HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 54-2017 (17-545) City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall,
_ 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
_ -- City Council
0'�LIFORI`1�
Resolution: RES 54-2017
File Number: 17-545 Enactment Number: RES 54-2017
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND A DETERMINATION
THAT THE 213 EAST GRAND AVENUE PROJECT(UPM17-001) IS
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
CONTAINED WITHIN THE 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR07-001)AND THAT THE 2017 ADDENDUM IS THE
APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, Applicant sought approval for the demolition of four existing one- and two-story buildings,
and construction of a single nine-story building, a five-level parking garage, surface parking lot, and
related improvements on an approximately 7.027-acre site located at 213-221 East Grand Avenue
("Project" or"213 East Grand Avenue Project"); and
WHEREAS, in approving the Project,the City of South San Francisco ("City") adopted the following:
Ordinance No. 1403-2009 approving a Development Agreement with Alexandria Real Estate Equities,
Inc. ("Applicant"),
Resolution No. 114-2008 approving a use permit, design review, and Transportation Demand
Management(TDM)program, and
Resolution 113-2008 certifying the 2007 Environmental Impact Report ("2007 EIR") (State
Clearinghouse No 2008022094); and
WHEREAS, Applicant now seeks to move the parking garage to the east side of the Project site and
requests a parking reduction to 2.23 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for the Project in the Business
and Technology Park(BTP)Zoning District("Revised Project"); and
WHEREAS,the changes sought by Applicant for the Revised Project requires approval of a Development
Agreement Amendment,Use Permit Modification, and Design Review; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis for the Revised Project was conducted, and concluded that the
environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the Revised Project were fully
analyzed in the environmental analysis conducted for the 2007 EIR,such that the Revised Project does not
meet the criteria under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15164 or
15162 justifying preparation of a subsequent EIR and thus, an addendum is the appropriate environmental
document for the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164,an addendum to the 2007 EIR was prepared for
the Project("2017 Addendum"),which along with the 2007 EIR is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively; and
City of South San Francisco Page 1
File Number: 17-545 Enactment Number: RES 54-2017
WHEREAS,the Design Review Board reviewed the Revised Project at its February 21,2017 meeting,and
recommended approval of the Revised Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of the environmental
analysis for the Revised Project at a public hearing on April 20,2017; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a properly noticed public hearing on June 14, 2017, at which time
interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, and to review the Project and the 2017 Addendum as
well as supporting documents prior to the City Council making its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS,the City Council exercised its independent judgment and analysis,and considered all reports,
recommendations, and testimony before making a determination on the Project.
NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines,
14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan, and General
Plan Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; 2007 EIR, and associated
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs; all site plans, and all reports, minutes, and public
testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed April 20, 2017 meeting; all site
plans, and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed
June 14, 2017 meeting, and any other evidence(within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)
and §21082.2),the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. General Findings
The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
Exhibit A(2017 Addendum) and Exhibit B (2007 EIR) attached to this Resolution, and the associated
2007 Statement of Overriding Considerations and its adopting resolution, are incorporated by reference
and as if set forth fully herein and all findings contained within those documents are also incorporated
fully herein.
The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning
Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in
the custody of the Planning Manager.
B. CEQA Findings
The City Council, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, subsection (d), has considered the 2017
Addendum prepared for the Revised Project, including the related environmental analysis, along with the
previously certified 2007 EIR.
Upon consideration of the 2017 Addendum,the City Council finds that the proposed Project will not result
in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 that would require further
environmental review through preparation of a subsequent EIR.
City of South San Francisco Page 2
File Number: 17-545 Enactment Number: RES 54-2017
The Revised Project will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as
compared to those already identified and analyzed in the 2007 EIR. Further, the City Council finds that
there is no new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe
significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents, nor are any new or
additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the Revised Project.
Accordingly, the City Council finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further
CEQA review,and that the 2017 Addendum,prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164,is the
appropriate environmental document for approval of the Revised Project.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and adopts a resolution making a determination that the
2017 Addendum is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the Revised Project and no
further environmental review is required.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and adoption.
At a meeting of the City Council on 6/14/2017, a motion was made by Richard Garbarino, seconded by
Mark Addiego, that this Resolution be approved. The motion passed.
Yes: 5 Vice Mayor Normandy, Councilmember Garbarino, Councilmember
Matsumoto, Mayor Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego
Attest by .1111
Gabrie o•riguez
City of South San Francisco Page 3
076218\8647405v1 1
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2nd ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
213 EAST GRAND AVENUE OFFICE/R&D PROJECT
A. PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Use
Permit Modification and Development
Agreement Amendment Application
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
3. Contact Person(s) and Phone
Numbers:
4. Project Location: 213 East Grand Avenue,
South San Francisco, CA 94080
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In 2008, Alexandria Real Estate Equities, Inc. (“Alexandria” or “Applicant”) filed an application with
the City of South San Francisco (the “City”) for a Use Permit (No. UP13-0002), Transportation Demand
Management (“TDM”) Plan, Design Review, and a Development Agreement to develop a campus-
style office/research & development (“R&D”) complex at 213 East Grand Avenue (the “213 East
Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project” or the “Project”). The proposed Project included one nine-story
building totaling 291,634 square feet, a five-level parking garage containing 616 spaces, and an
additional 210 spaces of surface parking. The City certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”)
and approved the Project on January 14, 2009.
The Project Site is located in South San Francisco’s East of 101 area (“East of 101 Area”) and is
comprised of two parcels: (1) a 6.695-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of East Grand
Avenue and Forbes Boulevard, and (2) a 0.332-acre parcel, adjacent to the primary property located
at the northwest corner of East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road (the “Project Site”). The Project
Site was previously developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet
that have since been demolished. The Site is currently vacant and predominantly paved.
Proposed Changes to the Project
The Applicant is proposing to make certain changes to the approved Project site plan and parking
requirement in order to (1) maximize the open-space for the campus; (2) provide a parking ratio that
reflects the Project site’s proximity to the Caltrain station and meets the anticipated occupancy of the
facility and commitment of the workforce to transit; and (3) to create a more urban campus.
To accomplish these goals, Alexandria is proposing to (a) relocate the parking garage to the east side
of the Project Site (given the irregular shape of the Project Site, the garage will be moved
approximately 70 feet and 120 feet from the original location, dependent upon the point of
076218\8647405v1 2
measurement), (b) change the parking garage size and design to include 524 spaces (a reduction of 92
stalls), and (c) reduce surface parking to 110 spaces (a reduction of 100 stalls) (the “Revised Project”).
The Revised Project parking supply would also include 16 ADA automobile and van accessible spaces
located throughout the Project Site, for a total of 650 parking spaces. The parking changes would
result in a reduction of the overall parking ratio to 2.23 spaces/1000 square feet of floor area,
allowing for increased campus open-space area. The Revised Project requires approval of
modifications to Use Permit No. UP13-0002 and an amendment to the Development Agreement
between the Applicant and the City.
Mitigation measures identified in the EIR and imposed on the Project through the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program would continue to apply to the Revised Project. As documented
herein, the Revised Project will not result in any new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects than identified in the EIR, and the potential environmental effects of the
Revised Project have been adequately addressed in the certified EIR for the 213 East Grand Avenue
Office/R&D Project.
CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADDENDUM:
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15164, subdivision (a) provides that
the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified
Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary, but
none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR or Negative Declaration (“ND”) have occurred. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(a).)
An addendum need not be circulated for public review, but can be included in or attached to the Final
EIR or ND. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(c).) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum
with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(d).) An
agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND
pursuant to Section 15162. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(e).) Consequently, once an EIR has been
certified or a ND adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND shall be prepared under CEQA
unless, based on substantial evidence:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;1
2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR [or ND] . . . due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects; or
1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “. . . a substantial, or potentially
substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land,
air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance . . .” (See also Pub.
Resources Code, § 21068.)
076218\8647405v1 3
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR [or ND] was
certified as complete . . . shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR
[or ND] or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown
in the previous EIR [or ND];
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those
analyzed in the previous EIR [or ND] would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15162 (a); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21166.)
This Addendum constitutes substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a
supplemental or subsequent EIR is not required for the Revised Project, and may be relied on by
responsible and trustee agencies for any related approvals for the development of the Project.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
As required under CEQA, the City of South San Francisco has reviewed the Revised Project to
determine whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21166(a);
CEQA Guidelines, § 15162(a).)
Based on the environmental analysis set forth in this Addendum as well as the EIR, the Staff Report,
testimony received at public hearings, and the record of proceedings, the City has determined, based
on substantial evidence, that:
1) No substantial changes are proposed that would require major revisions to the previous EIR
resulting from new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant environmental impacts.
2) No substantial changes in the circumstances under which the Revised Project will be
developed have occurred that would require major revisions to the previous EIR resulting
from new significant environmental impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant environmental impacts.
3) No new information has arisen that was not known and could not have been known when the
previous EIR was certified demonstrates any of the following:
a. The Revised Project will cause significant environmental impacts not discussed in the
previous EIR;
076218\8647405v1 4
b. Significant environmental impacts previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental
impacts, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant environmental
impacts, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative.
Accordingly, since none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred, the City prepared this Addendum to
the EIR for the East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Use Permit Modification and Development
Agreement Amendment Application. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15164, 15168.)
ANALYSIS
The Project Site was previously developed with four one- and two-story non-residential buildings
totaling 124,000 square feet and was completely disturbed. As such, per the Draft EIR, impacts to the
following CEQA topics were determined not to be significant and no additional analysis was provided:
agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, mineral resources, population and
housing, public services, and recreation. The preexisting buildings have since been demolished and
the Project Site is currently flat and predominantly covered with concrete.
As explained in greater detail in each impact category below, because the Revised Project does not
include substantial changes relative to the anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be
developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information has come to light
meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), preparation of a subsequent or
supplemental EIR is not required.
076218\8647405v1 5
Aesthetics
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve New
Significant Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
AESTHETICS – Would the
proposed Revised Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect on scenic vista?
No No No N/A
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic
highway?
No No No N/A
c) Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or
quality of the site and its
surroundings?
No No No N/A
d) Create a new source of
substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The Project Site is located in the East of 101 Area, which is a historically industrial area
transitioning to high technology office/R&D uses. The Project, like others in the East of 101 Area,
involves replacement of older facilities and/or a vacant site and includes landscaping and pedestrian
improvements to current City standards. Given the condition of the surrounding area, the EIR
concluded that the Project would have no adverse impact on the visual character of the Site or the
East of 101 Area. The EIR also concluded that the Project would not result in new sources of
substantial adverse light or glare since the Project would consist of development and lighting
treatments typical of the existing commercial/industrial urban setting and would incorporate
standard and tailored lighting measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas. The EIR found
that the Project would not result in a cumulative adverse impact to visual quality or aesthetics.
The Revised Project is consistent with the EIR analysis. The Revised Project will result in the
relocation of the parking garage to east side of the Site and a slight reduction in the massing of the
garage, as well as a reduction in surface parking. The reduced parking will allow for the creation of
additional open space. The Revised Project would not increase the height or mass of the office/R&D
building. The Project will continue to remain consistent with established City standards and will
adhere to established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and criteria that address building
appearance, height, bulk, and configuration.
Therefore, the Revised Project would not adversely affect the visual quality and aesthetics of the Site.
It does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will
not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to
aesthetics exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 6
Agricultural Resources
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
New
Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES – In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest
Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.
Would the proposed Revised Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No No No N/A
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
No No No N/A
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
No No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
No No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that it would have no impact or a less-than-
significant impact on agricultural resources with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did
not include an analysis of agricultural resources. The Project Site was fully developed with four one-
and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished.
076218\8647405v1 7
The Revised Project is consistent with the Initial Study’s analysis. Although the prior buildings have
been demolished, the Site remains disturbed, vacant, and paved. As such, the Revised Project would
not result in any agricultural resources impacts. The Revised Project does not include substantial
changes relative to anticipated development previously analyzed, will not be developed under
substantially changed circumstances, and no new information related to agricultural resources exists
that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 8
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
AIR QUALITY – 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.
Would the proposed Revised Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
No No No N/A
b) Violate any air quality standard
or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
No No No Yes
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)?
No No No Yes
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
No No No Yes
e) Create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of
people?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR concluded that short-term construction impacts and long-term project impacts to
air quality would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation measures for impacts to air
quality were included in the EIR. Construction activities would temporarily impact local air quality,
but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures
requiring dust suppression and exhaust reduction procedures (MM Air-1). Long-term impacts on air
quality due to operation of the Project would be less-than-significant after implementation of a TDM
program, which is required by City Ordinance for the life of the Project and would reduce emissions
related to employee vehicle use commuting to and from work (MM Air-3). The EIR indicated that the
Project has the potential to emit small amounts of toxic air contaminants with the potential to affect
nearby sensitive receptors, but this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through
the implementation of mitigation measures requiring compliance with BAAQMD, OSHA standards,
and the Airport Land Use Plan (MMs Haz-4, Haz-5, Haz-6). Diesel odor impacts from construction
vehicles would be temporary and would likely not be noticeable beyond the Project Site’s boundaries.
Such odor impacts are further reduced through implementation of dust suppression and exhaust
reduction procedures (MM Air-1). Further, with respect to cumulative air quality impacts, the EIR
included an analysis of regional air quality impacts with respect to reactive organic gases, nitrous
076218\8647405v1 9
oxide, and fine particulate matter. The EIR concluded that the emissions of those pollutants from the
Project would be below the significance thresholds established by BAAQMD.
In regards to greenhouse gas emissions, the EIR evaluated the Project’s compliance with State
measures for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The EIR concluded that the Project would not
conflict with the State’s greenhouse gas reduction measures. The Project’s estimated yearly
emissions of CO 2 are 176.63 tons, which falls well below the reduction state goal and reporting limit
for major facilities (i.e. emissions of at least 25,000 metric tons of CO 2 E/year). As such, the Project
does not constitute a “major facility” that is a large stationary point source of emissions. As
aforementioned, the Project includes a TDM program, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from the Project construction and operations.
The Revised Project is consistent with the EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not increase the
mass or intensity of the proposed office/R&D use on the Site. Accordingly, the Project would not
result in additional construction emissions, odors, or cumulative impacts on air quality beyond those
analyzed in the EIR. The relocation of the parking garage to the eastern portion of the Project Site
does not result in a change in impacts to sensitive receptors. The Revised Project will implement all
relevant air quality mitigation measures from the EIR. As such, the Revised Project would not result
in any air quality impacts not analyzed in the EIR. Further, in regards to greenhouse gas emissions,
the Revised Project will result in the same or fewer vehicle trips and, thus, will not result in more
severe regional air quality impacts.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to air quality exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 10
Biological Resources
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures Address
Impacts?
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would
the proposed Revised Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species
in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No No No N/A
b) Have a substantial adverse
effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
No No No N/A
c) Have a substantial adverse
effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
No No No N/A
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident
or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
No No No N/A
e) Conflict with any local policies
or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
No No No N/A
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
No No No N/A
076218\8647405v1 11
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a
less-than-significant impact on biological resources with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft
EIR did not include an analysis of biological resources. The Project Site was fully developed with four
one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished. The
Project Site is currently vacant and predominantly paved.
The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. After the demolition of the
preexisting four one- and two-story buildings, the Project Site—including the area for the relocated
parking garage on the eastern portion of the Site—has remained disturbed, vacant, and
predominantly paved. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any biological resources
impacts that were not previously analyzed.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to biological resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 12
Cultural Resources
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures Address
Impacts?
CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would
the proposed Revised Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §
15064.5?
No No No N/A
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
No No No N/A
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
No No No N/A
d) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a
less-than-significant impact on cultural resources with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR
did not include an analysis of cultural resources. The Project Site was fully developed with four one-
and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have since been demolished.
The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. After the demolition of the
preexisting four one- and two-story buildings, the Project Site has remained disturbed, vacant, and
predominantly paved. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any cultural resources impacts
that were not previously analyzed.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to cultural resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 13
Energy
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
ENERGY – Would the proposed Revised
Project:
a) Use energy in a wasteful or inefficient
manner, either during construction, operation,
or maintenance?
No No No N/A
b) Have insufficient energy supplies available to
serve the project from existing local and
regional sources, or otherwise have an adverse
effect on energy resources?
No No No N/A
c) Comply with existing state and local energy
standards?
No No No N/A
d) Result in a significant increase in peak and
base period demands for electricity and other
forms of energy?
No No No N/A
e) Significantly increase vehicle miles traveled,
such that the project would result in increased
transportation energy use?
No No No N/A
Discussion: In the Utilities and Services chapter (Chapter 12), the EIR determined that the Project
would have an incremental increase in energy demand, such as gas and electricity, for construction
and operation of the development. However, the Project would be served by existing capacities, and
so would not require or result in the construction of new or expanded energy facilities. Further,
PG&E infrastructure is already present on the Site. The Project also would comply with the applicable
federal, state, and local energy standards and efficiency regulations, including Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations. Thus, the EIR concluded that the Project would have a less-than-
significant impact with respect to energy efficiency and consumption, and no mitigation was
required.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve the
intensification of the office/R&D use and so will not generate additional demands or otherwise
increase impacts to existing energy capacity or energy resources, either during construction or during
operations. The Project would also continue to be consistent with all applicable energy standards. In
fact, due to revised Title 24 requirements, the Revised Project would likely be more energy efficient
than the Project contemplated by the EIR, and thus, could result in reduced demands on energy
supplies. Further, due to the Project Site’s proximity to the Caltrain station and implementation of a
TDM program, the Revised Project would not increase transportation energy use from employees or
other visitors to the Site.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
076218\8647405v1 14
information related to energy demand exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 15
Geology and Soils
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially More
Severe Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures Address
Impacts?
GEOLOGY AND SOILS – Would the
proposed Revised Project:
a) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special
Publication 42.
No No No N/A
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
No No No Yes
iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including
liquefaction?
No No No Yes
iv) Landslides? No No No N/A
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
No No No Yes
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on
or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
No No No Yes
d) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
No No No N/A
e) Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
No No No N/A
076218\8647405v1 16
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts from exposure of people or structures to
major geological hazards would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The EIR indicates that there
is a high probability that the Project will be subjected to strong seismic ground shaking during its
designed life and/or seismically induced ground failure, including liquefaction, densification, and
ground surface settlement. These impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through
implementation of mitigation measures requiring compliance with the California Building Code and
obtaining a building permit (MMs Geo-2a, Geo-2c and Geo-3c), and compliance with a design level
Geotechnical Investigation report and Structural Design plans (MMs Geo-2b and Geo-3a). The EIR
indicates that the presence of undocumented fill soils and Bay Mud on the Project site presents
potential impacts from unstable soils, which would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level
through implementation of a Design Level Geotechnical Investigation (MM Geo-4), which would
incorporate proper foundation engineering. Additionally, as the Project will involve mass grading at a
location which drains stormwater to the San Francisco Bay, the EIR indicates that the Project could
expose underlying contaminated soil to the elements which would be subject to erosion during storm
events. The impact to soil erosion would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (MM Geo-6). With respect to cumulative
geology and soils impacts, the EIR indicates that the Project would be one of numerous sites
anticipated to undergo development/redevelopment in the Project Site vicinity and would contribute
to a cumulative increase in sites facing these impacts. However, the Project-specific contribution
would be reduced through the aforementioned Project-specific mitigation measures to a less-than-
significant level.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. Applicable EIR mitigation measures will be
implemented, the Revised Project would continue to comply with California Building Code standards
and the project design will incorporate the foundation engineering and construction
recommendations contained within the design level geotechnical investigation report, and would
conform with structural design plans as prepared by a registered structural engineer. As previously
discussed, the EIR concluded that the majority of the Project Site is overlain by a layer of
undocumented fill, and thus, to minimize long-term settlements, new structures should be supported
on the dense, sandy native soils and bedrock underlying the undocumented fills. The relocation of
the parking garage to the east side of the Project Site does not impose any additional risk in
connection with site geology and soils not already analyzed in the EIR, as the new location is
substantially similar to the originally approved site. Further, the reduction in surface parking and
incorporation of additional open space does not involve any additional ground disturbing activity and
so would not result in any geology or soils impacts not analyzed in the EIR.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to geology and soils exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 17
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS –
Would the proposed Revised Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
No No No Yes
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
No No No Yes
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
No No No Yes
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
No No No N/A
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 result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
No No No N/A
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area?
No No No N/A
g) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No No No N/A
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts from exposure of people or structures to
hazards or hazardous materials would be less-than-significant with mitigation. Given the Project’s
use as a Class A laboratory and office building, depending on the nature of the research planned at
the proposed facilities, there could be hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and used
on the site, which will ultimately require disposal, in addition to such hazardous materials being
transported to and from the Project Site. The EIR indicates that the impact of the Project’s potential
076218\8647405v1 18
incorporation of routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be reduced to
a less-than-significant level through implementation of mitigation measures requiring adherence to
Fire and Safety Codes (MM Haz-1a), construction inspection and final inspection prior to occupancy
(MM Haz-1b), implementation of a Hazardous Material Business Plan Program (MM Haz-1c),
registration and compliance with DTSC’s Hazardous Waste Generator Program (MM Haz-1d), and
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations regarding transportation and disposal of
hazardous waste (MM Haz-1e).
Further, the EIR indicates that the Project Site has a well-documented history of industrial activity
including the use and storage of hazardous materials. An underground storage tank was removed
from the Project Site in 1986. Subsequent testing detected elevated levels of TCE, PCE and two
metals remaining in confined areas of the soil, which are not identified at specific locations in the EIR.
The EIR concluded that the Project Site contains limited amounts of subsurface hazardous materials
that could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials during regular construction
activities and exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater. These impacts would be reduced to a
less-than-significant level through the implementation of mitigation measures requiring a demolition
plan and permitting prior to demolition (MM Haz-2a), registration with the California Accidental
Release Prevention Program (MM Haz-2b), and implementation of a Site Management Plan.
Standard construction Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) would be implemented to reduce
pollutant emissions during construction. The Project would comply with regulations enforced by
CUPA, Cal/OSHA, and DTSC to ensure that safety measures and precautions are taken to reduce
impacts resulting from accidental upset or release of hazardous materials associated with the Project
Site.
With respect to hazardous materials near schools, the EIR indicates that the Project is located near
three child care centers, which could be impacted by contaminated dust disturbed by grading of the
Project Site and/or future emissions of the research laboratory facilities. These impacts would be
reduced to less-than-significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures requiring
demolition and construction air quality control strategies (MM Haz-4) and compliance with BAAQMD
and OSHA standards (MM Haz-5). In regards to cumulative hazardous impacts, the EIR indicates that
the Project would be one of numerous sites in the vicinity that are anticipated to undergo
development/redevelopment. The Project would, thus, contribute to a cumulative increase in the
number of sites handling hazardous materials. However, this impact is expected to be slight and the
aforementioned project-specific mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve the use
of additional construction vehicles or the transport of any additional hazardous materials not already
analyzed in the EIR. Further, the Revised Project will not result in substantial changes to disturbance
of the subsurface that would result in increased exposure risk to underground hazardous materials.
The EIR identified possible soil contamination as a general condition at the Project Site and
incorporated generally applicable mitigation measures (MM Haz-4 and MM Haz-5) to address
possible exposure to contaminated soil; the EIR analysis regarding impacts and mitigation measures
associated with contaminated soil is not unique to specific locations on the Project Site. As such, the
aforementioned mitigation measures are equally applicable to the Revised Project and the new
location of the relocated garage on the east side of the Project Site. The Revised Project will
implement all relevant EIR mitigation measures, including standard construction BMPs. As such, the
076218\8647405v1 19
Revised Project would not result in any hazards and hazardous materials impacts not analyzed in the
EIR.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to hazards and hazardous materials exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA
Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 20
Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY – Would the
proposed Revised Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
No No No Yes
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer
volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting
nearby wells would drop to a level which would
not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
No No No N/A
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
No No No Yes
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the alteration
of the course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
No No No N/A
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
No No No N/A
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? No No No N/A
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
No No No N/A
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect flood
flows?
No No No N/A
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
No No No N/A
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts on hydrology and water quality would be
less-than-significant with mitigation. As stated in the EIR, the Project loading/trash area could create
potential pollution of surface water, which would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through
076218\8647405v1 21
water quality BMPs. In addition, the EIR indicated that the Project could cause potential
contamination of local groundwater that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through
implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to the City’s National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Permit. The EIR indicates that construction operations associated with the Project
would present a threat of soil erosion from grading activities by subjecting unprotected bare soils to
rainfall. This impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through compliance with a
Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit requirements (MM Hydro-4). The Project
would have no impact on ground water recharge or stormwater drainage systems. In regards to
cumulative hydrology impacts, the EIR indicates that the increased construction activity and new
development resulting from the Project, in conjunction with other foreseeable development in the
City, would nevertheless result in less-than-significant impacts on hydrology and water quality.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve any
additional construction or ground-disturbing activities compared to what was analyzed in the EIR. As
such, the Revised Project would not otherwise contribute pollutants or result in erosion that would
have the potential to degrade water quality that was not already analyzed. The Revised Project will
also continue to implement all relevant EIR mitigation measures.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to hydrology and water quality exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section
21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 22
Land Use and Planning
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
LAND USE & PLANNING – Would
the proposed Revised Project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?
No No No N/A
b) Conflict with any applicable land
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
No No No N/A
c) Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that the Project would be consistent with applicable
City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan land use policies, and so would not
have an adverse impact with respect to land use and planning.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not alter the
Project’s physical location, but instead reduces parking, reorients the location of the parking garage,
and increases open space on the Project Site. The Revised Project remains consistent with the
General Plan and the East of 101 Area Plan. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any land
use or planning impacts not analyzed in the EIR.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to land use and planning exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166
or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 23
Mineral Resources
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
MINERAL RESOURCES – Would
the proposed Revised Project:
a) Result in the loss of availability
of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
No No No N/A
b) Result in the loss of availability
of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a
less-than-significant impact on mineral resources with no mitigation required; thus, the Draft EIR did
not include an analysis of mineral resources.
The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. For the prior analysis, the Project Site
was fully developed with four one- and two-story buildings totaling 124,000 square feet that have
since been demolished. The Project Site is currently vacant and predominantly paved. Further, the
EIR contemplated development on the portion of the Project Site on which the Revised Project will be
developed, as the Project would have developed additional surface parking on the location of the to-
be-developed garage of the Revised Project. As such, the Revised Project would not result in any
mineral resources impacts not previously analyzed.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to mineral resources exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 24
Noise
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
NOISE – Would the proposed Revised
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?
No No No N/A
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
No No No N/A
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
No No No N/A
d) A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
No No No Yes
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?
No No No N/A
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?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that noise impacts from construction and operation of
the Project would be less-than-significant with mitigation. The potentially significant noise impacts
associated with construction of the Project are mitigated through implementation of noise-reducing
construction practices that would reduce truck noise and noise from other construction equipment to
a less-than-significant level. Further, the EIR concluded that the cumulative noise impacts of the
Project would be less than significant, as the cumulative noise increase from increases in traffic would
not be expected to generate noise levels perceptible over the existing ambient noise levels.
The Revised Project is consistent with this analysis. The Revised Project does not result in additional
construction vehicle trips and so would not increase vehicle noise during construction. The Revised
Project also would not increase the intensity of development and so would not require additional
construction equipment, construction personnel, or time for construction. Therefore, the Revised
Project would not generate a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels from
076218\8647405v1 25
the use of construction equipment not already analyzed in the EIR. The Project also would continue
to implement relevant construction noise-reducing mitigation measures. As the Revised Project
would reduce the overall parking on the Project Site and create additional open-space, it would not
create a cumulative noise increase as compared to the Project. The location of the parking structure
as planned in the Project did not result in any significant noise impacts, and the Revised Project’s
relocation of the parking structure to the eastern portion of the Project Site would not affect that
conclusion. The EIR found that, due to the prevalence of industrial land uses in the area, noise
thresholds vis-à-vis the Project and neighboring land uses are higher than they would be if more
sensitive land uses were present near the Project Site. Thus, while the Revised Project will relocate
the parking garage to a different portion of the Site, traffic noise associated with this relocation will
not result in increased noise impacts.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to noise exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 26
Population and Housing
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
POPULATION & HOUSING – Would the
proposed Revised Project:
a) Induce substantial population growth
in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No No No N/A
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No No No N/A
c) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a
less-than-significant impact on population and housing with no mitigation required; thus, the Draft
EIR did not include an analysis of population and housing. The Project does not propose any housing
and so would not induce population growth, and the Project Site is not currently developed with
housing and so none would be displaced.
The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. The Revised Project would not
increase the square footage or density of the office/R&D building or alter the use of the office/R&D
building in a manner that would induce a substantial population growth. As such, the Revised Project
would not result in any population and housing impacts not previously analyzed.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to population and housing exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166
or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 27
Public Services
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
PUBLIC SERVICES – Would the proposed
Revised Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities,
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public
services:
i) Fire protection? No No No N/A
ii) Police protection? No No No N/A
iii) Schools? No No No N/A
iv) Parks? No No No N/A
V) Other public facilities? No No No N/A
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or
less-than-significant impact on public services with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did
not include an analysis of public services. The Project does not include residential uses and so would
not increase demand on parks, schools, or libraries. The office/R&D development would also not
generate an increase in demand for fire or police services resulting in the need for new or physically
altered governmental facilities.
The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. The Revised Project would not
increase the square footage or intensity of the office/R&D building, or alter the use of the office/R&D
building or Project Site in a manner that would increase impacts on public services. As such, the
Revised Project would not result in any public services impacts not previously analyzed.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to public services exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 28
Recreation
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
RECREATION – Would the proposed
Revised Project:
a) Would the project increase the
use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
No No No N/A
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The Initial Study for the Project determined that the Project would have no impact or a
less-than-significant impact on recreation with no mitigation required and, thus, the Draft EIR did not
include an analysis of recreation. The Project does not include residential uses and so would not
increase demand on recreational facilities.
The Revised Project is consistent with this Initial Study analysis. The Revised Project would not alter
the use of the office/R&D building or Project Site in a manner that would create an impact on
recreational facilities.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information related to recreation exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 29
Transportation and Circulation
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
TRANSPORTATION & CIRCULATION –
Would the proposed Revised Project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (i.e., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on
roads, or congestion at intersections)?
No No No No
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated
roads or highways?
No No No Yes
c) Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an increase in
traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
No No No N/A
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
No No No Yes
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
No No No N/A
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? No No No N/A
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that the Project would generate impacts to
transportation and circulation, the majority of which either are less-than-significant without
mitigation or are reduced to less-than-significant through the implementation of various mitigation
measures. The EIR concluded that the Project would create one significant and unavoidable impact
on an off-ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline due to the addition of Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (“Impact TRAF-17”). The EIR found that no improvements are
feasible to mitigate this Project-specific impact and the City adopted a statement of overriding
considerations for this impact via Resolution No. 2676-2008.
The EIR indicates that the Project would generate more than 100 net new trips during the AM and PM
peak hours, thereby triggering the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments Agency
Guidelines requirement that local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenant
mitigates all new peak hour trips projected to be generated by the Project. This impact would be
076218\8647405v1 30
mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of a TDM program. The EIR
indicates that in order to mitigate a potential significant impact regarding internal pedestrian
connections, the Project would incorporate sidewalks and crosswalks connecting the Project’s main
entrance with the sidewalk along East Grand Avenue (MM Traf-5). Additionally, the EIR indicates that
the State Public Utilities Commission has noted that a nearby intersection grade rail crossing is not up
to minimum standards on one or more approaches for required advanced warning signing and
pavement striping, a problem that would be aggravated by the addition of the Project. This impact
would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of a mitigation measure
requiring installation of grade crossing approach signing and pavement striping as detailed in the
2003 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Services by the Federal Highway Commission (MM Traf-7).
The EIR also indicates that Project impacts to the intersection levels of service at E. Grand
Avenue/Gateway Boulevard; E. Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way; E. Grand
Avenue/Roebling Road; Gateway Boulevard/ S. Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue; and intersection
signalization needs at E. Grand Avenue/Roebling Road would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level through implementation of mitigation measures requiring physical improvements that will
improve the functioning of the intersections in compliance with City standards (MMs Traf-8, Traf-9,
Traf-10, Traf-11, Traf-12). Further, Project impacts to cumulative vehicle queuing at signalized and
unsignalized intersections, and off-ramp queuing to freeway mainlines are also reduced to less-than-
significant levels through implementation of mitigation measures requiring physical improvements
that will improve the functioning of the intersections in compliance with City standards (MMs Traf-
13, Traf-14, Traf-15, Traf-16).
A March 15, 2017 technical memorandum prepared by Adavant Consulting, “213 East Grand Avenue
Parking Demand Analysis,” (the “Adavant Memorandum”) analyzed the Revised Project’s impacts on
transportation and circulation and concluded that the proposed changes would not result in new or
substantially increased transportation impacts than those already identified within the EIR. In
regards to circulation and traffic, the Adavant Memorandum found that vehicular access to and from
the Revised Project would remain unchanged, as the driveways would remain located at East Grand
Avenue and Roebling Road. For daily vehicle trips generated by the Revised Project, the Adavant
Memorandum noted that the 2008 EIR evaluated the number of daily vehicle trips generated by the
Project based on the 7th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual prepared by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (“ITE”) using the land use category of “Office Use.” Given that vehicle trip generation for
office has been found to be higher than for R&D uses, this resulted in a conservative trip generation
estimate for environmental impact analysis purposes. The Revised Project will consist of laboratory
and R&D uses. Since 2008, the ITE has updated its Trip Generation Manual to include an “R&D” land
use category, which the Adavant Memorandum applied in the analysis of the Revised Project to
accurately calculate trip generation for the proposed uses. The Adavant Memorandum concluded
that the Revised Project would generate 26 percent fewer daily trips than the Project (respectively,
1,183 versus 1,606 daily vehicles accessing and parking at the site), resulting in a corresponding
decrease in on-site parking demand. In sum, the Adavant Memorandum found that, while the
Revised Project would reduce the parking supply by 21.5 percent, this reduction would not result in a
parking deficit given the expected 26 percent reduction in daily trips. Overall, the Adavant
Memorandum concluded that the Revised Project would not be expected to substantially change the
travel conditions in the area, or modify the conclusions reached by the EIR.
The Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development
previously analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
076218\8647405v1 31
information related to transportation and circulation exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section
21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 32
Utilities and Service Systems
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes
Involve New
Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS – Would the
proposed Revised Project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
No No No N/A
b) Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
No No No N/A
c) Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects?
No No No N/A
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
No No No N/A
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
No No No Yes
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
No No No N/A
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR for the Project determined that impacts on the City and other service providers to
deliver water supply, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, solid waste, and energy services would be
less-than-significant with mitigation. While the Project would increase demand for utilities and
services systems, the Project site is located in a largely built-out urban area, and intensification of
development in the area is and has been anticipated by the City and service providers and is within
the planned future capacity of these systems. Mitigation includes the payment of a sewer-
connection fee and monthly impact fee to the City for the cost of sewer system upgrades necessary
to manage the wastewater flows generated by the Project.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project does not involve the
intensification of the office/R&D use and so will not generate additional impacts on the City and
other service providers to deliver water supply, sanitary sewer, stormwater drainage, solid waste, and
076218\8647405v1 33
energy services. The Revised Project will also implement all relevant EIR mitigation measures. The
Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously
analyzed, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new information
related to utilities and service systems exists that meet the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
076218\8647405v1 34
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues:
Could Proposed
Changes Involve
New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
that could Result
in New Significant
Impacts or
Substantially
More Severe
Impacts?
Any New
Information
Indicating
New
significant
Impacts?
Do the EIR
Mitigation
Measures
Address
Impacts?
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE –
Would the proposed Revised Project:
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
No No No N/A
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
No No No N/A
Discussion: The EIR determined that the Project would have one significant and unavoidable impact.
The Project would create a significant impact on an off-ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101
freeway mainline due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (“Impact
TRAF-17”). The EIR found that no improvements are feasible to mitigate this Project-specific impact.
The Revised Project is consistent with this EIR analysis. The Revised Project will continue to create
the significant and unavoidable Impact TRAF-17 due to the addition of Project traffic to year 2015
Base Case volumes on an off-ramp diverge location from the U.S. 101 freeway mainline.
In regards to mandatory findings of significance, as indicated above, the Revised Project would not
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The
Revised Project would also not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable. Further, the Revised Project would not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on humans, either directly or indirectly.
076218\8647405v1 35
The Revised Project will implement all applicable EIR mitigation measures for the Project. The
Revised Project does not include substantial changes relative to anticipated development previously
analyzed in the EIR, will not be developed under substantially changed circumstances, and no new
information exists that meets the thresholds of CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Section
15162.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, because some changes to the Project as analyzed in the Draft EIR are necessary, but
none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred, an addendum is
the appropriate CEQA document to address the changes.
Based on the findings and information contained in the certified EIR, the analysis above, and the
CEQA statute and CEQA Guidelines, including Sections 15164 and 15162, the Revised Project will not
result in any new or substantially more severe environmental effects than identified in the EIR, and
the potential environmental effects of the Revised Project have been adequately addressed in the
certified EIR for the East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Use Permit and Development Agreement
Application. Therefore, an addendum to the EIR is appropriate under CEQA Guidelines Section
15164. The EIR, including this Addendum is adequate for use by the Planning Commission and City
Council in their review of the Use Permit Modification (No. UP13-0002), the Development Agreement
Amendment, and the adoption of findings required by CEQA in acting on such requests.
Adavant
Consulting
200 Francisco St., Second Floor, San Francisco, California 94133
(415) 362-3552 Page 1
Memorandum
To: Terezia Nemeth, Vice President, Alexandria Real Estate Equities
From: José I. Farrán, PE
Date: March 17, 2017
Re: 213 East Grand Avenue Parking Demand Analysis
This technical memorandum summarizes the parking demand analysis performed by Adavant
Consulting at your request for proposed project being considered at 213 East Grand Avenue, in
the City of South San Francisco.
The main purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the site access and parking supply of the
currently proposed development, compare it to the expected demand, and assess if the
proposed changes by the new proposal could result in new or substantially more severe
transportation impacts than those identified as part of the previously approved development
Final EIR.
BACKGROUND
In 2008, the South San Francisco City Council approved Alexandria Real Estate Equities’ (ARE)
proposal to develop a nine-story 291,634 gross square foot (gsf) building at 213 East Grand
Avenue, the “Original Project”; Figure 1 on the next page graphically depicts the Original Project
site proposal. The approved project consisted of a combination of research, development and
office uses, whose potential transportation impacts were evaluated in an environmental impact
report prepared in May 2008.1
The Original Project called for a total of 826 parking spaces to be provided on-site, 616 of them
within a five-level parking structure and the remaining 210 at various surface parking lots. As
such the parking supply ratio for the Original Project was 2.83 spaces per 1000 gsf, consistent
with the City of South San Francisco requirements. ARE now proposes to make changes to the
Original Project site plan and parking requirements in order to maximize the open space area
and create a more urban campus.
1 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2008022094; prepared
for the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community Development by Lampier
Gregory; May 2008.
Adavant
Consulting
Final Version March 17, 2017
P16011 Page 2
Figure 1
213 East Grand Avenue Original Project
Alexandria Real Estate – December 2008
The new proposal, the “Revised Project”, shown in Figure 2 on the next page, calls for the
relocation of the parking garage structure to the east side of the project site, along Roebling
Road, while reducing the total on-site parking supply to 650 spaces, a reduction of 176 stalls or
about 21.5 percent fewer spaces than the Original Project.
The Revised Project parking supply would include 524 spaces at a five-level parking structure,
and 110 spaces at various surface lots, plus 16 ADA automobile and van accessible spaces
located throughout the site. The proposed parking changes for the Revised Project would result
in a reduction of the overall parking supply ratio to 2.23 spaces per 1000 gsf.
Vehicular access to the site would remain virtually unchanged under the Revised Project, with
driveways located at East Grand Avenue and Roebling Road.
Adavant
Consulting
Final Version March 17, 2017
P16011 Page 3
Figure 2
213 East Grand Avenue Revised Project
Alexandria Real Estate – January 2017
METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS
The Final EIR certified by the City Council for the Original Project identified the number of daily
vehicle trips that the Original Project would generate, based on the 7th Edition of the Trip
Generation Manual2 prepared by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), the most up-to-date
source of data available at that time. The results are summarized in Table 1.
2 Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, 2003.
Adavant
Consulting
Final Version March 17, 2017
P16011 Page 4
Table 1
213 East Grand Avenue – Original Project
Weekday Daily Trip Generation
Land Use Size
(square feet)
Daily
Vehicle-trip Rate [a]
Daily
Vehicle-trips
Office Use [c] 291,643 11.01 3,212 [b]
Total One-Way Daily Vehicles 1,606
Notes:
[a] Number of vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet; rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition.
[b] Total two-way vehicle trips.
[c] ITE Land Use 710, General Office Building
Source: Table 11-13, p. 11-26, 213 East Grand Avenue Office/R&D Project EIR, May 2008.
As indicated in the table, the Original Project (291,634 sq. ft.) would generate 3,212 daily
vehicle trips, representing 1,606 one-way daily vehicles. As also shown in the table, the travel
demand estimates for the Original Project were based on office uses rather than R&D, to
provide a conservative trip generation estimate for environmental impact analysis purposes,
since vehicle trip generation for office has been found to be higher than for R&D uses.
Since 2008, the ITE has been updating its Trip Generation Manual report regularly, and in 2012
published the 9th Edition,3 which includes a land use category specific for facilities devoted
mostly to R&D activities (LU 760 Research & Development Center). This land use and trip rate
category has been used in recent studies performed in South San Francisco, including the
environmental analyses conducted for the Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I project,4 and
the 328 Roebling Road project.5 Because ARE now proposes to dedicate the project primarily
to laboratory, research and development uses, the application of the R&D ITE rate to calculate
the trip generation for the Revised Project would be appropriate.
3 Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, 2012.
4 Table 16.10, p. 16-17, Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project Environmental Impact Report SCH No.
2010022070, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Department of Economic and Community
Development by Lampier Gregory; January 2011.
5 328 Roebling Road project Traffic Study, prepared for the City of South San Francisco, Department of
Economic and Community Development by Crane Transportation Group, October 2011.
Adavant
Consulting
Final Version March 17, 2017
P16011 Page5
Table 2 summarizes the trip generation for the Revised Project (383,000 sq. ft.) using the R&D
land use category as presented in the 9th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual.
Table 2
213 East Grand Avenue – Revised Project
Weekday Daily Trip Generation
Land Use Size
(square feet)
Daily
Vehicle-trip Rate [a]
Daily
Vehicle-trips
R&D use [c]291,643 8.11 2,366 [b]
Total One-Way Daily Vehicles 1,183
Notes:
[a] Number of vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet; rates based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.
[b] Total two-way vehicle trips.
[c] ITE Land Use 760, Research and Development Center.
Sources: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Adavant Consulting.
As shown in Table 2, the Revised Project would generate fewer daily trips than the Original
Project. Specifically the total number of one-way daily vehicles generated daily by the Revised
Project would be about 26 percent lower (1,183 vs 1,606).
TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
The implementation of the Revised Project, which would be dedicated primarily to laboratory,
research and development uses would not be expected to substantially change the travel
conditions in the area, or modify the conclusion reached in the project EIR. Vehicular access to
the site would remain virtually unchanged, with driveways located at East Grand Avenue and
Roebling Road, similar to the Original Project.
The overall reduction in total daily trips (2,366 vs 3,212) would result in similar or better traffic
conditions than those presented in the EIR. Similarly, the expected 26 percent decrease in daily
vehicles accessing and parking at the site under the Revised Project (1,183 vs 1,606), would
result in a corresponding decrease in on-site parking demand. Given that the Revised Project
proposes a 21.5 percent reduction in parking supply, no additional parking deficit would
be expected compared to the Original Project. Furthermore, if needed during higher
parking demand events, ARE could implement attendant parking operations at the garage
structure, increasing its supply by approximately 15 percent (about additional 100 spaces).
In those instances, the overall parking supply would be about 750 spaces (2.57 spaces per
1000 gsf), 76 fewer spaces than under the Original Project.
In summary, the Revised Project would represent an overall 26 percent reduction in the number
of vehicles arriving or departing the project site compared to the Original Project, with a
corresponding decrease in parking demand. Therefore, its implementation with a 21.5 percent
reduction in parking spaces provided would not be expected to create any significant project or
cumulative transportation impacts beyond what was identified in the Original Project EIR.
Exhibit B – Link to 2007 EIR
http://weblink.ssf.net/weblink/0/doc/61806/Page1.aspx