtime. The purpose of this program is to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation to work by removing the barrier of not having access to transportation in the event of an emergency. These types of programs have been identified as the number one incentive for employees to rideshare. (Two (2) C /CAG credits are given for every 2 ERH vouchers distributed to the tenants from the Alliance. One (1) additional C /CAG credit for each peak -hour seat will be given if a shuttle is available in addition to the Emergency Ride Home Prograrn). C /CAG Points: 200 (for enrolling in the Emergency Ride Home Prograam) C /CAG Points: 24 (for combination of the Emergency Ride Home Program and shuttle service) 6. Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar op i ns The tenants will offer their employees the option of flextime, staggered work hours, telecommuting or similar options that will allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite. At least 50% of the employee population (a minimum of 500 employees) will be given these opportunities. (One (1) C /CAG credit is given for each employee offered flextime and / or staggered work hours) C /CAG Points: 500 (for offering employees flextime, telecommuting and similar options) Tenants also provide incentives for employees to work from home. Employers have gone beyond providing employees with connecting high bandwidth connections in homes (as now most home connections are high- bandwidth) to providing computers, printers, phone line and furniture (ergonomic chairs, etc.). At least 300 employees work from home every week. C /CAG Points: 100 (for providing high bandwidth and other incentives to work at home) The building and its tenants provide video conferencing centers and video capabilities to lessen vehicles trips to sites for face -to -face meetings. Three (3) video conferencing capabilities now serve the building and it is anticipated that there will be a total of six (6) when the building is fully leased. In addition to video conferencing, tenants and their employees use web -based programs to host remote web -based meetings such as GoTo Meeting and Skype. It is estimated that the use of this technology reduces vehicles trips for face -to -face meetings by approximately 20 %. C /CAG Points: 30 (for providing video conferencing capabilities) 7. Site Plan Connectivity The Site plan promotes walking and pathway connections to public transit. The Terrabay Phase III site plan includes internal walkways and walkways around the perimeter of the project. The internal walkways lead pedestrians to open space amenities and retail services. The combination of internal and external walkways leads pedestrians to a SarnTrans bus stop directly in FIB GENESIS 2016 A.A4E I` Y BUILDING Chapter 2 Environmental Analysis October, 2016 front of Terrabay Phase III on Airport Boulevard. The onsite amenities will include a restaurant, child care center, an ATM machine, performing arts center and most likely a clry cleaner, gym facility and other service related retail that will facilitate reductions in vehicle use. (Five (5) C /CAG credits are given for each onsite amenities / accommodation). C /CAG Points: 25 (for providing at least 5 onsite amenities) 8. Annual City Monitoring and Program Update The City will review the annual traffic data and surveys provided by the Transportation Coordinator. The TDM Program will be modified as necessary to become and remain effective in meeting the needs of the Terrabay Phase III project while continuing to meet the required 34% minimum alternative mode usage. This monitoring program shall be consistent with the methods and features that are described in Section 1 of this TDM program. 9. Traffic Circulation Monitoring (Mitigation 31 -11 of 2005 SEIB) and 2006 Addendum The project will have an on -site circulation management program that will include signage for each driveway that will provide "real time" parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking. X11 levels of the garage will be well lighted and have visible security camera and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing will also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them to most convenient driveway connection to Airport Boulevard. 10. Additional Elements This TDM Program combines 17 different C /CAG components in order to most effectively reach the City's TDM goals and reduce the number of peak hour employee trips,. (Five (5) additional C /CAG credits are given for this TDM program combining any ten TDM components.) C /CAG Points: 5 (for combining at least ten (10) TDM components) The TDM Program shall be memorialized in all tenant lease or sale agreements. 11. Program Goals Carpools 15% 375 Shuttles / SanlTrans 13% 325 Van pools 3% 75 Bicycles 1.5% 37.5 Flextime, Telecorninuting etc. 1.5% 37.5 Totals 34% 1 850 71 GENESIS 2016 AMENITY BUILDING Chapter: 2 Environmental Analysis October, 201.6