The City is in receipt of an application for a Use Permit to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park (workspace plaza), including a private park, amphitheater, gardens, and ancillary parking (29 spaces). The project area consists of two parcels, totaling 236,126 square feet (5.35 acres) and Gilead proposes to merge the two existing parcels into a single parcel. A map of the project location and vicinity is shown in Figure 1. Currently, Gilead is pursuing the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years); however, the use permit will include a condition that a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment will be required for the Gilead Park to remain long-term. The demolition and new construction under the proposed Use Permit and project boundary amendment are collectively referred to as “2021 Project Modifications” throughout this Memorandum.
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the 2021 Project Modifications and based on the analysis in this Memorandum, has concluded that there are no substantial project changes, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. The 2021 Project Modifications, which involve an increase in private open space and a decrease in parking spaces, constitute a minor refinement of the 2012 SEIR project description and this minor refinement would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those already identified in the 2012 SEIR. Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required. In addition, and as discussed further below, the 20121 Project Modifications also qualify for two categorical exemptions under CEQA Section 15300 (Class 4, Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land and Class 11, Section 15311 – Accessory Structures).
PRIOR PROJECT APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 16, 2010, the City Council certified the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2010 EIR) to increase the allowed square footage of a ±40-acre portion of the Gilead Campus (known as the “South Campus”) from 629,154 square feet of building space to 1,200,480 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory and office space, structured and at-grade parking, and supporting facilities. In addition to certifying the 2010 EIR, the City adopted Ordinance No. 554 approving an amendment to the Vintage Park GDP and Ordinance No. 556 entering into a Development Agreement between the City of Foster City, the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the permitting and construction of up to 1,200,480 square feet for the Corporate Campus.
On November 29, 2011, Gilead submitted the 2012 Master Plan proposal to amend the 2010 Master Plan and the Vintage Park GDP to integrate the approved South Campus mentioned above with an additional approximately 32 acres (known as the “North Campus”) acquired from Electronics for Imaging (EFI) adjacent to the South Campus for a maximum campus buildout of 2,500,600 square feet on approximately 73 acres.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
364
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
365
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
The 2012 Master Plan proposed redeveloping portions of the approximately 73-acre project site, including demolition of up to 12 of the existing office and laboratory buildings, and construction of up to 17 new buildings. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a total of up to 22 office and laboratory buildings (comprising approximately 2,500,600 square feet of interior space) and 6,050 parking stalls on the project site.
On March 30, 2016, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to reduce the total amount of office space permitted in the South Campus and increase the amount of laboratory space while staying within the maximum campus buildout of 2,500,600 square feet. Addendum No.2 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this reallocation and was approved by the City Council on August 15, 2016.
On December 19, 2019, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish 308 surface parking spaces and build a new 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way. Addendum No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this new use and was approved by the City Council on May 7, 2020.
The approved GDP, as amended in 2012, 2016, and 2020, allows the buildout parameters shown in Table 1.
The 2012 SEIR prepared for the 2012 Master Plan in accordance with CEQA concluded that, with the exception of five impacts, all impacts of the 2012 Master Plan would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level with implementation of the 2012 SEIR’s mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The five significant and unavoidable impacts from the 2012 SEIR are associated with project-related traffic that would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment (NOI-3), air quality impacts related to project operations (AIR-2, AIR-3, and AIR-6), and a conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (PLAN-1).
On October 21, 2013, the City Council certified the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2008122064) for the 2012 Master Plan (2012 SEIR), and the 2012 Master Plan and the Amended Vintage Park GDP/Rezoning for the 2012 Master Plan along with the MMRP was approved by the City Council on November 4, 2013 (Ordinance No. 576).
PROJECT CHANGES
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing 739-space surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Sciences’ employees and their visitors (Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan). The park would temporarily occupy two parcels for a period of 5 years. The two parcels were anticipated to include two office buildings (305/307) by the 2012 Master Plan.
The 2021 Project Modifications would include two gathering spaces, an event promenade, garden, presentation stage, and landscaped gateway feature along the east intersection of Velocity Way and Bayside Way. It would also provide landscaped and recreational turf areas, as well as a 29-stall surface parking lot accessible from Velocity Way.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
366
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
367
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
While 129 trees would be removed because of the 2021 Project Modifications, an additional 275 trees would be planted throughout the site.
Table 1 Approved Gilead Campus Square Footage Parameters Component
2012 SEIR
Maximum Square
Feet
2016 Addendum
No. 2 Maximum
Square Feet
2020 Addendum
No. 3 Maximum
Square Feet
South Campus
Office 500,000 250,000 250,000
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory 953,000 1,203,000 1,203,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse 5,100 5,100 5,100
Total South Campus 1,458,100 1,458,100 1,458,100
North Campus
Office 1,024,000 1,024,000 1,024,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse 18,500 18,500 18,500
Amenity 0 0 60,836
Total North Campus 1,042,500 1,042,500 1,103,336
Integrated South and
North Campus
Office 1,524,000 1,274,000 1,274,000
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory 953,000 1,203,000 1,203,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse 23,600 23,600 23,600
Total for Integrated
Campus 2,500,600 2,500,600 2,561,436
Note: Italics indicate revisions to the GDP evaluated and approved in Addendum No. 2 and No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR.
Source: Urban Planning Partners, 2021.
The approximately 5.35-acre site includes two parcels: Accessor Parcel Number (APN) 094-122- 070 and 094-122-080, bounded by Buildings 301 and 303 and Velocity Way to the north, the proposed Wellbeing Center on the northeast, Bayside Way to the south, Building 309 on the southeast, and another existing surface parking lot to the west. The 2021 Project Modifications would accommodate a future planned, and not yet programmed 30,000-square foot Building 307.
The 2021 Project Modifications considered in this analysis are whether the introduction of a new park, and a decrease in parking from 6,050 to 5,340 stalls —a net decrease of 710 stalls—would result in any new or substantially greater impacts. The summary of changes among the 2012 SEIR, Addenda No. 2 and No. 3, and 2021 Project Modifications is shown in Table 2 below.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
368
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Table 2 Summary of Changes Among the 2012 SEIR, 2016 Addendum No. 2, 2020 Addendum No. 3, and 2021 Project Modifications
Characteristic 2012 SEIR
2016
Addendum
No. 2
2020
Addendum
No. 3
2021 Project
Modifications
North Campus
Office Space 1,024,000 sf No Change No Change No Change Materials Storage/Warehouse 18,500 sf No Change No Change No Change Amenity Space 0 sf No Change 60,836 sf No Change
Parking Stalls 3,796 No Change No Changea 3,086b
Total North Campus
Building Square Footage 1,042,500 sf No Change 1,103,336 sf South Campus
Office 500,000 sf 250,000 sf No Change No Change
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 sf 1,203,000 sf No Change No Change Materials Storage/Warehouse 5,100 sf No Change No Change No Change Parking Stalls 2,254 No Change No Change No Change
Total South Campus Building
Square Footage 1,458,100 sf No Change No Change No Change Integrated South and North Campus
Office 1,524,000 sf 1,274,000 sf No Change No Change
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 sf 1,203,000 sf No Change No Change Materials Storage/Warehouse 23,600 sf No Change No Change No Change Amenity Space 0 sf No Change 60,836 sf No Change
Parking Stalls 6,050 No Change No Change No Change
Total Building Square Footage
for Integrated Campus 2,500,600 No Change 2,561,436 sf No Change Note: sf = square feet
a The 2020 Addendum eliminated 308 North Campus parking spaces and added 15 spaces (including one EV charging station). This results in a net decrease of 293. However, there is currently a surplus of spaces on the North Campus and the decrease in existing parking would not change the 3,796 spaces anticipated for the North Camus at full buildout.
b The 2021 Project Modifications would eliminate 739 North Campus parking spaces and add 29 spaces.
This results in a net decrease of 710 spaces.
Source: LSA Associates, 2012; Urban Planning Partners, 2016; and Flad Architects, 2020, HDR, Inc. 2021.
However, the 2021 Project Modifications would serve existing employees on the Gilead Campus.
As discussed below, the 2021 Project Modifications do not constitute a substantial change to the
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
369
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
project evaluated in the 2012 SEIR that would require major revisions to the certified 2012 SEIR because of a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect.
CEQA ANALYSIS
ADDENDUM
This portion of the analysis is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states:
“The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration 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 the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
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 was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
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 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
370
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the requested 2021 Project Modifications and found that there would be no new significant effect or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect resulting from a substantial change to the project analyzed in the certified 2012 SEIR, a substantial change in the project circumstances, or new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2012 SEIR was certified. Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required.
The 2021 Project Modifications will be required to comply with the 2012 SEIR MMRP as a Condition of Approval along with all the Conditions adopted as a part of Ordinance No. 576.There are no new impacts or more severe impacts not already identified and analyzed in the 2012 SEIR that would result due to project changes, new information, or changed circumstances and therefore, no new or different mitigation measures would be required.
The Abbreviated Appendix G Checklist (which is equivalent to Appendix F of Foster City’s Environmental Review Guidelines) below compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the findings of the 2012 SEIR, notes whether the 2021 Project Modifications would result in new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in 2012 SEIR, and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation “SU” for “significant and unavoidable” and “LTS” for “less than significant.” The checklist also lists mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval (SCAs) applicable to the impacts.
When a dash (--) appears in the checklist below, it means that the 2012 SEIR and subsequent addenda did not identify any MMs or SCAs related to that environmental impact. N/A appears when an MM or SCA was identified but it does not apply to the project (e.g., the project location does not meet the criteria specified in the MM or SCA). The SCAs that appear in the checklist represent the City’s latest standards, revised August 29, 2018.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
371
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
A. AESTHETICS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Scenic Vistas and City Skyline LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Scenic Resources within a
State Scenic Highway LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Visual Character LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
d. Light and Glare LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ VIS-1b -- LTS w/MMs
Discussion
Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant effect on scenic vistas and scenic resources within a State scenic highway. The 2021 Project Modifications would replace an existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park and would not alter the five scenic viewpoints identified in the 2012 SEIR. The project site is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway.
The 2012 SEIR further determines that Specific Development Plan/Use Permit applications for individual buildings within the 2012 Master Plan will also be subject to the Foster City design review process. As such, the proposed park will be subject to Foster City design review process.
Design review ensures that the design of the park will be consistent with the City’s objectives and policies related to project design. Therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications will have a less-than- significant impact on the visual character of the project site and its surroundings.
The 2021 Project Modifications would not develop new buildings or structures with reflective facades that could increase the level of glare. However, the park would have new lighting fixtures that could potentially result in significant new sources of nighttime light. The 2021 Project Modifications would implement 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure VIS-1b, related to review and approval of outdoor night lighting, to reduce lighting impacts to less-than-significant levels.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
372
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
B. AIR QUALITY
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Construction Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ AIR-1 -- LTS w/MMs
b. Operational Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions SU ☒ ☐
AIR-2
AIR-3
--
Project-level
LTS w/MMs
Cumulative
SU
c. Toxic Air Contaminants LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ AIR-4 -- LTS w/MMs Discussion
Construction of the 2021 Project Modifications would involve demolition of existing vehicular paving and concrete, clearing, grading, and building activities, which would temporarily generate fugitive dust from disturbed soils and equipment emissions. Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the level of construction-period air pollutants would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) Best Management Practices and other measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts during construction.
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Science employees and their visitors. As an amenity space, the 2021 Project Modifications are not expected to generate additional vehicle trips, as the users of the park are Gilead employees and visitors that would already be on the campus. When compared to the two office buildings contemplated for the project site as part of the 2012 Master Plan and 2012 SEIR, the proposed park would generate fewer vehicle trips. The project site would be served by Gilead Sciences’ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, as required by Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 under the 2012 SEIR.
Due to these factors, the 2021 Project Modifications’ level of operational-related criteria air pollutants would be less severe than the findings of the 2012 SEIR. However, consistent with the conservative findings of the 2012 SEIR, cumulative operational-related criteria air pollutants as a net result of the 2012 Master Plan would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, health risk impacts related to the 2021 Project Modifications’ construction-emitted toxic air contaminants (TACs) to nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant after the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-4. In
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
373
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
addition, the 2021 Modifications would not include a back-up generator, so the 2021 Project Modifications would not be subject to 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-5 and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to operations-emitted TACs near existing sensitive receptors.
Impacts of the existing environment on the 2021 Project Modifications are not required by CEQA 3F 4 and so are not analyzed in this CEQA document.
4 Supreme Court of California, 2018. California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District. No S213478. December 17.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
374
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Historical Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Archaeological Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- SCA-CULT-1 LTS
c. Paleontological Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- SCA-CULT-2 LTS
d. Human Remains LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace an existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park. The 2012 SEIR showed that the buildings and structures that would be demolished as part of the 2012 Master Plan would not result in any cultural impacts because the buildings constructed on the project site were built sometime after 1980 and did not possess significant historical associations or architectural qualities.
Similarly, the project area consists of tidal marsh deposited during the Holocene (10,000 years ago to present) up until the late 19th century, referred to commonly as “Bay Mud,” and engineered fill deposited during the early development of Foster City. The former marshland would have been unsuitable for prehistoric human habitation and the artificial fill would be unlikely to contain any significant paleontological resources. Bay Mud is known only to contain aged molluscan fossils, which are not significant. Thus the 2012 SEIR found that there was a low possibility of encountering prehistoric archaeological deposits or paleontological resources during buildout of the 2012 Master Plan. However, while unlikely, ground-disturbing activities associated with site preparation, the construction of building foundations, and underground utilities could adversely affect previously unknown archaeological cultural and paleontological resources. This conclusion would also apply to the 2021 Project Modifications.
Compliance with the following SCAs, which are functionally equivalent to the SCAs that were in effect at the writing of the 2012 SEIR, would ensure that any construction-related impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are mitigated to a less-than-significant level: SCA-CULT-1:
Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological Materials – Discovery During Construction (9.20) and SCA- CULT-2 Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (9.19).
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
375
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Seismic Shaking Hazards LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Soil Erosion LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Soil Settlement LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ GEO-2 -- LTS w/MMs
d. Expansive and Corrosive Soils LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ GEO-3a
GEO-3b -- LTS w/MMs
Discussion
The project site is in a seismically active region, and the nearest active fault is the San Andreas Fault peninsula segment, located approximately 5.4 miles to the southwest. Based on California Geological Survey (CGS) fault maps, no potentially active faults underly the site. 4F 5 While the
project site could be affected by ground shaking, the project would not develop new buildings that could be damaged or result in injury to occupants—2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1, related to earthquake-resistant structures, would not apply to the project. Due to the lack of buildings, potential impacts due to seismic shaking hazards at the project site would be less severe than those contemplated by the 2012 SEIR and would be less than significant.
The 2012 SEIR determined that the 2012 Master Plan area, including the project site, is underlain with 40 to 60 feet of Bay Mud, which may be susceptible to additional settlement under the weight of new development. In addition, the 2012 SEIR found that expansive or corrosive soils could cause substantial damage to roads, parking areas and sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. The 2021 Project Modifications’ susceptibility to settlement and expansive or corrosive soils would be equal or less in severity than the 2012 SEIR findings. While the underlying soils could still pose risk of damaging structures or property, the 2021 Project Modifications would not introduce new building loads, compared to the two office buildings contemplated for the project site as part of the 2012 Master Plan and 2012 SEIR. In addition, consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would implement, as needed, Mitigation Measures GEO-2, GEO-3a, and GEO-3b to reduce potential impacts related to soil settlement and expansive or corrosive soils to a less-than-significant level.
5 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010, op. cit.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
376
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. GHG Emissions LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ GCC-1 -- LTS w/MM
b. Consistency with Applicable
GHG Plans LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2012 SEIR evaluated potential impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operation of the 2012 Master Plan. The 2012 SEIR determined that operation of the 2012 Master Plan would exceed applicable GHG emissions thresholds. The 2012 SEIR found that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure GCC-1 which requires preparation of a Campuswide Sustainability Plan. The 2012 SEIR also showed that the 2012 Master Plan would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or the early Statewide action measures. It would be compliant with the strategies developed by the State to reduce GHG emissions and be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would also reduce the GHG emissions.
According to the City of Foster City’s thresholds of significance, a project would have a significant impact if it would produce total emissions of more than 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) annually or more than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (employees) annually. The 2012 SEIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure GCC-1, preparation of a Campuswide Sustainability Plan to meet the 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year standard to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant impact.
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Sciences’ employees and their visitors. As an amenity space, the 2021 Project Modifications are not expected to generate additional emissions. Therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2012 SEIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to GHG and climate change that were not identified in the 2012 SEIR.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
377
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
A Campuswide Sustainability Plan was prepared by Gilead Sciences in 20145F 6; therefore, the 2021
Project Modifications would not be subject to 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure GCC-1.
6 Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2014. Foster City Campus Sustainability Plan. Accessed January 10, 2021. https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/6191/final-approved- gilead-sust-plan-11-14-14_1.pdf
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
378
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Hazardous Materials Use,
Exposure, Storage and
Disposal
LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Release of Hazardous
Materials into the
Environment
LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ HAZ-1a
HAZ-1b -- LTS w/MMs
c. Exposure of Hazardous
Materials LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐
HAZ-2a
HAZ-2b
HAZ-2c
-- LTS w/MMs
d. Hazardous Materials within a
¼-Mile of a School LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
e. Hazardous Materials Release
Sites LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
f. Emergency Evacuation Plan LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
g. Wildland Fires LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
h. Airport Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would be less or equal in severity compared to the 2012 SEIR findings related to hazards and hazardous materials. Compared with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would have less significant effects related to emission of hazardous materials near schools; proximity to hazardous materials release sites; emergency evacuation plans, wildland fires, and airport hazards. As analyzed in the 2012 SEIR, the 2012 Master Plan area—which contains the project site—is not located within 1/4-mile of a school6F 7 or within 1/8-
mile of a hazardous materials release site under current investigation. The 2012 SEIR further reports that development within the 2012 Master Plan area would not require closure of any emergency evacuation streets designated by the City’s Multi-Hazard Functional Plan and Community Evacuation Plan; would not have significant potential for wildland fires; and does not meet height or distance criteria to be considered an aviation hazard by either the San Carlos or San Francisco International Airports.
While the 2021 Project Modifications propose a lower intensity of development than was contemplated for the project site in the 2012 SEIR, impacts related to hazardous materials could still occur during construction. As noted in the 2012 SEIR, construction activities within the 2012
7 Foster City-San Mateo School District, 2012. District Maps. Website: www.smfc.k12.ca.us/district_maps.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
379
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Master Plan area could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials or accidental exposure of hazardous materials to construction workers and the public. The 2021 Project Modifications would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a, HAZ-1b, HAZ-2a, HAZ-2b, and HAZ-2c to reduce impacts related to release and exposure of hazardous materials to a less-than- significant level.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
380
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
G. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Water Quality LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐
HYD-1a
HYD-1b
HYD-1c
-- LTS w/MMs
b. Use of Groundwater LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Erosion LTS -- LTS
d. Stormwater Drainages and
Drainage Patterns LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
e. Flooding and Substantial Risks
from Flooding LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
f. Inundation LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The project site is in an urban environment and is not intersected by any streams or rivers that could be altered as a result of the 2021 Project Modifications. The project site is located in the dam failure inundation area for the Lower Crystal Springs Dam (LCSD)7F 8—however, as described
in the 2012 SEIR, seismic retrofit of the LCSD in May 2012 and regular inspection reduce potential impacts related to dam inundation to a less-than-significant level. The 2012 SEIR also determined that potential impacts to the project site related to sea level rise inundation and 100-year flood hazard zones would also be less than significant as a result of the existing Foster City levees.
However, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has found that 85 percent of the Foster City’s levee system does not meet FEMA requirements to provide the protection from the 1-percent annual chance (aka 100-year) flood.8F
9 FEMA granted Foster City a temporary “seclusion
mapping” designation in 2015 to remain classified as Zone X. To address the deficiencies of the levee, Foster City has embarked on the Foster City Levee Protection Improvements Project (Foster City Levee Project) to provide flood protection and retain FEMA accreditation for its existing levee system. The Foster City Levee Project has gone through CEQA review and the EIR was certified in May 2017. The Foster City Levee Project also has a funding source from the successful ballot initiative that passed in June 2018. According to the most recent schedule that was updated January 2021, construction of the Foster City Levee Project began in October 2020
8 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. Foster City Inundation Map. Website: www.abag.ca.gov. 9 City of Foster City, 2021. Public Works, Levee System. Available at:
https://www.fostercity.org/publicworks/page/levee-system, accessed January 27.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
381
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
and is expected to be completed in 2023.9F
10 Once the Foster City Levee Project is completed, the levee is anticipated to provide the City protection from the 100-year flood.
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace an existing surface parking lot in an urban area with a private outdoor park, including permeable surfaces such as gardens, landscaped areas, tree plantings, and recreational turf. The 2012 SEIR determined that existing stormwater infrastructure and the modest increase in impervious surfaces proposed by the 2012 Master Plan would not result in downstream flooding or require upgraded infrastructure. In addition, the City would review grading and drainage plans for compliance with the requirements of the Public Works Department and/or Building Inspection Division, reducing potential stormwater drainage impacts to a less-than-significant level. The 2021 Project Modifications’ impacts on stormwater drainage would be equal or less in severity compared to the findings analyzed in the 2012 SEIR.
Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the project could have water quality-related impacts during construction and operation. Construction on the project site would disturb surface soils and demolish existing pavement and could result in increased sedimentation and erosion in the runoff, as well as release of construction chemicals into water courses outside of the project site.
The 2021 Project Modifications would generate fewer vehicle trips than the two office buildings contemplated for the project site as part of the 2012 Master Plan and 2012 SEIR and would have less potential discharge of hazardous materials from vehicle use. However, the 2012 SEIR identified residual pesticides and nutrients from landscaped areas as a potential impact on water quality.
The 2012 SEIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1a, preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce water quality impacts during construction to a less-than-significant impact. However, a SWPPP was prepared for the entire 2012 Master Plan area; therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications would not be subject to 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure HYD-1a.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1b and HYD-1c, the 2021 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant impact on water quality during construction and operation.
10 City of Foster City, 2021. Public Works, Levee Improvements Project (CIP 301-657). Available at:
https://www.fostercity.org/publicworks/project/levee-improvements-project-cip-301-657, accessed January 27, 2021.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
382
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
H. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Division of Existing
Community LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- No Impact
b. Conflict with Land Uses LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- No Impact
c. Land Use Plans LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- No Impact
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would add more open space to a campus that includes a mix of office and laboratory uses, open and landscaped space, structured and surface parking lots, and a proposed amenity space (Wellbeing Center). The additional open space is consistent with the approved 2012 Master Plan as it would provide more recreational and gathering spaces for Gilead employees and would improve pedestrian access with the reduction in vehicle parking and traffic.
The existing General Plan designation of the project site is Research/Office Park, which allows for generally clean and quiet office, research and development, and manufacturing establishments.
The project site is zoned Commercial Mix/Planned Development (CM/PD) on the Foster City Zoning Map.
Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts related to land use would result from the 2021 Project Modifications, and no new significant impacts or substantially more severe land use or planning impacts would result from changed circumstances under which the 2021 Project Modifications would be implemented.
Furthermore, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe land use or planning impacts would result from new information that could have not been reasonably known at the time the 2012 SEIR was certified.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
383
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
I. NOISE
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Noise Levels Above General
Plan or Noise Ordinance
Standards
LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Groundborne Vibration LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Permanent Change in Noise
Environment LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
d. Aircraft Noise and Land Use
Compatibility LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
e. Construction Noise LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ NOI-1a and
NOI-1b -- LTS w/MMs
Discussion
Construction for the 2021 Project Modifications is expected to occur over a period of approximately 8 to 9 months and would temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity of the project site. Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the level of construction-period noise would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a and NOI-1b which require a noise-disturbance coordinator and other measures to reduce construction-related noise during demolition and construction.
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Sciences’ employees and their visitors. The 2021 Project Modifications would not include a back-up generator, and therefore, would not be subject to 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure NOI-2 requiring preparation of an acoustical analysis to reduce operations-related noise from mechanical equipment to a less-than-significant level. The 2021 Project Modifications would also not be expected to generate additional vehicle trips. As such, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 requiring preparation of a TDM Program to reduce roadway noise generated by the project would also not apply to the 2021 Project Modifications.
Amplified noise, from microphone’s or speakers, could occur during temporary events that take place in the park. Amplified equipment is subject to the provisions of the provisions in Section
17.68 Noise, of the City of Foster City Municipal Code.
The project site’s proximity to sensitive receptors, and the type of construction equipment that would be used as part of the project, are similar to those of other projects in urban areas. Because the proposed project site and its vicinity are part of an established, urbanized area, periodic exposure to construction-related noise and vibration are existing conditions. Consistent with the
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
384
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
findings of the 2012 SEIR, construction-related noise for the 2021 Project Modifications would be less than significant after the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1a and NOI-1b.
Analysis of existing noise on the project is not required under CEQA and is not analyzed in this document.
Therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications would not substantially increase the severity of significant noise impacts identified in the 2012 SEIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to noise that were not identified in the 2012 SEIR.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
385
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
J. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Population Growth LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Displacement of Housing and
People LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would not increase the number of employees or indirectly increase the number of residents as a result of new employees. The 2012 SEIR anticipated that the 2012 Master Plan could accommodate up to 3,700 new jobs and result in a conservative estimate of 384 new residents and households. The 2012 SEIR found that population growth would be less than significant because potential new households would be accommodated by new housing units required to be constructed under the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA).
The 2021 Project Modifications would not create new jobs and would therefore not alter the existing jobs-to-housing ratio in Foster City. The 2021 Project Modifications would also not result in displacement of housing or people because the site is not a current residential use. In fact, the project, at least in the short term, would reduce population and housing impacts as the amount of office space and the resulting campus jobs would be reduced with the park replacing office space compared to the campus buildout as envisioned in the 2012 SEIR. Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
386
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
K. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Public Services LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Parks and Recreation LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Wastewater and
Stormwater Facilities
LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
d. Water Supplies LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
e. Solid Waste Services LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park in an urban area already served by public services and utilities. The proposed uses are less intensive than the two office buildings contemplated for the project site as part of the 2012 Master Plan and 2012 SEIR and would not result in new residential uses. As such, the demand for public services, parks, and recreation created by the 2021 Project Modifications is equal or less than the demand analyzed in the 2012 SEIR.
The 2021 Project Modifications could cause a minimal increase in demand for police and fire protection services as a result of recreation, gatherings, and events held at the project site, but would be less than the office buildings planned for the site as envisioned in the 2012 Master Plan and analyzed in the 2012 SEIR. As noted by the 2012 SEIR, the Foster City Fire Department’s (FCFD) average response time goal within City limits is 3.5 to 4.5 minutes. The San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department’s (successor agency of the FCFD) goal is to respond to 90 percent of all Priority 1 calls in under 7 minutes.10F
11 In 2019, the SMCFD’s average response time in Foster City was approximately 4 minutes and 36 seconds for Priority 1 and First In calls.11F
12. In addition,
the 2021 Project Modifications would meet all San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department and Fire Code requirements related to fire flow, access, and fire hydrant spacing, as well as adjustments to infrastructure as needed.
The 2021 Project Modifications would not increase the number of employees or indirectly increase the number of residents as a result of new employees. The City does not identify a ratio
11 San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD), 2018. Field Operations. Available at:
https://www.smcfire.org/field-operations, accessed January 27, 2021. 12 San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department (SMCFD), 2019. Annual Report. Available at:
https://www.smcfire.org/annual-reports, accessed January 27, 2021.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
387
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
standard for the number of police officers per non-resident daytime populations, and Gilead Sciences employs private security measures to reduce demand for police services within the campus. The 2012 Master Plan, which would encompass the project site, would likely need additional police services during construction and operation. However, the 2012 SEIR determined that this increased demand would not require additional personnel, equipment, or facilities from the Foster City Police Department (FCPD).
The 2021 Project Modifications would not increase the number of students anticipated as a result of new households generated by the 2012 Master Plan and would, therefore, have a less-than- significant impact on school facilities and capacity, consistent with the 2012 SEIR.
The City of Foster City averages approximately 10.7 acres of open space and recreation facilities per 1,000 residents, exceeding the City’s minimum standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.12F 13 Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant impact on the provision of open space and recreation facilities and would provide a new park for Gilead Sciences’ employees, which could potentially lessen the impact of Gilead employees using City parks. Because the 2021 Project Modifications would not include residential uses, the applicant would not provide a land dedication or pay an in-lieu fee as required by the City for residential projects that do not provide adequate open space.
The 2012 SEIR determined that the water supply impacts of the 2012 Master Plan would be less than significant, finding that the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) service area would have sufficient water supply to meet the needs of anticipated development projects, including the 2012 Master Plan. In addition, a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared in 2020 for a project (referred to as the ‘2020 Project Modifications’) located immediately northeast of the proposed park. The WSA confirmed that the 2020 Project Modifications, 2012 Master Plan, and other major development projects would increase water demand but would not require expansion of EMID facilities or lead to insufficient water supplies.
Consistent with both the 2012 SEIR and 2020 Project Modifications’ WSA, the 2021 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant impact on water supply. The 2012 SEIR found that the 2012 Master Plan would not make a significant contribution to a cumulative water shortage, and a new outdoor park would use less water than the two office buildings originally proposed for this site. Therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications would not trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to public services and utilities.
13 Foster City, City of, 2009. General Plan, Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space Element. July.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
388
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
L. TRANSPORTATION
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Conflict with Plan LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Conflict with
Congestion
Management
Program
LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Change Air Traffic
Patterns LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
d. Inadequate
Emergency Access LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
e. Substantial Increase
in Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
f. Conflict with Public
Transit, Bicycle or
Pedestrian Facilities
Policies
LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ MM-
TRANS-5 -- LTS w/MM
Discussion
The 2012 SEIR identified five significant impacts related to transportation and circulation that would exceed thresholds of significance based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable standards recognized by Foster City, San Mateo, and City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). In summary, the 2012 Master Plan would: (1) increase delay by more than 4 seconds at the intersection of Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue, which was already operating at an unacceptable level of service during the AM peak hour under cumulative conditions; (2) cause the freeway segment of eastbound State Route (SR) 92 between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard to degrade from acceptable LOS E to unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour under cumulative conditions; (3) disrupt the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and the North Foster City shuttle by closing Lakeside Drive; (4) add ridership demand to shuttles that are over capacity; and (5) interfere with circulation patterns during construction activities.
The 2012 SEIR determined that after implementation of mitigation measures, all five impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures included: (1) implementing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan; (2) rerouting shuttles to avoid the closed-off portion of Lakeside Drive; (3) contributing to the expansion of existing shuttle services or providing new shuttle services to local transit hubs, such as the East Hillsdale Caltrain Station and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station; and (4) developing and submitting a construction management plan for City approval that specifies measures that would reduce impacts to motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
389
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Gilead is in compliance with the measures identified in the 2012 SEIR. In addition, Gilead has established a bus service for employees, with stops throughout the Bay Area, that further reduces traffic impacts.
For Addendum No. 3, approval of the Wellbeing Center, a supplemental traffic analysis dated January 23, 2020 was prepared by Kimley-Horn. The analysis determined the Wellbeing Center would only generate new external vehicle trips from the Center’s 15 employees travelling to work.
The analysis conservatively assumed that all employees would travel to work in a vehicle and arrive at the AM peak hour and that there would be one delivery in the AM peak hour. Similarly, it is assumed all 15 employees would leave work at the same PM peak hour and that there would also be one delivery made within the PM peak hour. The Wellbeing Center was estimated to generate 17 AM peak hour and 17 PM peak hour trips.
Per the MMRP prepared for the 2012 SEIR, the Gilead Campus may generate up to 2,110 AM peak hour trips and 2,230 PM peak hour trips before trip reduction measures are required. Traffic counts performed September 10-12 and September 17-19, 2019 at each of the Gilead Campus access points found that, on average, the Gilead Campus generates 1,028 AM peak hour trips and 808 PM peak hour trips. This means there are 1,082 fewer AM peak hour trips and 1,422 fewer PM peak hour trips generated by the 2012 Master Plan than allowed under the MMRP.
Table 3 illustrates the trips that would be generated by the Wellbeing Center compared to the 2019 traffic counts and trips allowed per the MMRP. With the addition of 17 AM peak hour and 17 PM peak hour trips generated by the 2020 Project Modifications, the Gilead Campus would still be under its allowed trips by 1,065 trips in the AM peak hour and 1, 405 trips in the PM peak hour.
Table 3 Existing Plus 2020 Modifications Trips Compared to Allowed Trips
Vehicle Trips
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Existing (2019) Trips 1,028 808
2020 Project Modifications Trips 17 17
Total 1,045 825
Allowed Trips 2,110 2,230
Remaining Allowed Trips 1,065 1,405
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2020.
The Wellbeing Center did not result in any new significant transportation impacts or a substantial increase or severity of a previously identified significant transportation impact from those identified in the 2012 SEIR, nor are new or different mitigation measures or alternatives warranted to address potential transportation impacts.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
390
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
The new park is intended for use by Gilead employees and visitors to the campus who would already be coming to the campus for meetings or activities that already occur on site, but can now take place in the park. The area is not intended to be a public destination, and as such, would not generate additional traffic to the campus beyond what has been previously evaluated. Since the park would at least temporarily replace the proposed site of two future office buildings, the park, if approved permanently, would result in a reduction to the amount of traffic anticipated in the campus buildout.
To ensure that the 2021 Project Modifications for the park would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2012 SEIR, the mitigation measures identified in the 2012 SEIR MMRP should be imposed as conditions of approval, including all mitigation measures concerning traffic and circulation. As more development occurs within the Gilead Campus, vehicle trips would continue to be monitored per the MMRP. The 2021 Project Modifications do not include any changes that would result in new or intensify already-identified impacts on traffic and circulation and therefore, no new or different mitigation measures are required.
The 2012 SEIR analyzed cumulative conditions for probable future developments and select roadway improvements. In addition, cumulative traffic volumes included traffic due to occupancy of vacant buildings and approved but not yet constructed developments. Since conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to transportation.
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
In addition to qualifying for an addendum to the 2012 SEIR under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, the 2021 Project Modifications also qualify for two categorical exemptions under the CEQA Guidelines (Class 4, Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land and Class 11, Section 15311 – Accessory Structures) as follows:
• Class 4, Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land. California Code of Regulations Title 14 (14 CCR) Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) exempts projects that consist of “minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes” from further environmental review under CEQA. Section 15304(b) provides as an example that minor alterations may include “New gardening or landscaping, including the replacement of existing conventional landscaping with water efficient or fire-resistant landscaping.”
The 2021 Project Modifications meet the requirements for a Class 4 exemption because they propose the construction of a new private park, including two gathering spaces, an event promenade, garden, presentation stage, and landscaped gateway feature, replacing an existing surface parking lot. While existing trees would be removed, they would be replaced by new trees and landscape improvements and would not impact any scenic resources.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
391
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
• Class 11, Section 15311 – Accessory Structures. 14 CCR Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) exempts projects that consist of “construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to (appurtenant to) existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities…” from further environmental review under CEQA.
The 2021 Project Modifications meet the requirements for a Class 11 exemption because the private park, structures, and parking lot proposed are intended to be used as an amenity space accessory to the existing office facilities within the Gilead Sciences campus.
Even if a project is ordinarily exempt under any of the potential categorical exemptions, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides specific instances where exceptions to otherwise applicable exemptions apply. Exceptions to a categorical exemption due to location, cumulative impacts, significant effects, scenic highways, hazardous waste sites, or historical resources can effectively nullify a CEQA categorical exemption.
The analysis provided in this Memorandum presents substantial evidence that there are no exceptions that apply to the 2021 Project Modifications or its site, the 2021 Project Modifications would not have a significant effect on the environment, the Class 4 and Class 11 exemptions remain applicable, and the 2021 Project Modifications would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2012 SEIR.
7.1 Exhibit A of Attachment 1
392
2 0
1 ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY AMENDING THE FOSTER CITY
ZONING MAP TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 72-ACRE PORTION OF THE + 132-ACRES LAND
KNOWN AS VINTAGE PARK TO DECREASE THE ALLOWABLE OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 250,000 SQUARE FEET AND INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE LABORATORY SPACE BY 250,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE SOUTH CAMPUS
PORTION OF THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CAMPUS MASTER PLAN AND
TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMPORARY GILEAD PARK INTO A PERMANENT USE – 300-068 LAKESIDE DRIVE; 301 AND 309 VELOCITY WAY IN NEIGHBORHOOD VP – GILEAD SCIENCES, INC – APNs: 094-122-050; -060; -070; - 080; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; - 400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904-290; -300; -310; -320; -330; -340; 094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; -030; -040; -050; -060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200– RZ2022-0001
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, On August 17, 1981, the City Council approved an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the City of Foster City Municipal Code to reclassify the + 132-acres of land known as Vintage Park (APNs 094-521-080, 090, 100 and 110 and 094-531-020, 030, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180) as a C-M/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development Combining District) with a General Development Plan (Ordinance 223, RZ- 10-80); and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2013, by Ordinance No. 576, the City Council approved a Rezoning/General Development Plan of the Project site from CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District to a CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District with an
Amended General Development Plan (RZ-11-004) to allow up to 2,500,600 square feet of
biopharmaceutical office and laboratory uses, ancillary facilities and structured and at- grade
parking facilities on the Project site; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and implementing guidelines ("CEQA") the City Council by Resolution No. 2013-80 adopted on October 21, 2013, certified a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008122064; EA-11-005 ("FSEIR") for the ±72 acre Gilead
Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project ("Project") and adopted a Mitigation
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
393
2 0
1 Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"); and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2014, by Resolution No. P-14-14, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOl-b in order to allow an
extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met; and WHEREAS, the Vintage Park General Development Plan was amended several times over the years to accommodate new and/or different land uses in response to changing market conditions and community needs; and
WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, the Vintage Park General Development Plan on the 72-acre portion of Vintage Park was amended to decrease the allowable 250,000 square footage of office to allowable 250,000 laboratory space in the south campus portion for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus Master (APNs: 094-122-050; -060;- 070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904-290; -300; -31 O; -320; -330; - 340;_094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-01 O; -020; -030; -040; -050; - 060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200) (Ordinance No. 601, RZ-16-001); and
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016, as part of Ordinance 601, the City of Foster City has adopted an Addendum No. 2 to the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan FSEIR and determined there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2013 FSEIR and addenda thereto (Addendum No. 2); and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044, Resolution No. P-03-21) for the construction of an approximately
5.42-acre private park with landscaped outdoor amenities and gathering space for its employees (“Gilead Park”), within the Vintage Park GDP area that was designated for Buildings 305 and 307 within the original Master Plan;
WHEREAS, in 2022, Gilead Sciences Inc. has requested to amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan (GDP) to decrease the allowable office square footage by 250,000 square feet and increase the allowable laboratory space footage by 250,000 square feet for the South Campus portion of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan;
WHEREAS, full public involvement in the preparation of this amendment to the Foster City Zoning Map has been ensured through duly noticed Planning Commission Study Session, public hearings and other means, including the following:
1.City Council Development Project Preliminary Review meeting took place on October 17, 2022 to introduce the proposed project to the City Council and the public and receive feedback prior to initiating the entitlement process.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
394
2 0
1 2.Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 1, 2022 to consider and make recommendations to the City Council regarding adoption of the Addendum and Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment of the Vintage Park General Development Plan where the item was continued to December 15, 2022.
3.Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 15, 2022 to consider and make recommendations to the City Council regarding adoption of the Addendum No. 5 to the 2013 FSEIR and Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment of the Vintage Park General Development Plan.
WHEREAS, on December 15, 2022, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing and adopted Resolution Nos. P21-22 and P-22-22 recommending to the City Council adoption of Addendum No. 5 to the FSEIR and adoption of an amendment to the City’s Zoning Map and the current CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to FCMC section 17.74.060, Resolution No. P-22-22 and all items submitted in connection with the public hearing for consideration including the Staff Report and all attachments thereto shall satisfy the reporting requirements in FCMC 17.74.060.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES FIND AND ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and material to this Ordinance.
Section 2. CEQA. In accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and implementing guidelines (“CEQA”) adopted by the Secretary of Resources, and the City of Foster City Environmental Review Guidelines, this Council adopted Resolution No. ____ adopting an Addendum (Addendum No. 5) to the certified 2013 FSEIR that assessed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed change to the GDP to reallocate square footage on the Gilead Campus by decreasing office space by 250,000 square feet and increasing laboratory space by 250,000 square feet and that there are no substantial project changes, no substantial changes in the project circumstances and no new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2013 FSEIR was certified that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect and that none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR had occurred and therefore the City of Foster City deemed the memorandum an addendum to the SEIR, prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (EA2022-0001). The mitigation measures identified in the FSEIR and included in the MMRP will continue to apply as set forth in the conditions of approval attached
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
395
2 0
1 hereto as Exhibit B-3.
Section 3. Findings. The City Council has reviewed the evidence and recommendations of the Planning Commission and based on facts and analysis in the Staff Reports, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, finds that the proposed rezoning would not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of the City of Foster City based on the following:
1.The proposed Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment will be in furtherance of and in accordance with the General Plan of the City of Foster City because it will include uses consistent with the Research/Office Park designation; will ensure that a variety of employment opportunities are available in Foster City and encourage change that responds to the current and potential market and employment needs of businesses consistent with Goal LUC-C and Policy LUC- C-12; will incorporate project mitigation measures and best management practices that will ensure that the uses are safe and strictly controlled to protect the health and safety of Foster City residents, workers and the overall environment consistent with Goal LUC-D and will encourage the redevelopment of under-utilized and/or outdate properties consistent with Goal LUC-K.
2.The maximum square footage allowed will not exceed the approved 2,500,600 square feet and will be consistent with the approved and amended Vintage Park General Development Plan (RZ-11-004) as adopted by Ordinance No. 576 November 4, 2013 and the FSEIR prepared for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (SCH: 2008122064).
3.The maximum square footage allowed will not exceed the approved 2,500,600 square feet and will be consistent with the approved and amended Vintage Park General Development Plan (RZ-16-001) as adopted by Ordinance No. 601 September 19, 2016 and the Addendum to the FSEIR prepared for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (SCH: 2008122064)
4.The total allowed square footage of the Gilead Campus will not increase from the previously permitted 2,500,600 square feet of laboratory, office and related uses. The proposed biopharmaceutical campus will not be detrimental to present and planned surrounding uses because the changes include a reallocation of square footage from office use to laboratory use which are both uses consistent with the Research/Office Park designation intended for the Vintage Park area.
No new square footage is proposed with this amendment;
5.On-site circulation is suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic generated by the project, and the traffic impacts on the street network outside the development will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the implementation and monitoring of the Gilead Transportation Demand Management Program which identifies vehicle trip reduction measures.
Additionally, the reallocation of 250,000 square feet from office to laboratory use is a reduction in 194 vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 158 fewer trips in the PM peak hour;
6.Existing and proposed utility services and facilities and other public improvements such as fire and police protection; school services; open space
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
396
2 0
1 and recreation; water supply; wastewater treatment; solid waste and electricity, gas and telecommunications are adequate for the proposed reallocation of square footage as the original biopharmaceutical campus density and land use proposed because the amendment: 1) the proposed project would not change or alter Fire Department and Fire Code requirements; 2) the proposed project will not reduce the ability of the Foster City Fire Department to meet existing performance standards or exceed the capabilities of the existing or planned staffing levels; 3) the reallocation of square footage does not increase the demand for police services; 4) no new school facilities will be required as a result of the project; 5) the Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Estero Municipal Improvement District ("EMID") reviewed the water needs of this project in the approved FSEIR in 2012 as well as foreseeable projects, EMID will have sufficient water supply available to meet the demand generated from the proposed project without affecting water supplies for existing and planned future developments; 6) the current project would not increase water demand beyond the disclosed and approved FSEIR; 7) anticipated wastewater discharges are not high enough to require the expansion of the existing system and as required in the mitigation measures, the Developer will be required to prepare a sewer flow analysis and a hydraulic capacity study to verify that the existing sewer system is sized to meet wastewater generated by this project and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to ensure that the proposed drainage system will accommodate stormwater runoff from the project; 8) the amount of solid waste generated will not substantially shorten the life of the landfill; and 9) the other utilities serving the project remains the same and is expected to be adequate;
7.Sufficient parking will be provided on the Gilead Integrated Campus consistent with Chapter 17.62, Off-Street Parking Regulations, of Title 17 Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code because a written agreement between the landowner and the City has been recorded to allow: 1) a reduced parking ratio of 1 space per 833 square feet of laboratory building pursuant to Sub-section 17.62.060 B.5.f; 2) shared campus-wide parking facilities pursuant to Sub-section
17.62.060 D.1; and 3) a 15% reduction in the number of required off-street parking stalls with the implementation of a Transportation Systems Management Plan/Transportation Demand Management Plan pursuant to Sub-section
17.62.060 D.3; and
8.Specific Development Plan/Use Permit(s) will be required for each new or improved building under the Integrated Master Plan and will be consistent with the Vintage Park Design Guidelines, the Vintage Park Signage Guidelines and the intent and purpose of Chapter 17.58 of the Foster City Municipal Code in order to ensure that the site and buildings developed will be well designed and attractive, will function in a safe manner, and will relate well to surrounding sites and buildings in the Vintage Park development.
9.The proposed project will not have a detrimental and immitigable financial impact on the City.
Section 4. Amendment. The City of Foster City Zoning Map is hereby amended
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
397
2 0
1 for the 72 acre portion of the +/- 132 acres land known as Vintage Park owned by Gilead Sciences (“Gilead”), to decrease the allowable office square footage by 250,000 square feet and increase the allowable laboratory space by 250,000 square feet for the south campus portion of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus Master Plan and include the previously approved temporary Gilead Park into a permanent use, as described in Exhibits A, B, B-1, to this Ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein, subject to the previously approved Conditions of Approval described in Exhibit B-3.
Section 5. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it should have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 6. Taking Effect. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
Section 7. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.
This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 17th day of January, 2023, and passed and adopted on the __day of_______ , 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
__________________________
JON FROOMIN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________
PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
398
2 0
1 EXHIBIT A
AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VINTAGE PARK
The CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District zoning of the +132-acre site in Vintage Park (APNs: 094-122-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; 094-901- 290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; - 270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904- 290; -300; -310; - 320; -330; -340;094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; -030; -040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200) is herewith limited and specified as follows:
a. Within the ± 72.59 - acre portion of Vintage Park (APNs: 094-122-050; -060; -070; - 080; -110; -120; -130; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; - 410; 094- 904-290; -300; -310; -320; -330; and 340;) to allow development of up to 2,500,600 square feet of corporate biopharmaceutical campus consisting of up to 1,069,505 square feet of maximum office space; 1,407,495 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory space; a 5.42-acre private park including landscaped outdoor amenity and gathering space; 23,600 square feet of materials storage/warehouse spaces; and ancillary facilities (parking spaces (at-grade and in parking structures), cafeteria, pilot plant, meeting spaces, manufacturing and fitness facilities) with the option to separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation by closing off Lakeside Drive to through-traffic in accordance with the plans on file with the Community Development Department and Exhibits B, B-1, B-2, and B-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
b. Within the ± 4-acre portion of Vintage Park (APN: 094-122-140 — 303 Velocity Way) as depicted in the attached Exhibit C, uses shall be limited to development of up to 295,000 square feet of office, research and development, light assembly uses and ancillary facilities (including childcare, cafeteria, and exercise facilities), subject to the prior approval of the City. Parking for the building shall be provided on adjacent properties (APN5: 094-901-290, -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094- 904-290; -300; - 310; -320; -330; -340; 094-120-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; - 130; and 150) within 300 feet of the building entrance at a ratio of 4/1,000 with a 15% reduction (total of 853 spaces).
c. Within the remaining 57-acre portion of Vintage Park (APNs: 094-904-040; 130; 094- 901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094- 903-040; 094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; -030; -040; - 050; -060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; - 180; -190; and 200) as depicted in Exhibit D, uses shall be limited to allow development of up to ± 202,158 sq. ft. of office space; up to ± 236,763 sq. ft. of research and development space; up to two (2) hotels with a total of 475 rooms of up to ± 353,246 sq. ft.; up to ± 10,803 sq. ft. of restaurant/retail space; and a one- acre lake/open space area, with internal site circulation to be provided in accordance with the plans on file in the Community Development Department.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
399
2 0
1 EXHIBIT B
Integrated Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan (Graphic)
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
400
2 0
1 EXHIBIT B-1
INTEGRATED GILEAD SCIENCES CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN (DENSITY/INTENSITY OF PERMITTED USES)
*Includes existing office that can be reclassified or converted to laboratory space. If any of the existing 45,505 SF of office space in the South Campus is removed it may be replaced with laboratory space. A conversion of existing office space to laboratory space shall reduce the maximum allowance for office and increase the allowance for laboratory by a corresponding amount, with no change to the overall maximum building square footage for the Integrated Campus.
Maximum Building Square Footage
South Campus
Office 45,505 max SF*
(existing office built, but can be
reclassified into lab)
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 1,407,495 max SF*
Materials Storage/Warehouse 5,100 max SF
Total South Campus 1,458,100 max SF
North Campus
Office 1,024,000 max SF
Materials Storage/Warehouse 18,500 max SF
Total North Campus 1,042,500 max SF
Integrated South and North Campus
Office 1,069,505 max SF
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 1,407,495 max SF*
Materials Storage/Warehouse 23,600 max SF
Total for Integrated Campus 2,500,600 max SF
Maximum Building Heights
Building
Number
Range
of
Stories
Height
Range
Height Range
(with Roof
Screen)*
300 2 35 57
310 2 35 57
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
401
2 0
1 Building
Number
Range
of
Stories
Height
Range
Height Range
(with Roof
Screen)*
NB/322 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/324 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/331 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/333 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/335 2-6 40-102 62-124
NB/342 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/346 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/353 2-6 40-102 62-124
NB/355 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/357 2-6 40-102 62-124
362 2 35 57
NB/368 (NLB-1) 4 68 90
NB/322 Annex 1-2 20-40 42-62
MSB 1-2 20-40 42-62
301 5 80 102
NB/305 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/307 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/309 1-10 20-170 42-192
Ship/Receive 1-2 20-40 42-62
* Does not include exhaust stacks which may extend up to 4 feet above the roof screen
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
402
2 0
1 EXHIBIT B-2
GILEAD SCIENCES VESTED RIGHTS
The following outlines the vested rights under the South Campus Development Agreement and the South Campus General Development Plan (“Previous Approvals”) described in Ordinance Nos. 556, 554, and as amended in Ordinance No. 569. Any density or intensity beyond that provided for in the Previous Approvals, and described as the permitted 1,200,480 square feet designated in the graphic and table below (APN’s: 094-901-290, - 300, -310, -340, -370, -380, -390, -400, -410 and 094-904-290, -300, -310, -320, -330, and -340) is not vested (protected) under the terms of the South Campus Development Agreement (Document No. 2010-047080) – DA-08-003.
PERMITTED (VESTED) DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF USE
Within the ±40-acre portion of Vintage Park, the maximum development up to 1,200,480 square feet of biopharmaceutical campus consisting of the following:
-Maximum of 755,048 square feet of office space
-Minimum of 445,432 square feet of biopharmaceutical
laboratory space
-Ancillary facilities, parking (at-grade and in parking structures), cafeteria, pilot plant, meeting spaces,
manufacturing, small amount of warehouse and fitness
facilities.
Developer may reduce the space allotted to office use and increase the space allotted to laboratory and other uses, provided; however in no event shall the total building area exceed 1,200,480 square feet.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
403
2 0
1 EXHIBIT B-3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District of the ±72.59 -acre site located in Vintage Park for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (APNs:
094-122-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-290; -300; -310; -320; -330; and 340) is herewith limited and specified as follows:
1. The parking ratio for biopharmaceutical laboratories in the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan will be 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory space.
2. A 15% reduction in parking will be permitted in accordance with the TDM plan on file.
If the Community Development Director finds that the TDM plan is not being maintained or monitored, then the provision for reduced parking may be taken away.
Parking shall be in adherence to the Parking Distribution Plan (Sheets P-1 through P- 3) on file with the General Development Plan. An Updated Parking Analysis Spreadsheet shall be submitted each time parking is modified on the site.
3. No construction can take place until a written agreement regarding shared parking, the Transportation Systems Management Plan and the reduced parking ratio for laboratory buildings between Gilead Sciences, Inc. (“Developer”) and the City, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney is signed and recorded in a form capable of and subject to being recorded to constitute a covenant running with the land consistent with the provisions in Chapter 17.62 Off-Street Parking Ordinance of the Foster City Municipal Code.
4. Specific Development Plan/Use Permit(s) shall be issued prior to development of any new buildings/structures.
5. Any new development on the site shall be consistent with the project description in the SEIR and shall adhere to all Mitigation Measures outlined in the MMRP and specific Conditions of Approval.
6. Sustainable Design Standards
Each applicant for a specific development plan/use permit shall comply with the following:
- All newly constructed non-lab buildings shall be designed to achieve the requirements of LEED Silver or a standard that is deemed to be equivalent to the LEED Silver standards (“Alternate Green Building Standards”) in effect as of the effective date of approval of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. At the time of application for specific development
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
404
2 0
1 plan/use permit, the developer shall verify to the satisfaction of the City that the non-lab buildings satisfy the above standards.
- All newly constructed laboratory buildings shall be designed, constructed and operated as equivalent to "LEED Certified" or higher standards (eg LEED Silver) if such standards for laboratory buildings are in place at the time of the applicable specific development plan/use permit approval. At the time of application, the developer shall verify to the satisfaction of the City that the lab buildings satisfy the above standards.
- In the event that Gilead Sciences, Inc. ("Developer") elects to design commercial buildings to achieve the requirements of Alternate Green Building Standards, Developer shall submit such standards to the City for approval at the time of its application for a specific development plan/use permit. Developer shall retain an independent third party consultant ("Green Compliance Consultant"), at Developer's expense, to provide the City with a written analysis as to why the Alternate Green Building Standards are equivalent to LEED Silver. The Green Compliance Consultant retained by Developer shall be reasonably approved by the City. The City shall either approve or disapprove the Alternate Green Building Standards within thirty (30) days after the Developer's request. If the City disapproves the Developer's request, the City shall describe, with particularity, the reasons why the proposed Alternate Green Building Standards are not equivalent to the LEED Silver standards in effect as of the effective date.
- The Green Compliance Consultant shall verify whether the building(s) constructed by the Developer are in compliance with LEED Silver or Alternate Green Building Standards described in the Specific Development Plan/ Use Permit.
- Developer shall comply with all relevant mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ("MMRP"), including those found in GCC-1 requiring submittal of a Campus-wide Sustainability Plan or Sustainability Measures for individual building(s), as applicable.
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
405
2 0
1 EXHIBIT B-4
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Transportation Demand Management Plan dated August 7, 2012 may be amended and approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission at the time a Specific Development Plan/ Use Permit is proposed.
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Transportation Demand Management Plan
dated
August 7, 2012
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
406
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
407
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
408
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
409
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
410
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
411
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
412
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
413
2 0
1 7.1
Attachment 2 - Ordinance
414
2 0
1 EXHIBIT C
GRAPHIC FOR THE ±4 ACRE PORTION OF VINTAGE PARK
(APN: 094-122-140)
Bridgepointe Pkwy
Bridgepointe Circle
Chess Dr
State Route 92 Ramp
Vintage Park Dr
State Route 92 Ramp
Shell Blvd
Metro Center Blvd
E Third Ave
Shoal Dr
Baker Way
Port Dr
Reef Dr
Fathom Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Hatch Dr
Trader Ln
Mariner's Island Blvd
Fathom Dr
Fathom Dr
Armada Way
Tiller Ct
Foster City Blvd
Velocity Way
Velocity Way
Permitted Density/Intensity:
Within the ± 4-acre portion of
Vintage Park (APN: 094-122-
140 – 303 Velocity Way), uses
shall be limited to development
of up to 295,000 square feet of
office, research and
development, light assembly
uses and ancillary facilities
(including child care, cafeteria,
and exercise facilities).
Permitted Density/Intensity:
Within the ± 4-acre portion of
Vintage Park (APN: 094-122-
140 – 303 Velocity Way), uses
shall be limited to development
of up to 295,000 square feet of
office, research and
development, light assembly
uses and ancillary facilities
(including child care, cafeteria,
and exercise facilities).
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
415
2 0
1 EXHIBIT D
GRAPHIC FOR VINTAGE PARK GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA
7.1 Attachment 2 - Ordinance
416
Exhibit in City Ordinance No.554 from 2010
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
417
Exhibit in City Ordinance No.576 from 2013
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
418
Exhibit in City Ordinance No.601 from 2016
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
419
Proposed Exhibit in RZ2022-0001 from 2022
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
420
ORDINANCE NO. 576
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE FOSTER CITY ZONING MAP TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE ± 132-ACRE LANDS KNOWN AS VINTAGE PARK TO ALLOW UP TO 2,500,600 SQUARE FEET OF
BIOPHARMACEUTICAL OFFICE AND LABORATORY USES, ANCILLARY
FACILITIES AND STRUCTURED AND AT-GRADE PARKING FACILITIES IN ORDER
TO CREATE THE INTEGRATED GILEAD SCIENCES CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN — 300-368 LAKESIDE DRIVE; 301 VELOCITY WAY IN NEIGHBORHOOD VP — GILEAD SCIENCES — APNs: 094-122-050; -060; -070; -080; - 110; -120; -130; -140; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904-290; -300; -310; -320; -330; -340; 094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; -030; -040; -050; -060; 070; -080; - 090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200— RZ-11-004
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY DOES FIND AND ORDAIN as follows:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council, based on facts and analysis in the Staff Reports, written and oral testimony, mitigation measures included in the project, and exhibits presented, finds:
The proposed Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment will be in furtherance of and in accordance with the General Plan of the City of Foster City ("City") because it: 1) will be consistent with the Research/Office Park designation on the Land Use Plan as described in Policy LUC-25; 2) will provide for economic development consistent with the principles of Land Use Goal LUC-C; 3) will be adequately served by municipal services and facilities per Goal LUC-F; 4) will provide for adequate on-site parking for safe and effective circulation, consistent with Land Use Goal LUC-K; 5) will provide for diverse transportation needs per Goal LUC-I by improving pedestrian safety and allowing for safe access and movement by a variety of transportation modes; 6) will provide open space adequate to serve the development per Goal PC-F; 7) will mitigate construction noise to the extent feasible per Policy N-5; and 8) will provide for economic development by encouraging removal of existing older buildings which are becoming economically obsolete and construction of newer buildings that will increase the assessed value of the property within the Vintage Park area and the City in general per Land Use Goal LUC- C;
2. The total allowed square footage of the Gilead Campus will increase from 926735 square feet to 2,500,600 square feet of laboratory, office and related
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
421
City Ordinance No. 576
uses. The proposed biopharmaceutical campus will not be detrimental to present and planned surrounding uses because although it would increase the intensity of land use in the project area, the redeveloped uses would not create conflicts with existing on-site and surrounding land uses because the uses are consistent with the Research/Office Park designation intended for the Vintage Park area;
3. On-site circulation is suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic generated by the project, and the traffic impacts on the street network outside the development will be mitigated to a less than significant level by the implementation and monitoring of the Gilead Transportation Demand Management Program which identifies vehicle trip reduction measures;
4. Existing and proposed utility services and facilities and other public improvements such as fire and police protection; school services; open space and recreation; water supply; wastewater treatment; solid waste and electricity, gas and telecommunications are adequate for the proposed biopharmaceutical campus density and land use proposed because: 1) the proposed project will be required to meet all Fire Department and Fire Code requirements; 2) the proposed project will not reduce the ability of the Foster City Fire Department to meet existing performance standards or exceed the capabilities of the existing or planned staffing levels; 3) the increased security measures on the campus will help to reduce the demand for police services; 4) no new school facilities will be required as a result of the project; 5) the Water Supply Assessment prepared by the Estero Municipal Improvement District ("EMID") reviewed the water needs of this project as well as foreseeable projects and concluded that although there is an increase in approximately 206 acre feet per year of additional water demand, EMID will have sufficient water supply available to meet the demand generated from the proposed project without affecting water supplies for existing and planned future developments; 6) anticipated wastewater discharges are not high enough to require the expansion of the existing system and as required in the mitigation measures, the Developer will be required to prepare a sewer flow analysis and a hydraulic capacity study to verify that the existing sewer system is sized to meet wastewater generated by this project and prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to ensure that the proposed drainage system will accommodate stormwater runoff from the project; 7) the amount of solid waste generated will not substantially shorten the life of the landfill; and 8) the other utilities serving the project are expected to be adequate;
5. Sufficient parking will be provided on the Gilead Integrated Campus consistent with Chapter 17.62, Off-Street Parking Regulations, of Title 17 Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code because a written agreement between the landowner and the City will be recorded to allow: 1) a reduced parking ratio of 1 space per 833 square feet of laboratory building pursuant to Sub-section 17.62.060 B.5.f; 2) shared campus-wide parking facilities
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
422
City Ordinance No. 576
pursuant to Sub-section 17.62.060 D.1; and 3) a 15% reduction in the number of required off-street parking stalls with the implementation of a Transportation Systems Management Plan / Transportation Demand Management Plan pursuant to Sub-section 17.62.060 D.3; and
6. Specific Development Plan/Use Permit(s) will be required for each new or improved building under the Integrated Master Plan and will be consistent with the Vintage Park Design Guidelines, the Vintage Park Signage Guidelines and the intent and purpose of Chapter 17.58 of the Foster City Municipal Code in order to ensure that the site and buildings developed will be well designed and attractive, will function in a safe manner, and will relate well to surrounding sites and buildings in the Vintage Park development.
Section 2. Amendment to Zoning Map. The City of Foster City Zoning Map is hereby amended to reclassify the ±72.59 acre property owned by Gilead Sciences, Inc. ("Gilead") in Vintage Park, as provided in and more precisely described in the amended General Development Plan for Vintage Park allowing up to 2,500,600 square feet of biopharmaceutical office and laboratory uses, ancillary uses and structured and at- grade parking facilities in order to create the Integrated Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan, as described in Exhibits A, B, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, C, and 0 to this Ordinance attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional.
Section 4. Taking Effect. Subject to Section 5 below, this Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
Section 5. First Amendment to Development Agreement. Gilead, City and EMID have previously entered into that certain Development Agreement dated March 31, 2010 and recorded in the Official Records of San Mateo County on April 20, 2010, as Document No. 2010-047080 ("Development Agreement") for an approximately 40-acre portion of Gilead's Vintage Park property. Gilead, the City and EMID have negotiated an administrative First Amendment to Development Agreement ("First Amendment") to be processed in accordance with Section 4.10.1 of the Development Agreement to confirm their mutual understanding of the meaning and application of the Development Agreement, and to avoid any misunderstanding as to the effect of the parties' respective rights and obligations under the Development Agreement upon effectiveness of this Ordinance. Therefore, notwithstanding Section 4 above, this Ordinance shall take effect only upon the execution by duly authorized representative of the City, EMID and Gilead of the First Amendment in a form mutually acceptable to the parties.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
423
9 M FRISELLA. MAYOR
City Ordinance No. 576
Section 6. Parking Agreement. Gilead and the City have negotiated a Parking Agreement ("Agreement") in accordance with Chapter 17.62, Off-Street Parking of Title 17 Zoning of the Foster City Municipal Code. Notwithstanding Section 4 above, this Ordinance shall take effect only upon the execution by duly authorized representatives of the City and Gilead of the Agreement in a form mutually acceptable to the parties and recordation of the Parking Agreement with the San Mateo County Recorder's Office.
Section 7. Posting. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall have it posted in three (3) public places designated by the City Council.
This Ordinance was introduced and read on the 21 st day of October, 2013, and passed and adopted on the 4th day of November, 2013, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Bronitsky, Kiesel, Okamoto, Perez and Mayor Frisella NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN . None
ATTEST:
DORIS L. PA MER, CITY CLERK
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
424
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT A
AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VINTAGE PARK
The CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District zoning of the +132-acre site in Vintage Park (APNs: 094-122-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904-290; -300; -310; - 320; -330; -340;094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; -030; -040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200) is herewith limited and specified as follows:
a. Within the ± 72.59 - acre portion of Vintage Park (APNs: 094-122-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094- 904-290; -300; -310; -320; -330; and 340;) to allow development of up to 2,500,600 square feet of corporate biopharmaceutical campus consisting of up to 1,524,000 square feet of maximum office space; 953,000 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory space; 23,600 square feet of materials storage/warehouse spaces; and ancillary facilities (parking spaces (at-grade and in parking structures), cafeteria, pilot plant, meeting spaces, manufacturing and fitness facilities) with the option to separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation by closing off Lakeside Drive to through-traffic in accordance with the plans on file in the Community Development Department and Exhibits B, B-1, B-2, and B-3, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
b. Within the ± 4-acre portion of Vintage Park (APN: 094-122-140 — 303 Velocity Way) as depicted in the attached Exhibit C, uses shall be limited to development of up to 295,000 square feet of office, research and development, light assembly uses and ancillary facilities (including child care, cafeteria, and exercise facilities), subject to the prior approval of the City. Parking for the building shall be provided on adjacent properties (APN5: 094-901-290, -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-290; -300; - 310; -320; -330; -340; 094-120-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; -130; and 150) within 300 feet of the building entrance at a ratio of 4/1,000 with a 15% reduction (total of 853 spaces).
c. Within the remaining 57-acre portion of Vintage Park (APNs: 094-904-040; 130; 094- 901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094- 903-040; 094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; -030; -040; - 050; -060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; -190; and 200) as depicted in Exhibit D, uses shall be limited to allow development of up to ± 202,158 sq. ft. of office space; up to ± 112,368 sq. ft. of research and development space; to allow up to two (2) hotels with a total of 475 rooms of up to ± 353,246 sq. ft. and up to ± 18,994 sq. ft. of restaurant space; and a one-acre lake/open space area, with internal site circulation to be provided in accordance with the plans on file in the Community Development Department.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
425
r
PArcr 0. ,, :•
APPLICA !VA.
7 71— `77:57
•
- 1
5- 300
,-I
, 4%
310
301
A 1■
.\ 303 \ ,
' ••Po
PG+1
1 TO 5LEWIS
REEE DRIVE _
.• ii 11.1 • • NODES
3 TOO LEVELS
N13/324
I. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NEV3.41
•
III) II NI 1•11. I
1-. L-.11 •
1 1 I I I •
• ' I- I II
.
N13331
yr:
(A11111111111111111111111•11
L.,111111111141/11111111E
tx:Ippki;i III iv nu;
mrnmrn quit Mb
NE1335
N11322
VINTAGE
N
-,12-
11 4'
pt_
JL
N8.35T Nill11111 --
3 IBRIHYITlik
11111R1111111161.111ffil
LAKESIDE DiiiVE 4 •
7107 NO1398
(NLB.1)
III
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT B
INTEGRATED GILEAD SCIENCES CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN (GRAPHIC)
EAST THIRD AVENUE
" 1 1 1 . 11111111 /11111:7.
- "
. tr - - I-
g t r .
, -
.._' ...' Iffl iii. \'‘,
_itntwillitilloallumuumunnuutit"
41' /
=
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
426
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT B-1
INTEGRATED GILEAD SCIENCES CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN (DENSITY/INTENSITY OF PERMITTED USES)
Maximum Building Square Footage
South Campus
Office 500,000 max SF
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 max SF
Materials Storage/Warehouse 5,100 max SF
Total South Campus 1,458,100 max SF
North Campus
Office 1,024,000 max SF
Materials Storage/Warehouse 18,500 max SF
Total North Cam us 1,042,500 max SF
Integrated South and North Campus
Office 1,524,000 max SF
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 max SF
Materials Storage/Warehouse 23,600 max SF
Total for Integrated Campus 2,500,600 max SF
Maximum Building Heights
Building
Number
Range of
Stories
Height
Range
Height Range
(with Roof
Screen)*
300 2 35 57
310 2 35 57
NB/322 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/324 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/331 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/333 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/335 2-6 40-102 62-124
NB/342 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/346 2-4 40-68 62-90
NB/353 2-6 40-102 62-124
NB/355 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/357 2-6 40-102 62-124
362 2 35 57
NB/368 (NLB-1) 4 68 90
NB/322 Annex 1-2 20-40 42-62
MSB 1-2 20-40 42-62
301 5 80 102
NB/305 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/307 1-10 20-170 42-192
NB/309 1-10 20-170 42-192
Ship/Receive 1-2 20-40 42-62
* Does not include exhaust stacks which may extend up to 4 feet above the roof screen
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
427
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT B-2
GILEAD SCIENCES VESTED RIGHTS
The following outlines the vested rights under the South Campus Development Agreement and the South Campus General Development Plan ("Previous Approvals") described in Ordinance No.'s 556, 554, and as amended in Ordinance No. 569. Any density or intensity beyond that provided for in the Previous Approvals, and described as the permitted 1,200,480 square feet designated in the graphic and table below (APN's: 094-901-290, -300, -310, -340, -370, -380, - 390, -400, -410 and 094-904-290, -300, -310, -320, -330, and -340) is not vested (protected) under the terms of the South Campus Development Agreement (Document No. 2010-047080) — DA-08-003.
PERMITTED (VESTED) DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF USE
-
tin /
- 9iL'LeEk%
FJ- -PC at cr.1
Within the ±40-acre portion of Vintage Park, the maximum development up to 1,200,480 square feet of biopharmaceutical campus consisting of the following:
- Maximum of 755,048 square feet of office space
Minimum of 445,432 square feet of biopharmaceutical
laboratory space
Ancillary facilities, parking (at-grade and in parking
structures), cafeteria, pilot plant, meeting spaces,
manufacturing, small amount of warehouse and fitness
facilities.
Developer may reduce the space allotted to office use and increase the space allotted to laboratory and other uses, provided; however in no event shall the total building area exceed 1,200,480 square feet.
E7:ateB.
f.4004
Fig 14 1
9141010€4410$4
0 1■1.11111 I 1,i I 1 , 1,4
111k1 .
t"" 0;27hVe:.
;
i3+70 '
I
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
428
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT B-3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District of the ±72.59 -acre site located in Vintage Park for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (APNs: 094- 122-050; -060; -070; -080; -110; -120; -130; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; - 390; -400; -410; 094-904-290; -300; -310; -320; -330; and 340) is herewith limited and specified as follows:
1. The parking ratio for biopharmaceutical laboratories in the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan will be 1.2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory space.
2. A 15% reduction in parking will be permitted in accordance with the TDM plan on file. If the Community Development Director finds that the TDM plan is not being maintained or monitored, then the provision for reduced parking may be taken away. Parking shall be in adherence to the Parking Distribution Plan (Sheets P-1 through P-3) on file with the General Development Plan. An Updated Parking Analysis Spreadsheet shall be submitted each time parking is modified on the site.
3. No construction can take place until a written agreement regarding shared parking, the Transportation Systems Management Plan and the reduced parking ratio for laboratory buildings between Gilead Sciences, Inc. ("Developer") and the City, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney is signed and recorded in a form capable of and subject to being recorded to constitute a covenant running with the land consistent with the provisions in Chapter 17.62 Off-Street Parking Ordinance of the Foster City Municipal Code.
4. Specific Development Plan/Use Permit(s) shall be issued prior to development of any new buildings/structures.
5. Any new development on the site shall be consistent with the project description in the SEIR and shall adhere to all Mitigation Measures outlined in the MMRP and specific Conditions of Approval.
6. Sustainable Design Standards
Each applicant for a specific development plan/use permit shall comply with the following:
- All newly constructed non-lab buildings shall be designed to achieve the requirements of LEED Silver or a standard that is deemed to be equivalent to the LEED Silver standards ("Alternate Green Building Standards") in effect as of the effective date of approval of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. At the time of application for specific development plan/use permit, the developer shall verify to the satisfaction of the City that the non-lab buildings satisfy the above standards.
- All newly constructed laboratory buildings shall be designed, constructed and operated as equivalent to "LEED Certified" or higher standards (eg LEED Silver) if such standards for laboratory buildings are in place at the time of the applicable
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
429
City Ordinance No. 576
specific development plan/use permit approval. At the time of application, the developer shall verify to the satisfaction of the City that the lab buildings satisfy the above standards.
In the event that Gilead Sciences, Inc. ("Developer") elects to design commercial buildings to achieve the requirements of Alternate Green Building Standards, Developer shall submit such standards to the City for approval at the time of its application for a specific development plan/use permit. Developer shall retain an independent third party consultant ("Green Compliance Consultant"), at Developer's expense, to provide the City with a written analysis as to why the Alternate Green Building Standards are equivalent to LEED Silver. The Green Compliance Consultant retained by Developer shall be reasonably approved by the City. The City shall either approve or disapprove the Alternate Green Building Standards within thirty (30) days after the Developer's request. If the City disapproves the Developer's request, the City shall describe, with particularity, the reasons why the proposed Alternate Green Building Standards are not equivalent to the LEED Silver standards in effect as of the effective date. - The Green Compliance Consultant shall verify whether the building(s) constructed by the Developer are in compliance with LEED Silver or Alternate Green Building Standards described in the Specific Development Plan/ Use Permit.
Developer shall comply with all relevant mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ("MMRP"), including those found in GCC-1 requiring submittal of a Campus-wide Sustainability Plan or Sustainability Measures for individual building(s), as applicable.
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
430
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT B-4
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Transportation Demand Management Plan dated August 7, 2012 may be amended and approved by the Community Development Director or Planning Commission at the time a Specific Development Plan/ Use Permit is proposed.
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Transportation Demand Management Plan
dated
August 7, 2012
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
431
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc. _
Memorandum Suite 370
6130 Stoneridge Mall Road,
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3279
To: Susan Eschweiler
From: Michael Mowery
Date: 7 August 2012
Re: Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM)
for Gilead Science General Growth Plan Build-out Condition Revised August 7, 2012
Per the requirement of City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), development projects that generate 100 or more peak hour trips in San Mateo County must implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce the net number of trips that the project is anticipated to generate. Furthermore, C/CAG requires that "local jurisdictions must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will reduce the demand for all new peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development." 1 Guidelines prepared by C/CAG identify a combination of measures that can be employed to satisfy this requirement.
The following is a summary of recommended Transportation Demand Management Measures and their associated trip reductions for the Gilead Campus. The TDM Plan is intended to address the full build-out condition of the Gilead General Development Program. Program elements will be phased in as-needed and in response to the employee commute alternative preferences at the time each phase of build-out is complete and occupied. 1 Policy on Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to Determine Traffic Impacts on the Congestion Management Program (CMP) Roadway Network Resulting from Roadway Changes, General Plan Updates, and Land Development Projects, C/CAG August 10, 2006.
CXUsers \rnike.mowery DesktopTatemity LeaveTrilead GileadBuildoutTDMProgram_08072012.docx Office: 925-398-4840
Fax: 925-398-4849
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
432
Gilead Build-out TDM Program, page 2
in
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
TDM MEASURES TO MITIGATE PROJECT TRIPS
Bicycle Lockers and Racks
Convenient and secure bicycle storage helps increase bicycling. Bike lockers and/or racks will be provided to encourage more commuters to bicycle. A minimum of 324 racks and/or lockers will be conveniently located around the campus which qualifies for one peak hour trip credit per three lockers or racks.
(The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance will subsidize 50 percent of the cost bike lockers and racks up to $500 per unit.)2 Showers and Changing Rooms
Although cyclists and walkers can change in restrooms and store a change of clothes in the workplace, dedicated facilities are more likely to encourage regular cycling and walking. Showers and a changing room will be provided for employees that are commuting by bicycle or walking to the campus. The Gilead Sciences campus currently includes 22 changing areas and showers, and 64 total changing areas and showers are planned for the campus build-out. In addition, the project is eligible for an additional five trip credits because the project will have five or more bike lockers.
Shuttle Service
Gilead supports the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and operates two shuttle routes with three shuttle stops on campus. The stops at 300-310 Lakeside and 301-303 Velocity Way will be retained. The stop that is currently at 335-353 Lakeside will be relocated to 355-357 Lakeside when Lakeside Drive is closed to through traffic.
As the employee base grows, Gilead is committed to working with the Alliance, other corporate partners, and the City on steps at each of the following Gilead employee headcount thresholds:
2 For more information on the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and their programs see http://wwvv.commute.org/.
cAusers\mikemowery \desktop \paternity leave \gilead\gileadbuildouttdmprograrn_08072012.docx
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
433
Gilead Build-out TDM Program, page 3
in
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
• 1900 to 3000 employees: Work with the Alliance to increase the current 24 passenger bus to a 32-35 passenger bus on the North Foster City route, if warranted.
• 3000 to 5500 employees: Work with the Alliance to add a lead time bus (half hour bus in addition the current hourly bus) on the North Foster City Center route, if warranted.
• 3500 to 5500 employees: Work with the Alliance to add a lead time bus (half hour bus in addition the current hourly bus) on the Lincoln Center route, if warranted.
Gilead will offer shuttle service to nearby BART and other destinations to accommodate existing and future demand up to 521 employees.
This measure qualifies for one peak hour trip credit for each peak hour round trip seat. In addition, the project is eligible for one additional trip credit per round trip seat because a Guaranteed Ride Program is also in place.
Subsidized Public Transit Tickets
Subsidizing transit passes reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles on the road by encouraging employees to use an alternative method for getting to work, which can also save them money. Subsidized rail passes will be provided to employees at a minimum subsidy of $20 per month to qualify for a trip reduction credit. Gilead uses the Commuter Check program to reimburse employees for their use of transit. Gilead currently provides commuter checks to approximately 290 employees and projects that 521 employees will receive Commuter Checks for transit usage at project build-out. This measure qualifies for one peak hour trip credit for each subsidized pass provided to employees.
(Employees in San Mateo County can also try transit for free. Many of the local public transit agencies including Caltrain, SamTrans, BART, AC Transit, and VTA provide transit tickets to get people to try transit as a one- time incentive.)
euserArnace.mowery \desktop \paternity leave \gilead gileadbuildouttdmprogrzun_08072012.docc
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
434
Gilead Build-out TDM Prop-am, page 4
F-1 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Carpool Program
Carpools provide an alternative between driving alone and riding public transit. A total of 80 employees currently carpool to the Gilead Sciences campus and 232 carpool participants are projected at build-out based on the current carpool participation on the Gilead campus. C/CAG TDM credits are typically awarded for preferential parking for carpool participants.
Gilead prefers to leave parking spaces unassigned to provide parking flexibility throughout its campus. However, Gilead currently provides and plans to continue to provide Commuter Checks for participating employees. Employees that carpool at least 3 days per week receive a reimbursement of $100/month to continue to encourage the use of carpooling. The C/CAG TDM credit is 2 credits per 1 preferential parking space provided or stated differently, 1 credit per carpool participant assuming 2 employees per carpool. Therefore, this TDM program applies one peak hour trip credit per employee participant.
(The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance offers gas cards and cash incentives to carpool participants. Employees who commit to carpooling together at least 2 days per week for 8 consecutive weeks receive a $60 gas card as a one-time incentive per passenger. Employees traveling in a hybrid or clean air vehicle are eligible for one-time $80 cash incentive.)
Vanpool Program
Vanpools provide an alternative between driving alone and riding public transit. This option offers greater vehicle carrying capacity and reduced costs while still providing flexibility and convenience to the users.
Programs usually involve commuters traveling in a passenger van with one member of the group acting as the driver and person responsible for the vehicle. To encourage vanpooling, a guaranteed ride home provision will also be implemented to ensure employees a ride home if they cannot leave at the same time as the vanpool or in the event of an emergency.
A total of 110 employees currently vanpool to the Gilead Sciences campus and 318 vanpool participants are projected at build-out based on the current participation on the Gilead campus. C/CAG TDM credits are typically awarded for preferential parking for vanpools. Gilead prefers to leave parking spaces unassigned to provide parking flexibility throughout its campus. However, Gilead currently provides and plans to continue to cAusers\mike.mowery \desktop \paternity leavegilead\gileadbuildouttdmprogram08072012.doex
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
435
Kimley-Horn Gilead Build-out TDM Program, page 5
and Associates, Inc.
provide a vanpool subsidy of $100/month for participating employees. This subsidy is used to offset the cost of fuel, bridge tolls, and rental fees for the vanpool. The C/CAG TDM credit is 7 credits per 1 preferential parking space provided or stated differently, 1 credit per carpool participant assuming 7 employees per carpool. Therefore, this TDM program applies one peak hour trip credit per employee participant, and is increased by three more credits per vanpool with the addition of a guaranteed ride home program.
(The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance offers startup cash incentives to new vanpool drivers and riders. Employees who agree to drive for six months will receive a $500 cash incentive. Other employees who agree to become passengers of the vanpool for three months consecutively will be reimbursed half of their vanpool costs up to $100 per month.)
Commute Assistance Center
A commute assistance center compliments other TDM measures by supporting and encouraging the use of other strategies. A center disseminates information on TDM services and incentives to site employees. Trained staff can provide commute planning help and conduct special promotional activities to increase commuter's interest in options other than driving alone. A commute assistance center is located in one of the buildings to offer on-site, one stop access for transit and commute alternatives information. The center includes a transit information brochure rack, a desk and chairs for trip planning, a telephone with commute and transit information phone numbers, and process on-site assistance checks. The center will also be staffed eight hours per day by two people. This measure qualifies for one peak hour trip credit for each feature offered in the center with an additional one peak hour credit for each hour the center is staffed with a live person.
Employee Commute Survey
An employee commute survey will be conducted twice per year to assess the current use of alternative commute options within the Gilead campus.
Results of the survey will be used to identify adjustments that could be made to sustain or increase the use of transit, carpool/vanpool, bicycling, and walking. This measure qualifies for three peak hour trip credits for a survey that is administered twice yearly.
cAusers\mike.mowery \desktop \paternity leave\gilead\gilea.dbuildouttdmprogram_08072012.docx
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
436
Gilead Build-out TDM Program, page 6
rg
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Video Conference Centers
Gilead Sciences currently provides and plans to provide video conferencing in each building on campus on its build-out campus. These video conference rooms enable teams to work across campus without getting in their cars, to meet with local and distant customers, and to avoid having to travel to meetings off campus. This measure qualifies for five peak hour trip credits for each video conference center installed.
Provision of On-Site Amenities
On-site amenities encourage employees and visitors to stay on site during the work day, thus reducing the need to bring an automobile to work or leave the site to run errands. Eligible example features include banking, grocery shopping, dry cleaners, exercise facilities, and child care center.
The Gilead campus will provide four cafeterias, nine automated teller machines (ATMs) one fitness center, as well as on-site masseuse service, oil change service, and dry cleaning services that each qualify for five peak hour credits.
Provision of Child Care
Child care is another on-site amenity that can help reduce vehicle trips.
The Gilead campus will provide child care services for up to 104 children and will accommodate children from infant to 12 years old. This measure qualifies for one peak hour trip credits for every two child care slots at the campus. This amount is one trip credit per each slot since the service accepts multiple age groups.
Guaranteed Ride Home Program
A Guaranteed Ride Home program provides commuters that carpool, vanpool, bike, walk or take transit to work with a free ride home when unexpected emergencies arise. Employees that leave their personal vehicles at home are able to take a free taxi ride or use a 24-hour car rental in the case of an emergency. Gilead currently provides this benefit to its employees through company resources and will continue to provide this benefit in the future. This TDM measure qualifies for two C/CAG peak hour trip credits for each two employees enrolled in the program. This program credit has been discussed further with C/CAG staff and determined that although the program qualifies for a greater number, the average use of the Guaranteed Ride Home Program has been found to be approximately 2% of the enrolled employees countywide. Therefore, this cAusers \mike.mowery \desIctop \paternity leave \gilead\gileadbuildouttdmprogram_08072012.docx
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
437
Gilead Build-out TDM Program, page 7
rg
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Gilead TDM Program assumes two credits per 100 employees based on regional Guaranteed Ride Home Program information.
Combination of Elements
Experience has shown that offering multiple and complementary TDM components can magnify the impact of the overall program. Therefore, if any ten TDM elements are combined, the project's TDM plan qualifies for an additional credit of five peak hour trips. Since more than ten qualifying elements are proposed to be implemented, a five trip credit is assumed.
Action Plan
Gilead is currently and will continue to work with the Alliance on providing transportation alternatives. The measure qualifies for 10 peak hour credits.
TDM PROGRAM SUMMARY
The recommended Gilead TDM Program is based on many proven transportation alternatives but also on the quality of the program already offered by Gilead Sciences. Many of the measures discussed herein are currently provided to Gilead staff and based on the positive feedback of employees, these alternatives are planned for expansion as the campus grows. The recommended program is comprehensive in providing many varying commute alternatives, providing flexibility to those employees seeking commuting options. The TDM Program discussed herein is envisioned as a proposed program at full build-out of the Gilead Sciences campus and will be phased in as the campus is expanded over time.
Specific TDM elements will be expanded or initiated as each building phase is completed and occupied, and customized to the current commuting preferences of Gilead Sciences campus staff.
cAusers\mike.mowery \desIctop \paternity leave \gilead \gileadbuildouttdmprogram_08072012.docx
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
438
Gilead Sciences Transportation Demand Management Program Measure Rate Peak Trip
Credit Rate
Buildout
Program
Elements,
Trip
Credits
Bicycle Storage - Class 1 Bike Lockers or Class 2 Bike Racks one credit per 3 bike lockers/racks 1/3 324 108 Showers/Changing Room ten credits per 1 shower/changing room 10 64 640 Additional credits for combination w/ 5 bike lockers five credits for 5 or more bike lockers 5 1 5 Shuttle Service AM/PM to Local Station one credit per 1 peak hour round trip seat 1 521 521 Additional credits with guaranteed ride home program one credit per 1 shuttle credit 1 521 521 Subsidize transit tickets one trip credit for each transit pass subsidized at $20/month/one year 1 521 521 Subsidized carpool program one credit per 1 employee participant i 232 232 Subsidized vanpool program one credit per 1 employee participant 1 318 318 Additional credits with guaranteed ride home program three credits per vanpool 3 45 135 Operation of a commute assistance center one credit per program feature 1 4 4 Additional credits for staffing the center one credit for each hour staffed (up to 20 trip credits/200 employees) 1 16 16 Employee commute survey three credits for survey administered twice yearly 3 1 3 Video conference centers five credits per center installed at the facility 5 38 190 Provision of on-site amenities five credits per feature 5 17 85 Provision of child care one credit for two child care slots, one credit per child if service accepts multiple age groups 1 104 104 Guaranteed ride home program two credits for every 100 employees enrolled in program w/ Affiance 0.02 5500 110 Combination of ten TDM elements five credits for combination of 10 elements 5 1 5 Work with Alliance to develop/implement a Transportation Action Plan ten credits 10 1 10 Total 3528
Notes-
1 All program elements are based on the current Gilead General Development Plan or a straight-fine increase in elements currently offered for the Gilead Sciences campus in 2012. 2 On-site amenities include four planned cafeterias, nine ATMs, 1 fitness center, as well as on-site masseuse service, oil change service, and dry cleaning services. 8/7/2012
Gilead BuildoutTDM Program_08072012.xls
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
439
Permitted Density/Intensity:
Within the ± 4-acre portion of
Vintage Park (APN: 094-122-
140 — 303 Velocity Way), uses
shall be limited to development
of up to 295,000 square feet of
office, research and
development, light assembly
uses and ancillary facilities
(including child care, cafeteria,
and exercise facilities).
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT C
GRAPHIC FOR THE ±4 ACRE PORTION OF VINTAGE PARK
(APN: 094-122-140)
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
440
6 rflird i-
<
Vintage Park Community
Association (VPCA) Common
Area Landscaping/Pond
Office/Research and
Development
- Restaurant
- Hotel
ite
8 41" VP`*-
LEGEND
City Ordinance No. 576
EXHIBIT D
GRAPHIC FOR ±57 ACRE PORTION OF VINTAGE PARK
(APNs: 094-904-040; 130; 094-901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400-010; -020; - 030; -040; -050; -060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; -170; -180; - 190; and 200)
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
441
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Doris L. Palmer, hereby certify as follows:
That I am, and at all time herein mentioned, was the duly acting and qualified City Clerk/District Secretary of the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, Foster City, San Mateo County, California.
I further certify to the proper posting of:
Ordinance No. 576, "Approving an Amendment to the Foster City Zoning Map to Modify the Previously Approved General Development Plan for the ± 132-acre Lands Known as Vintage Park to Allow up to 2,500,600 Square Feet of Biopharmaceutical Office and Laboratory Uses, Ancillary Facilities and Structured and At-Grade Parking Facilities in Order to Create the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan - RZ-11-004 [First Reading October 21, 2013]'
in the following four public places of the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, Foster City, San Mateo County, California:
1. Federal Post Office, Charter Square
1050 Shell Boulevard
2. Recreation Center Lobby
650 Shell Boulevard
3. Council Chambers (not a mandatory posting site)
620 Foster City Boulevard
4. Foster City Public Library
1000 E. Hillsdale Boulevard
Executed at the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, Foster City, San Mateo County, California this 7th day of November, 2013.
Doris L. Palmer
City Clerk/District Secretary
G:ICLERKIVORMFORMSICERTIFICATEPOS77NG.DOC
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
442
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
443
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
444
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
445
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
446
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
447
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
448
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
449
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
450
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
451
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
452
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
453
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
454
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
455
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
456
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
457
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
458
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
459
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
460
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
461
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
462
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
463
7.1 Attachment 3 - Exhibits of Gilead Master Campus and full Ordinance No. 576 and 601
464
RESOLUTION NO. P- 21 -22
RE
SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ADDENDUM NO. 5 AND FINDIN G
THAT THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRO NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ADEQUATELY ANALYZE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE VINTAGE
PARK GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO DECREASE THE ALLOWABLE OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 250,000 SQUARE FEET AND INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE LABORATORY SPACE BY 250,000 SQUARE FE ET AND INCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED TEMPORARY GILEAD PARK INTO A PERMANENT USE FOR THE SOUTH CAMPUS PORTION OF THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CAMPUS MASTER PLAN – 300-368 LAKESIDE DRIVE; 301 AND 309 VELOCITY WAY IN NEIGHBORHOOD VP – GILEAD SCIENCES, INC. – EA2022-0001
CI
TY OF FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WH
EREAS, On August 17, 1981, the City Council approved an Ordinance amending Title 17 of the City of Foster City Municipal Code to reclassify the + 132- acres of land known as Vintage Park (APNs 094-521-080, 090, 100 and 110 and 094-531-020, 030, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, and 180) as a C -M/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development Combining District) with a General Development Plan (Ordinance 223, RZ-10-80); and WHE
REAS, on November 4, 2013, by Ordinance No. 576, the City Council approved a Rezoning/General Development Plan of the Project site from CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District to a CM/PD (Commercial Mix/Planned Development) District with an Amended General Development Plan (RZ-11-004) to allow up to 2,500,600 square feet of biopharmaceutical office and laboratory uses, ancillary facilities and structured and at-grade parking facilities on the Project site; and
WH
EREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and implementing guidelines ("CEQA") the City Council by Resolution No. 2013-80 adopted on October 21, 2013, certified a Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008122064; EA-11-005 ("FSEIR") for the ±72 acre Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project ("Project") and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") through Resolution No. 2013-80; and WH
EREAS, on April 3, 2014, by Resolution No. P -14-14, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOl-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met; and WH
EREAS, on September 19, 2016, the Vintage Park General Development Plan on the 57-acre portion of Vintage Park was amended to decrease the allowable 250,000 square footage of office to allowable 250,000 laboratory space in the south campus portion for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus Master (APNs: 094-122-050; -060;-070; -080; -110; -120; -130; - 140; -150; 094-901-290; -300; -310; -340; -370; -380; -390; -400; -410; 094-904-040; 130; 094- 901-250; -260; -270; -280; -350; -360; 094-902-060; -070; -090; -120; -130; -140; 094-903-040; 094-904-290; -300; -31 O; -320; -330; -340;_094-905-040; -050; -060; -070; -080; -090; 123-400- 01 O; - 020; -030; -040; -050; -060; 070; -080; -090; -100; -110; -120; -130; -140; -150; -160; - 170; -180; -190; and 200) (Ordinance No. 601, RZ-16-001); and DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
465
Resolution No. P- 21 -22
EA2022-0001
-2-
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016 , as part of Ordinance 601, the City of Foster City has adopted an Addendum No. 2 to the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan FSEIR and determined there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2012 FSEIR and addenda thereto (Addendum No. 2); and
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2020, by Resolution P-05-20, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044) for the construction of 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way and approved Addendum No. 3 to the FSEIR with findings that there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2012 FSEIR and addenda thereto; and
W
HEREAS, on February 4, 2021, by Resolution P- 03-21, the Planning Comm ission approved a Use Permit ( UP2019-0044) for the construction of an approximately 5.42- acre private park with landscaped outdoor amenities and gathering space for its employees (“Gilead Park”) and approved Addendum No. 4 to the FSEIR with findings that there are no substantial project changes or impacts identified and disclosed beyond those approved in the 2012 FSEIR and addenda thereto; and
W
HEREAS, on February 4, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a Use Permit (UP2019-0044, Resolution No. P -03-21) for the con struction of an approximately 5.42- acre private park with landscaped outdoor amenities and gathering space for its employees (“Gilead Park”), within the Vintage Park GDP area that was designated for Buildings 305 and 307 within the original Master Plan;
W
HEREAS, in 2022, Gilead Sciences Inc. has requested to amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan (GDP) to decrease the allowable office square footage by 250,000 square feet and increase the allowable laboratory space footage by 250,000 square feet for the South Campus portion of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan; W
HEREAS, the City of Foster City, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resou rces Code S ections 21000 et seq.) and implementing guidelines adopted by the Secretary of Resources, and the City of Foster City Environmental Review Guidelines, the City of Foster City has prepared a memorandum to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed change to the GDP to reallocate square footage on the Gilead Campus by decreasing office space by 250,000 square feet and increasing laboratory space by 250,000 square feet and the change in the park from a temporary use to a permanent use to and determine whether the analysis in the memorandum adequately addresses the potential impacts resulting from the proposed GDP amendment; and W
HEREAS, the memorandum concluded that there are no substantial project changes, no substantial changes in the project circumstance s and no new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2012 FSEIR was certified that would result in any new significant effects or any increase i n the s everity of a previously identified significant effect and that none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the State CEQA Guidelines calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR had occurred and therefore the City of Foste r City deemed the memorandum an addendum to the F SEIR, prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Foster City Environmental Review Guidelines (Addendum No. 5); and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
466
Resolution No. P- 21 -22
EA2022-0001
-3-
WHEREAS, full public involvement in the review of the proposed application has been ensured through duly noticed Planning Commission Study Sessions, public hearings and other means, including the following:
1. C
ity Council Development Project Preliminary Review meeting took place on October 17, 2022 to introduce the proposed project to the City Council and the public and receive feedback prior to initiating the entitlement process.
2. Planning Commission Public Hearing on December 1, 2022 to consider and make recommendations to t he City C ouncil regarding adoption of the Addendum and Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment of the Vintage Park General Development Plan where the item was continued to December 15, 2022.
W
HEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly posted, published, and m ailed for consideration of the Environmental Assessment at the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2022, and on said date the Public Hearing was opened, held and closed; and W
HEREAS, in connection with the proposed GDP Amendment and the P lanning Commission’s review of Addendum No. 5 , the Planning Commission has independently reviewed all of the CEQA documents in the record and has exercised its independent judgment in making the findings and determinations set forth herein.
NO
W, THEREFORE, BE I T RESOLVED that the Plan ning Commission, based on the facts and analysis in the Staff Report, written and oral testimony, and other evidence on the record of proceedings, recommends that the City Council finds as follows:
1. That
Addendum No. 5 attached hereto and hereinafter incorporated by reference wa s pr
epared in compliance with the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines, and
2. That
, based upon the evidence submitted and as demonstrated by the analysis included i
n Addendum No. 5, none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation fo r a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred, specifically:
a. N
o substantial changes have been made to the Project that require maj or rev
isions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and
b. N
o substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken that require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase i
n the severity of previously identified impacts; and
c. N
o new information received by the City of significance impor tance w hich was not known previously and could not, with the exercise of reasonable due diligence now or at the time the F SEIR was certified, been known that woul d
s
how that: (a) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in t he FSEIR; (b) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than as shown in the F SEIR; (c) that mitigation m
easures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be f
easible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the P
roject, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; or (d) that DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
467
Resolution No. P- 21 -22
EA2022-0001
-4-
mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the FSEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; and
BE IT FUR
THER RESOLVED that, pursuant to t he above findings, the previously approved CEQA documents including the FSEIR and all previously approved Addenda, together with Ad dendum No. 5 , are adequate to serve as the required environmental document ation pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines for the purposes of analysis and consideration of the changes to the Vintage Park General Development Plan for the Gilead Scienc es Integrated Campus.
PASSED A
ND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster Cit y at a Regular Meeting thereof held on December 15, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky, Haddad, Venkat, and Chair Adams NOE
S, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAI
N, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Jagtiani
_____________________
EVAN A. ADAMS, CHAIR
ATT
EST:
________________________________
MARLENE SUBHASHINI, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
468
Resolution No. P- 21 -22
EA2022-0001
-5-
E
XHIBIT A
A
DDENDUM NO. 5
TO
SU
BSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FO
R
G
ILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
469
Memorandum
DATE December 9, 2022
TO
Thai-Chau Le
Planning Manager
Community Development Dept.
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
Sent via email: [email protected]
FROM
Curtis Banks, Principal Planner
Arly Cassidy Dolbakian, Sr. Planner
510.251.8210
[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
RE: CEQA Compliance for the Proposed Amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan for the Integrated Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan (SCH # 2008122064)
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum, prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, is an Addendum (Addendum No. 5) to the certified 2012 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse # 2008122064 (2012 SEIR) and addenda thereto. This memorandum includes an assessment of changes proposed to the Gilead Sciences Master Plan (General Development Plan) since certification of the 2012 SEIR and addenda thereto. As discussed in this memorandum, the proposed project changes would not result in new or more significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Final 2012 SEIR, nor are any new mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed, disclosed, and approved identified as necessary.
The City is in receipt of an application dated August 9, 2022 to amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan (GDP) to reallocate 250,000 square feet of office space to laboratory space on the South Campus of the Master Plan. Specifically, the proposed amendment would shift the remaining unbuilt 204,495 square feet of office allocation to laboratory use and would reclassify 45,505 square feet of existing office space for future redevelopment as laboratory use
1. No change
to the maximum allowed square footage for the South Campus or the entire Campus allowed under 1 The existing 45,505 SF of office space will remain until it is redeveloped as laboratory in the future. In each area of analysis in this memo, the more impactful option was considered.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
470
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
the GDP or the Development Agreement is proposed. In addition, as part of this proposed GDP amendment, Gilead is seeking to establish the recently constructed Gilead Park, which was permitted as a temporary, limited-duration use with a Use Permit (UP2020-0035), approved by the City on February 4, 2021 as a permanent use under the GDP. The proposed changes are collectively referred to as the “2022 Project Modifications.”
T
his Memorandum is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states: “The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”2 Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the pre
vious EIR or negative declaration 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 the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involved of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was no known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
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 thos e
an
alyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant 2 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15164.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
471
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.3
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the 2022 Project Modifications and based on the analysis in this Memorandum, has concluded that the proposed Modifications are not substantial, there are no substantial changes to circumstances under which the project will be undertaken, no new information of substantial importance that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect, or the need for any new or considerably different mitigation measures. Therefore, under CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, no further environmental review is required. The 2012 SEIR adequately addresses the environmental effects of the 2022 Project Modifications and the City does not need to prepare a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR to satisfy the environmental review requirements of CEQA for purposes of the 2022 Project Modifications. The 2022 Project Modifications (a reallocation of office to laboratory square footage and Gilead Park becoming a permanent use in the South Campus) constitute a minor refinement of the 2012 Master Plan and this minor refinement would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those already identified in the 2012 SEIR.
The discussion below provides: (1) an overview of the Master Plan Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus (2012 Master Plan) approvals and 2012 SEIR; (2) a discussion of the project changes resulting from the 2022 Project Modifications; and (3) an analysis concluding that the 2022 Project Modifications fall within the scope of the 2012 SEIR and do not require preparation of subsequent or supplemental environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163.
B. PRIOR PROJECT APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 16, 2010, the City Council certified the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2010 EIR) to increase the allowed square footage of a ±40-acre portion of the Gilead Campus (known as the “South Campus”) from 629,154 square feet of building space to 1,200,480 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory and office space, structured and at- grade parking and supporting facilities. In addition to certifying the 2010 EIR, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 554 approving an amendment to the Vintage Park GDP, and Ordinance No. 556, entering into a Development Agreement between the City of Foster City, the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the permitting and construction of up to 1,200,480 square feet for the Corporate Campus.
4 On November 29, 2011, Gilead submitted the 2012 Master Plan proposal to amend the 2010 Master Plan and the Vintage Park GDP to integrate the approved South Campus mentioned above with an additional approximately 32 acres (known as the “North Campus”) acquired from Electronics for Imaging (EFI) adjacent to the South Campus for a maximum campus build out of 2,500,600 square feet on approximately 73 acres. The 2012 Master Plan proposed redeveloping portions of the
3 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15162.
4 City of Foster City, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2010. Development Agreement. p.
2. March 31.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
472
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
approximately 73-acre project site, including demolition of up to 12 of the existing office and laboratory buildings, and construction of up to 17 new buildings. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a total of up to 22 office and laboratory buildings (comprising approximately 2,500,600 square feet of interior space) and 6,050 parking stalls on the project site.5 The 2012 SEIR prepared for the 2012 Master Plan in accordance with CEQA found that the 2012 Master Plan would result in five significant and unavoidable impacts and all other impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level with implementation of the identified mitigation measures included in the SEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).6 The five significant and unavoidable impacts from the 2012 SEIR are associated with project-related traffic that would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment (NOI-3), air quality impacts related to project operations (AIR-2, AIR-3, and AIR-6), and a conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (PLAN-1).
On October 21, 2013, the City Council certified the 2012 SEIR (SCH No. 2008122064), and approved the 2012 Master Plan and the Amended Vintage Park GDP/Rezoning along with the MMRP on November 4, 2013 (Ordinance No. 576). On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOI-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met.
On March 30, 2016, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to reallocate 250,000 square feet of floor area in the South Campus from office space to laboratory space, while staying within the 2,500,600 square feet maximum campus buildout. Addendum No.2 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this reallocation and was approved by the City Council on August 15, 2016.
On December 19, 2019, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish 308 surface parking spaces and build a new 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way. Addendum No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this new use and was approved by the City Council on May 7, 2020.
On October 5, 2020, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park. Gilead pursued the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years), under the condition that a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment would be required for the park to remain long-term. Addendum No.4 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this reallocation and was approved by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2021.
C. PROJECT CHANGES
On August 9, 2022, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to reduce the total amount of office space permitted in the South Campus and increase the amount of laboratory space while staying within the maximum campus build-out of 2,500,600 square feet, as well as to maintain the existing
5 Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2013. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. November 14. 6 LSA Associates, Inc., 2012. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
473
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
temporary park as a permanent use. Table 1 illustrates the proposed changes to the GDP, including square footage amounts approved originally and in 2016, and now proposed.
Table 1: Proposed Gilead Campus Square Footage Parameters
SOUTH CAMPUS ORIGINAL GDP
MAXIMUM
SQUARE FEET
AMENDED GDP
MAXIMUM
SQUARE FEET
PROPOSED GDP
MAXIMUM
SQUARE FEET
Office 500,000 250,000 0 (zero)*
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory
953,000 1,203,000 1,453,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse
5,100 5,100 5,100
Total South Campus 1,458,100 1,458,100 1,458,100
NORTH CAMPUS
Office 1,024,000 1,024,000 1,024,000
Materials Storage/Warehouse 18,500 18,500 18,500
Total North Campus 1,042,500 1,042,500 1,042,500
INTEGRATED CAMPUS
Office 1,524,000 1,274,000 1,024,000
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 1,203,000 1,453,000 Materials Storage/Warehouse 23,600 23,600 23,600
Total Campus 2,500,600 2,500,600 2,500,600
* The proposed amendment would reclassify 45,505 square feet of existing office space for future redevelopment as laboratory use. In each area of analysis in this memo, the more impactful option was considered.
The key project revisions considered in this analysis are whether (1) the reallocation of 250,000 square feet of floor area from office space to laboratory space (including 45,505 square feet of existing office, to be redeveloped as laboratory); and (2) the continued and permanent use of Gilead Park, would result in any new or substantially greater impacts. The analysis considers that the proposed reallocation of square footage would not result in any net changes to the approved buildout for the GDP amendment of up to 1,458,100 square feet in the South Campus and up to 2,500,600 square feet in the Total Campus. The analysis also considers that the continuation of the temporary park as a permanent use will not result in any net changes to the approved buildout for the GDP.
The proposed reallocation of square footage in the GDP amendment and permanent park use would not result in a net change of total square footage for the entire 2012 Master Plan site over what was analyzed in the 2012 SEIR. The conditions of approval and the 2012 SEIR support a maximum campus build-out of 2,500,600 square feet. As discussed below in Section D, the modified laboratory and office space and permanent park use do not constitute as substantial changes to the project evaluated in the SEIR that would require major revisions to the certified 2012 SEIR, because of a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
474
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
D. ANALYSIS
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the requested 2022 Project Modifications consisting of the proposed GDP Amendment and found that there are no substantial project changes, are no substantial changes in the project circumstances, or new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2012 SEIR was certified. Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required. 7, 8, 9 Each environmental topic assessed under CEQA and in the 2012 SEIR was considered, including Land Use; Visual Quality; Population, Employment, and Housing; Geology, Seismicity, and Soils; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Transportation and Circulation; Noise; Air Quality; Public Services, Utilities, Recreation; and Global Climate Change.
The 2022 Project Modifications will be required to comply with the 2012 SEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as a Condition of Approval along with all the Conditions adopted as a part of Ordinance No. 576. As discussed below, there are no new impacts or more substantially more severe impacts or the need for new or different mitigation measures not already identified and analyzed in the 2012 SEIR that would result due to project changes, new information, or changed circumstances.
Transportation and Circulation, Air Quality, and Water Supply/Demand analyses and findings are described below as these are the three topics most likely affected by project changes, changed circumstances, and/or new information.
1. Transportation and Circulation
The 2012 SEIR identified five significant impacts related to transportation and circulation that would exceed thresholds of significance based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable standards recognized by Foster City, San Mateo, and C/CAG in place in 2012. In summary, the SEIR found that the 2012 Master Plan would: (1) increase vehicle delay by more than 4 seconds at the intersection of Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue, which was already operating at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) during the AM peak hour under cumulative conditions; (2) cause the freeway segment of eastbound SR 92 between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard to degrade from acceptable LOS E to unacceptable LOS F during the AM peak hour under cumulative conditions; (3) disrupt the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and the North Foster City shuttle by closing Lakeside Drive; (4) add ridership demand to shuttles that are over capacity; and (5) interfere with circulation patterns during construction activities.
7 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 21166.
8 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15162.
9 California, State of, 1999. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 15164.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
475
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
The 2012 SEIR determined that after implementation of mitigation measures, all five impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation measures included: (1) implementing a Transportation Demand Management Plan; (2) rerouting shuttles to avoid the closed-off portion of Lakeside Drive; (3) contributing to the expansion of existing shuttle services or providing new shuttle services to local transit hubs, such as the East Hillsdale Caltrain Station and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station; and (4) developing and submitting a construction management plan for City approval that specifies measures that would reduce impacts to motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation.
It is noted that at the time of the Gilead Campus EIR in 2012, transportation impacts were determined based on intersection LOS and delay. Since that time SB 743 was passed and Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) is now the indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. Vehicle delay and level of service are no longer allowed as CEQA significant thresholds, but jurisdictions may consider such effects independent of CEQA as part of the project merits. Therefore, to determine if there would be any new significant impacts using the current methodology and guidelines for transportation impacts under CEQA, VMT was relied upon for the proposed GDP amendment. However, the City did have the applicant prepare a supplemental traffic analysis that addresses both LOS (for informational purposes) and VMT for purposes of this CEQA analysis. The supplemental traffic analysis dated August 5, 2022 was prepared by Kimley-Horn and is provided as Attachment A.
In the context of LOS, which is provided as an informational item in this memorandum, the Kimley- Horn analysis concluded that because a laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate per building square footage than an office land use, the proposed GDP amendment would generate fewer trips than previously planned for the South Campus. The analysis was completed using the following trip generation rates, determined by a trip generation study completed in 2012:
10 • General Office = 1.28 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.29 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (General Office Building) comparison: 1.52 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.44 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour) • Laboratory = 0.33 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.47 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Research and Development Center) comparison: 1.03 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.98 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour) Reallocating 250,000 square feet of floor area from office to laboratory use generated 194 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 158 fewer vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. This is because the laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate in the AM peak hour and PM peak hour than the general office land use. The traffic analysis concluded that since the proposed GDP amendment would result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips generated than was identified in the Gilead Campus EIR, the proposed GDP amendment would not result in additional significant impacts than previously identified. The location of the land use change would be contained within the South Campus and therefore no changes to the directionality of the vehicle trips at any of the previous
10 LSA Associates, Inc., 2012. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
476
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
study intersections would occur. More specifically, there would be no redistribution of vehicles from the Gilead Master Plan at the intersections of Mariners Island Boulevard/Reef Drive or the intersections along Vintage Park Drive adjacent to the Gilead campus.
The following is provided as an excerpt from the traffic analysis, regarding VMT:
The City has not adopted a VMT methodology and threshold thus far. Per other approved transportation impact analysis studies, the VMT evaluation is based on the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. This document is typically used as a reference for local agencies within California who have not adopted their own VMT methodology or thresholds. For this project, since it is an application to swap allowable office building area for allowable laboratory building area, the relevant OPR guidelines would be:
Redevelopment Projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than- significant transportation impact.11
Based on this criterion, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact because the proposed project would result in a net overall decrease in VMT. VMT is evaluated on a daily basis and is the product of daily vehicle trips multiplied by trip distances. As shown in the project trip generation section above, the proposed GDP amendment would result in 594 fewer daily trips. The vehicle trip distances are assumed to be the same between an office land use and a laboratory land use. Each use would be considered service employment uses and therefore would have the same trip distances within a travel demand model. Since the number of daily vehicle trips decrease and the trip distances remain the same, the proposed GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT. Therefore, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact.
In summary, the 2022 Project Modifications would not result in any new significant transportation impacts or a substantial increase or severity of a previously identified significant transportation impact from those identified in the 2012 SEIR, nor are new or different mitigation measures or alternatives warranted to address potential transportation impacts.
The 2012 SEIR analyzed cumulative conditions for probable future developments and select roadway improvements. In addition, cumulative traffic volumes included traffic due to occupancy of vacant buildings and approved but not yet constructed developments. Since conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to transportation and circulation.
11 California, State of, 2018. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
477
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
2. Air Quality
The 2012 SEIR found that operations under the 2012 Master Plan would generate long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants primarily associated with mobile emissions that would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) project-level thresholds of significance.12 As a result, operation of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants that would contribute substantially to existing air quality violations in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and conflict with implementation of the BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan.13 After implementation of mitigation measures to reduce mobile emissions of criteria pollutants, the 2012 SEIR found these air quality impacts remained significant and unavoidable because of the overall size of the project. The 2012 SEIR found that potential impacts to sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants during construction and/or operation of potential future backup diesel generators under the 2012 Master Plan could be reduced to a less-than-significant level with mitigation. The 2012 SEIR also found that the uses proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan are similar to existing uses and are not expected to produce any offensive odors.
Emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants during construction of the proposed project would be similar to the emissions evaluated as part of the 2012 Master Plan. Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, implementation of best management practices during construction (Mitigation Measures AIR-1) to reduce potential impacts to regional air quality and preparation of a health risk assessment to demonstrate how construction emissions would not pose a significant health risk to nearby sensitive receptors (Mitigation Measures AIR-4) would reduce potential impacts during construction to a less-than-significant level.
Any back-up diesel generators for the proposed laboratory facilities would generate emissions of diesel-particulate matter that could pose a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. In accordance with the BAAQMD’s Regulation 2-5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants), the BAAQMD does not issue permits for generators that would result in an excess cancer risk greater than 10 in one million or an acute or chronic Hazard Index greater than 1.0. 14 Furthermore, Mitigation
Measure AIR-5 requires preparation of a health risk assessment for any generators proposed within 500 feet of a residence to demonstrate that the health risks do not exceed the following levels:
· Increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million; · Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic or acute); · Ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) concentration increase greater than 0.3 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) annual average;
· Increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million from all sources within 1,000 feet; · Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic) from all sources within 1,000 feet; or
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. p. 2-3. May.
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15. 14 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2021. Regulation 2, Rule 5: New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants.
December 15.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
478
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
· Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 μg/m3 annual average from all sources within 1,000 feet.
Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, compliance with Mitigation Measure AIR-5, would reduce potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors from generators to a less-than-significant level.
Since the 2022 Project Modifications would not change the type of land uses that were evaluated as part of the 2012 Master Plan (and these did not include land uses associated with odor generation), the 2022 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant impact on people related to the generation of offensive odors.
As explained above, the proposed transfer of capacity between office to laboratory space would result in a net decrease in vehicle trip generation. As a result, emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with mobile sources would be expected to decrease with the 2022 Project Modifications.
Although the proposed reallocation of floor area from office to laboratory space would reduce criteria pollutant emissions from mobile sources and incorporate measures from a Transportation Demand Management Program, as described under Mitigation Measures AIR-2, AIR-3, and AIR-6, the criteria air pollutant emissions associated with the 2022 Project Modifications are conservatively considered to remain significant and unavoidable.
To ensure that the 2022 Project Modifications would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2012 SEIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which includes all Mitigation Measures identified in the 2012 SEIR, will be imposed as conditions of approval, including all Mitigation Measures concerning air quality. The 2022 Project Modifications do not include any changes that would result in new or intensify already-identified impacts on air quality and therefore no new or different mitigation measures are required.
Since the 2012 SEIR evaluated implementation of the 2012 Master Plan under cumulative conditions as well as the project’s conformance with the BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, and conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to air quality.
15 3. Water Supply/ Demand
According to the 2012 Water Supply Assessment (2012 WSA, Attachment B) conducted for the proposed 2012 Master Plan16 and other major projects in Foster City, the 2012 Master Plan would result in approximately 206 acre feet of additional water demand per year (AFY). Taking into account major anticipated development projects within the EMID service area, including the 2012 Master Plan, the 2012 SEIR found that EMID would have a sufficient water supply to meet expected
15 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September 15. 16 Foster City, City of, 2013. Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. November 14.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
479
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
demand. The expected water supply surplus was expected to range from 582 AFY in 2015 to 320 AFY in 2030.
The most recent data on current water use by the Gilead Campus comes from water use data gathered by the City of Foster City and EMID, and shows that 2020 was Gilead’s heaviest water use year in the past decade, just ahead of 2019, as described in Table 2, Total Water Use for Gilead Campus, by Year, below. Although the COVID-19 pandemic caused many companies to temporarily shut down or shift to working from home, Gilead developed the first antiviral drug approved to treat COVID-19; as a result, Gilead’s water use was not reduced in 2020 as may have been expected.
While 2020 water use was higher due to Gilead’s work on the antiviral drug, 2019 and 2022 (which is missing data only for December) both show water use close to 2020’s. Therefore, to be conservative, this analysis uses the highest past year of water use, which is 2020, at 119.70 AFY.
Table 2: Total Water Use for Gilead Campus, by Year
Year AFY
2011 35.16
2012 36.38
2013 55.68
2014 55.58
2015 66.14
2016 89.47
2017 91.81
2018 96.52
2019 115.78
2020 119.70
2021 91.92
2022 113.93*
Source: Utility consumption data from Foster City
* 20
22 is missing data for December.
Th
e year 2020 is used as a baseline for square footage of development as well, comparing the square footage already built to the Master Plan as a whole, in order to calculate what has yet to be constructed, and what the water needs are for that future square footage. In 2020, the existing square footage on the ground was 664,029 square feet of office and 1,901,321 square feet of lab across the entire campus. The expected growth, or anticipated construction to reach full buildout, is calculated by subtracting existing square feet from permitted, to reach unbuilt/expected square feet, as described in the Current Unbuilt column in Table 3: Unbuilt Square Footage on the Gilead Campus, Current and Proposed, below.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
480
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
Table 3: Unbuild Square Footage on the Gilead Campus, Current and Proposed Current Unbuilt SF Proposed Unbuilt SF
Office 1,274,000 – 664,029 = 609,971 - 250,000 = 359,971 Lab 1,203,000 – 1,091,321 = 111,679 + 250,000 = 361,679
The 2022 Project Modifications would reallocate 250,000 square feet from office to lab use, which would shift the unbuilt/expected square feet numbers for office from 609,971 to 359,971 and for lab from 111,679 to 361,679 square feet, as shown above in the Proposed Unbuilt column on the right of Table 3, above. Recent water use data from existing Gilead buildings show that laboratory uses use an average of 25 gallons/year/square feet of lab, and office uses use an average of 13 gallons/year/ square feet of office. Multiplying these numbers by the unbuilt square footage under the new proposal, above, brings us to the water needs for the proposed reallocation, namely:
Office: 13 g/y/SF x 359,971 SF ÷ 325,851 gallons/AFY = 14.36 AFY for proposed unbuilt office Lab: 25 g/y/SF x 361,679 SF ÷ 325,851 gallons/AFY = 27.75 AFY for proposed unbuilt lab Adding these two numbers for unbuilt square footage amounts under the new proposal to the existing water use from 2020 and subtracting out demand from buildings to be demolished gives us the total water use for the Gilead Campus under the new proposal:
14.36 AFY (proposed unbuilt office) + 27.75 AFY (proposed unbuilt lab) + 119.70 AFY (2020) – 4.5 AFY (demand from buildings to be demolished) = 157.31 AFY proposed water use As discussed above, the 2012 WSA shows that the 2012 Master Plan would result in approximately 206 AFY of additional demand. The sum above shows that the current proposal would result in a proposed campus water use of 157.31 AFY, which is 48.69 AFY less than the previously predicted 206 AFY. Foster City does not currently have a defined threshold of significance for water use; in its absence, the previously approved amount of water use (206 AFY) can act as the threshold of significance; any proposed use above this amount the City is conservatively considering as a significant impact. The 2022 Project Modifications do not cause total water use for the Gilead Campus to exceed the 206 AFY amount, therefore, there is no new impact.
Further, in an effort to reduce its water impacts, Gilead is upgrading its irrigation systems campus- wide with drip and micro-spray systems, which lowers water use by 70% from previous methods.
Gilead is also making an effort to replace turf campus-wide and is in the process of replacing 100,000 square feet of turf with drought tolerant plants.
Because Gilead’s proposed campus water use is less than 206 AFY, the 2022 Project Modifications would not represent a significant increase in water demand and would be within the anticipated supply capabilities of EMID. The 2022 Project Modifications would not lead to insufficient water supplies in existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements, and would not result in new or more severe impact with respect to water supply/demand.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
481
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
Since the 2012 SEIR found that the 2012 Mater Plan would not make a significant contribution to a cumulative water shortage and conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to public services and utilities.
4. Gilead Park
In 2020, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park, keeping the total of 5,271 parking space on site. Gilead pursued the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years), under the condition that a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment would be required for the park to remain long-term. Now, as part of the currently proposed GDP amendment, Gilead would like to make the park use permanent.
The 2021 Use Permit and GDP amendment were to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park (workspace plaza), including a private park, amphitheater, gardens, and ancillary parking (29 spaces). The project area consisted of two parcels, totaling 236,126 square feet (5.35 acres) which were merged into a single parcel, and park construction has been fully completed. As part of the application review, Addendum 4 to the 2012 Master Plan analyzed the potential impacts of the park as a permanent park and use on-site. The Addendum 4 concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2012 SEIR (Attachment C). Therefore, the 2022 Project Modifications would not result in new or more severe impact with respect to land use.
Since the 2012 SEIR found that the 2012 Mater Plan would not make a change to land use and conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed, there is no new information or change in circumstances that would trigger new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effect with respect to public services and utilities.
E. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the 2022 Project Modifications do not trigger the need to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA Section 21166 or CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163. Specifically, there are no substantial changes proposed in or with respect to the circumstances under which the 2022 Project Modifications will be undertaken, and there is no other relevant new information of substantial importance, which will require any major revisions to the 2012 SEIR. Thus, no further environmental review is required and in considering approval of the 2022 Project Modifications, the City should rely on the previously certified 2012 SEIR. The following discussion summarizes the reasons why no supplemental or subsequent CEQA review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and the City can rely on the previously certified EIR:
Substantial Changes to the Project. The proposed shift in maximum square footage permitted for office and laboratory space in the 2012 Master Plan proposed by the 2022 Project Modifications, would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase or severity of a previously identified significant impact from those identified in the 2012 SEIR. As discussed above, the 2022 DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
482
Thai-Chau Le
December 9, 2022
Project Modifications would result in net reduction in vehicle trips and therefore a net reduction in emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with mobile sources. The 2022 Project Modifications would not result in any increase in water demand. The current demand can be met by the City’s projected water supply even in drought conditions and would not lead to insufficient water supplies in existing entitlements and resources, or require new or expanded entitlements. Therefore, the proposed changes included in 2022 Project Modifications are considered minor refinements, not substantial changes.
Project Circumstances. Since certification of the 2012 SEIR, conditions in the 2012 Master Plan area have not substantially changed and thus implementation of the 2022 Project Modifications would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects already identified in the 2012 SEIR. No substantial changes in noise levels, air quality, traffic, or other conditions have occurred within and around the 2012 Master Plan Campus site since certification of the EIR.
New I
nformation . At the time of the Gilead Campus EIR in 2012, transportation impacts were determined based on intersection LOS and delay, and not VMT. With the passage of SB 743, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. However, since the number of daily vehicle trips decrease and the trip distances remain the same, the proposed GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT. Therefore, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact, and would not trigger the New Information clause of CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162, as described below.
No 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 2012 SEIR was certified, has been identified which is expected to result in: (1) new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of environmental effects already identified in the EIR; or (2) mitigation measures or alternatives which were previously determined to be infeasible would in fact be feasible, or which are considerably different from those recommended in the 2012 SEIR, and which would substantially reduce significant effects of the project, but the project applicant declines to adopt them.
Consequently, there are no substantial project changes, no substantial changes in the project circumstances, and no new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the certified 2012 SEIR, because of a new significant effect or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. Under CEQA section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15162 and 15163, no further environmental review is required. Thus, in considering approval of the 2022 Project Modifications, the City should rely on the previously certified 2012 SEIR.
Attachment A: Kimley Horn Transportation Memorandum
Attachment B: 2012 Water Supply Assessment
Attachment C: Addendum 4 – CEQA Compliance for Proposed Gilead New Park DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
483
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 August 5, 2022
Ms. Mi Yang
Gilead Sciences, Inc. – Campus Planning
353 Vintage Park Drive
Foster City, CA 94404
RE: Gilead Sciences, Inc. –GDP Amendment Application – Traffic Analysis Dear Ms. Yang:
Gilead Sciences, Inc. is applying for a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment to increase the site’s allowable laboratory space by 250,000 square feet (SF) and decrease the site’s allowable office space by 250,000 square feet. The proposed amendment would transfer the remaining unbuilt 204,495 square feet of office square footage designated in the Integrated Master Plan (IMP) South Campus to laboratory square footage. The current GDP allows a maximum of 250,000 SF of office within the South Campus. Within the 250,000 SF of designated office use, 204,495 SF is unbuilt while the remaining 45,505 SF is currently occupied by two office buildings on site: B331 and B335.
Gilead would like the flexibility to allow the 45,505 SF to be either utilized as laboratory or office once they are redeveloped. Therefore, this traffic letter prepared for this proposed modification assumes these buildings remain as office to provide the most conservative analysis, but would still cover the traffic analysis if this square footage is converted to laboratory as determined by business needs. The analysis will only show the shift of 204,495 SF of office to 204,495 SF of laboratory to be conservative. This change would occur in the South Campus of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Campus. This task is to review the effect of the GDP amendment on the nearby transportation network. The factors that were considered include vehicle trip generation, effect on nearby intersections, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and parking.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Kimley-Horn performed an analysis of the effects of the proposed GDP amendment on square footage allowance, trip generation, level of service for surrounding intersections, and parking.
As provided by Gilead, Table 1 summarizes the approved and proposed land uses and intensities with and without the proposed GDP amendment.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
484
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Table 1 – Current Gilead Campus Square Footage Summary
Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
Area Built
or Planned
(SF)
Area
Remaining
(SF)
250,000 45,505 204,495
1,203,000 1,091,321 111,679
5,100 - 5,100
1,458,100 1,136,826 321,274
1,024,000 618,524 405,476
18,500 - 18,500
1,042,500 618,524 423,976
1,274,000 664,029 609,971
1,203,000 1,091,321 111,679
23,600 - 23,600
2,500,600 1,755,350 745,250
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
Use
SOUTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
NORTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
INTEGRATED SOUTH AND NORTH CAMPUS
Office
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total M ax imum SF for Integrated M aster Plan
LAND USE COMPARISON
Gilead has proposed an amendment to the GDP that would reduce the maximum office square footage by 204,495 square feet for the South Campus and increase the maximum laboratory square footage by 204,495 square feet. Table 2 shows the updated square footage summary with the proposed changes to the allowed areas in the South Campus and the entire Integrated Campus.
Table 2 – Proposed Gilead Campus Square Footage Summary Current
Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
Proposed
Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
Δ Max Area
Allowed
(SF)
250,000 45,505 (204,495)
1,203,000 1,407,495 204,495
5,100 5,100 -
1,458,100 1,458,100 -
1,024,000 1,024,000 -
18,500 18,500 -
1,042,500 1,042,500 -
1,274,000 1,069,505 (204,495)
1,203,000 1,407,495 204,495
23,600 23,600 -
2,500,600 2,500,600 -
Office
Use
SOUTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Total M ax imum SF for Integrated M aster Plan
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
NORTH CAMPUS SQUARE FOOTAGE
Office
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
Total Maximum SF Subtotal
INTEGRATED SOUTH AND NORTH CAMPUS
Office
Laboratory
M aterials Storage/Warehouse
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
485
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 With the proposed GDP amendment, the planned square footages would not result in an increase in overall maximum square footage for the South Campus or the Integrated Campus. It should be noted that a laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate per square footage of building than an office land use. This will be discussed further in the trip generation section.
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION
The number of anticipated project trips for the Gilead Campus was determined from the trip generation study that was done previously for theGilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR1 (Gilead Campus EIR). This previous study determined that the trip generation characteristics for the existing Gilead land uses differed from the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) trip generation numbers. Since a study was specifically done for the Gilead campus, which captures the unique travel patterns of Gilead’s and this proposed project, these rates were used instead of the ITE trip generation rates.
The site-specific trip generation rates are as listed:
· General Office = 1.28 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.29 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour (ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (General Office Building) comparison: 1.52 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 1.44 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour)
· Laboratory = 0.33 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.47 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour
(ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition (Research and Development Center) comparison: 1.03 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the AM peak hour and 0.98 vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet in the PM peak hour)
Using the site-specific trip generation rates, the anticipated number of project trips for the existing GDP and the proposed GDP amendment are shown inTable 3. 1 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR, LSA Associates, Inc., December 2012
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
486
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Table 3 – Existing GDP and Proposed GDP Amendment Trip Generation Summary Rate Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Rate In:Out In Out Total Office 1,274.0 11.01 14,027 1.28 88:12 1,433 199 1,632 1.29 14:86 227 1,417 1,644 Laboratory 1,203.0 8.11 9,757 0.33 73:27 290 110 400 0.47 26:74 149 411 560 Materials Storage/Warehouse 23.6 4.53 107 0.51 83:17 10 2 12 0.46 27:73 3 8 11 Subtotal 2,500.6 23,891 1,733 311 2,044 379 1,836 2,215 Office 1,069.5 11.01 11,775 1.28 88:12 1,203 167 1,370 1.29 14:86 190 1,189 1,379 Laboratory 1,407.5 8.11 11,415 0.33 73:27 340 128 468 0.47 26:74 175 481 656 Materials Storage/Warehouse 23.6 4.53 107 0.51 83:17 10 2 12 0.46 27:73 3 8 11 Subtotal 2,500.6 23,297 1,553 297 1,850 368 1,678 2,046 Net Trips -594 -180 -14 -194 -11 -158 -169
Existing General Development Plan
Proposed Amendment to General Development Plan
Land Us e Size
(KSF)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourDaily
Increasing the laboratory use by 204,495 square feet and decreasing the office use by 204,495 square feet generates 594 fewer daily trips, 194 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 169 fewer vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. If the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also converted to laboratory use, this would decrease the office use in the GDP by 250,000 square feet and generate 726 fewer daily trips, 236 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 207 fewer trips in the PM peak hour. The decrease in vehicle trips for each time period are because the laboratory land use has a lower trip generation rate in the daily, AM peak hour, and PM peak hour than the general office land use. Since the proposed GDP amendment generates fewer AM and PM peak hour trips, the impacts from the traffic generated by this change in land use would be no greater than identified in the Gilead Campus EIR and therefore would be consistent with the Gilead Campus EIR results.
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON
Since the proposed GDP amendment would result in fewer AM and PM peak hour trips generated than was identified in the Gilead Campus EIR, the proposed GDP amendment would not result in additional significant impacts than previously identified. The location of the land use change would be contained within the South Campus and therefore no changes to the directionality of the vehicle trips at any of the previous study intersections would occur. More specifically, there would be no redistribution of vehicles from the Gilead Master Plan at the intersections of Mariners Island Boulevard/Reef Drive or the intersections along Vintage Park Drive adjacent to the Gilead campus.
It should also be noted that at the time of the Gilead Campus EIR in 2012, transportation impacts were determined based on intersection LOS and delay, and not VMT. With the passage of SB 743, VMT has become an important indicator for determining if a new development will result in a “significant transportation impact” under CEQA. Therefore, to determine if there would be any new significant impacts using the current methodology and guidelines for transportation impacts under CEQA, VMT was also evaluated for the proposed GDP amendment.
VMT EVALUATION
The City has not adopted a VMT methodology and threshold thus far. Per other approved transportation impact analysis studies, the VMT evaluation is based on the State of California DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
487
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA2. This document is typically used as a reference for local agencies within California who have not adopted their own VMT methodology or thresholds. For this project, since it is an application to swap allowable office building area for allowable laboratory building area, the relevant OPR guidelines would be:
Redevelopment Projects: Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.
Based on this criteria, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact because the proposed project would result in a net overall decrease in VMT. VMT is evaluated on a daily basis and is the product of daily vehicle trips multiplied by trip distances. As shown in the project trip generation section above, the proposed GDP amendment would result in 594 fewer daily trips. The vehicle trip distances are assumed to be the same between an office land use and a laboratory land use. Each use would be considered service employment uses and therefore would have the same trip distances within a travel demand model. Since the number of daily vehicle trips decrease and the trip distances remain the same, the proposed GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT. Therefore, the project would lead to a less than significant transportation impact.
PARKING COMPARISON
Parking for the GDP amendment was also reviewed. Per the Gilead Campus EIR, the parking ratios for each land use are:
· Laboratory use: a parking space per 833 square feet, or 1.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet
· Office use: a parking space per 250 square feet, or 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet Additionally, the City established minimum parking requirements based on 85% building efficiency, and a 15% transportation demand management (TDM) reduction per the approved GDP. The parking required for the additional allowed laboratory building area, but reduction in allowed office building area, is shown in Table 4. This GDP amendment would result in requiring 413 fewer parking spaces, and 506 fewer parking spaces if the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also converted to laboratory use, because a laboratory use has a lower parking requirement than for an office use.
2 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, December 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
488
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 Table 4 – Parking Summary
Land Use
Parking Ratio
(s paces per
1,000 SF)
Change in Area
Allowed including
Existing Office
(s quare feet)1
Required Parking
Spaces with 15%
TDM Reduction
per Approved GDP
Change in Area
Allowed
Converting all
Office to
Laboratory
(s quare feet)1
Parking
Spaces
Laboratory 1.2 204,495 x 0.85 178 250,000 x 0.85 217
Office 4 -204,495 x 0.85 -591 -250,000 x 0.85 -723
-413 -506
1 Assumes an 85% building efficiency to account for stairwells, common areas, etc.
Net Change
CONCLUSIONS
With the proposed GDP amendment to replace 204,495 square feet or 250,000 square feet respectively of allowable office space for 250,000 square feet of allowable laboratory space, no additional traffic or parking concerns will be expected compared to the previously approved GDP.
The factors that were considered include vehicle trip generation, effect on nearby intersections, VMT, and parking. The following is a summary of each factor:
· Trip Generation: The GDP amendment would result in 594 fewer daily trips, 194 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 169 fewer PM peak hour trips. If the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also converted to laboratory use, this would decrease the office use in the GDP by 250,000 square feet and generate 726 fewer daily trips, 236 fewer vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, and 207 fewer trips in the PM peak hour. · Intersection LOS: Since the GDP amendment would result in fewer vehicle trips generated and no changes to the directionality of the vehicle trips at any of the previous study intersections would occur due to the land use change being contained within the South Campus, the intersection LOS results identified in the Gilead Campus EIR would be no worse. Therefore, no new LOS impacts are expected with the GDP amendment compared to what was identified in the Gilead Campus EIR.
· VMT: VMT is a new measure to identify transportation impacts under CEQA that was not considered in the Certified Gilead Campus EIR. In reviewing the VMT with the GDP amendment, the VMT would not increase because the vehicles trips generated would decrease and the trip distances are expected to remain the same between the office and lab uses. Therefore, when considering the redevelopment project criteria from the OPR guidance, the GDP amendment would result in a net decrease in VMT and would lead to a less than significant transportation impact.
· Parking: This GDP amendment would result in requiring 413 fewer parking spaces, and 506 fewer parking spaces if the additional 45,505 square feet currently occupied as office is also DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
489
kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925 398 4840 converted to laboratory use, because a laboratory use has a lower parking requirement than for an office use.
Sincerely,
Ben Huie, P.E.
Project Manager
P.E. Certificate No. C76682
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
490
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 1 CITY OF FOSTER CITY
ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
GILEAD INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PROJECT
15-ACRES PROJECT
400 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD., CITY OF SAN MATEO (TIDELANDS PARK)
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
CHESS HOTEL PROJECT
CHESS/HATCH DRIVE OFFICE PROJECT
BAYSIDE TOWERS III PROJECT
VISA V PROJECT
MARINA PROJECT
UPDATED AND APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2012
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
491
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 2 WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT REPORT
FOR
GILEAD INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN PROJECT, 15-ACRES PROJECT, 400 MARINERS ISLAND BLVD., CITY OF SAN MATEO (TIDELANDS PARK) RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, CHESS HOTEL PROJECT,
CHESS/HATCH DRIVE OFFICE PROJECT, BAYSIDE TOWERS III PROJECT, VISA
V PROJECT, AND MARINA PROJECT
Executive Summary
The City of Foster City is conducting an environmental review under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project. The City of Foster City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for e ach of the proposed projects. The environmental review includes the need for an assessment of the available water supply to serve the proposed projects. The Water Supply As sessment (WSA) will provide information for use in the CEQA analysis for the pr oposed projects. The requirements for the WSA are described in the California Water C ode amended by the enactment of Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) in 2002. The SB 610 requir es an assessment of whether “total projected water supplies, available during normal, single dry and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection” will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed projects. Most of the information pres ented here in the WSA report is included in the 2010-2015 Urban Water Management Pl an (UWMP) which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Estero Mu nicipal Improvement District (EMID) in May 2011. Since the UWMP was approved, more proj ects have been proposed and demand calculations for the new projects are includ ed in this WSA to paint a comprehensive picture of system-wide supply and pro jected demand for the 20 year horizon. It is anticipated that EMID’s system-wide water demand will continue to decrease due to implementation of demand management measures described in this report.
All of the development projects are within the serv ice area of EMID. EMID has completed the WSA based on the land use proposed fo r the projects listed below. The analysis concluded that EMID will have sufficient w ater supply to serve all of the proposed projects as well as existing customers in 20-year horizon.
1. Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan P roject will require approximately 206 acre-feet per year (AFY) of additional water demand;
2. 15-Acres Project will require approximately 88 A FY of additional water demand;
3. 400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Ti delands Park) Residential Project will require approximately 30 AFY of additional water demand;
4. Chess Hotel Project will require approximately 1 5 AFY of additional water demand:
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
492
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 3 5. Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project will require ap proximately 36 AFY of additional water demand;
6. Bayside Towers III Project will require approxim ately 7 AFY of additional water demand;
7. VISA V Project will require approximately 2 AFY of additional water demand; and
8. Marina Project will require approximately 5 AFY of additional water demand.
Prior to issuance of the use permit, utility analys es shall be performed by the project developers to determine whether existing transmissi on/distribution infrastructure has adequate capacity to deliver the needed water to th e project sites. The costs of the improvements shall be the responsibility of the dev eloper. Furthermore, all future development projects are required to maximize the e fficient use of water by installing water saving plumbing fixtures and drought tolerant landscaping to reduce water demand.
Project Descriptions
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Proj ect: The proposed project is on approximately 73 acres of land located in Foster City, within the Vintage Park Master Planned Development, owned by Gilead Sciences, Inc. The proposed project would amend the Master Plan to redevelop the 73-acre camp us, which currently contains 17 buildings, totaling approximately 926,000 square fe et of R&D/Office Space. The Master Plan calls for demolition of up to 12 existing buil dings, and construction of up to 17 new buildings. After the projected 20 year build out pe riod of the project, the campus will have 23 buildings with a maximum build out of 2,500 ,600 square feet of R&D/Office space.
15-Acres Project: The proposed project is on approximately 15 acres of currently vacant city-owned property located in Neighborhood 1 adjacent to the Foster City Civic Center and the North Peninsula Jewish Community Cen ter. The proposed project is a senior oriented housing project consisting of approximately 196 market rate senior units, 152 assisted senior living units, 66 affordable sen ior units, 35,600 square feet of retail, 25,400 square feet of office, and 22,000 square feet of public open space.
400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidel ands Park) Residential Project:
The project is to construction a 76 unit residentia l development on vacant property located at the southwest corner of E. Third Avenue and Mariners Island Boulevard in the City of San Mateo. EMID is responsible for providing water to the project site.
Chess Hotel Project: The proposed project is on approximately 1.7 acres of land located in Foster City, within Neighborhood Vintage Park. The proposal is to replace an existing 9,385 square foot, 1-story, unoccupied res taurant with a new 69,008 square foot, 5-story, 115-room hotel. The project site is located off of Vintage Park Drive and Chess Drive at 1299 Chess Drive.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
493
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 4 Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project: The proposed project would redevelop approximately 190,000 square feet of low-scale one- and two-story commercial/industrial buildings on approximately 12 acres with up to 800,000 square feet of office use in three (3) multi-story buildin gs up to 10 stories in height served by a combination of at-grade parking lots and a parking structure. The proposed Master Plan would require the demolition of 11 existing buildings.
Bayside Towers III Project: The construction of a 92,900 square foot, four-stor y office building and six level parking garage for the Baysi de Towers Development located on approximately 16 acres of land in Foster City. The project site is located at the eastern terminus of East Third Avenue and is bordered on th e north and east by the levee/pedway and the San Francisco Bay, on the sout h by State Route 92 and the west by Lincoln Center Office Park.
Visa V Project: The proposed project will construct 8,000 square fo ot office building located on the southwest corner of the terminus of Shell Blvd. and Metro Center Boulevard on approximately 1.4 acres of land in Foster City.
Marina Project: This site, located at the terminus of Halibut Stree t on the bay side of Beach Park Blvd. has been designated as the locatio n for a Foster City Marina in the Foster City General Plan. Approximately 300 berths will be constructed on the project site.
EMID and Its Supply Source
EMID is the utility arm of the City of Foster City. EMID administers the operations and maintenance of the water distribution system for th e City of Foster City. EMID also supplies water to residents in part of the City of San Mateo (Mariner’s Island area).
EMID purchases all of its water from the San Franci sco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) as a contractual member of the Bay Area Wat er Supply Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). The SFPUC’s water system consists of thre e regional water supply and conveyance systems: the Hetch Hetchy system, the Al ameda system, and the Peninsula system. The Hetch Hetchy system is suppli ed by runoff from the upper Tuolumne River watershed on the western slope of th e central Sierra Nevada Mountains. The Alameda system includes conveyance f acilities connecting the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts and the Alameda water sources to t he Peninsula system. The Peninsula system includes water facilities that con nect the EMID and other Peninsula customers to the SFPUC distribution system and the Bay Division Pipelines. EMID does not have any groundwater or recycled water sources to supplement its supply.
EMID receives the already treated water from SFPUC and distributes it to its customers.
EMID has only one main source of water supply line, a 24-inch transmission main that is connected to SFPUC’s 54-inch Crystal Springs No. 2 line. The connection point is located in the City of San Mateo at the Crystal Springs Road. As a retailer, EMID has no direct control over its water supply.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
494
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 5 EMID has four (4) above ground water storage tanks with a total capacity of 20 million gallons for emergencies and peak demand. A booster pump station is activated to pump water from the storage tanks into the distribution system. The booster pump station has two (2) electrical pumps and three (3) engine drive pumps. The engine driven pumps are powered by natural gas with propane backup.
Emergency Connections
In addition to the 24-inch transmission main, EMID has a 12-inch connection to California Water Service Company which serves the C ity of San Mateo and a 12-inch connection to Mid-Peninsula Water Agency (formerly called Belmont County Water District) which serves the Cities of Belmont, San C arlos, and part of Redwood City.
EMID has agreements with both agencies that allow E MID to use these connections during emergency conditions. Both the California Wa ter Service Company and the Mid- Peninsula Water Agency are members of the BAWSCA.
Service Area Information with 25 Year Population Projections
EMID, serving a population of approximately 37,000 is located midway between San Francisco and San Jose. It is ten miles south of Sa n Francisco International Airport.
The service area of EMID consists of the City of Fo ster City and the Mariner’s Island area of the City of San Mateo. The majority of cust omers are residential users with a broad cross-section of offices, commercial business es, and a small number of industrial businesses.
Today, the City of Foster City is almost built-out with a number of redevelopment projects in various stages of planning. At 100 perc ent build out, the population served by EMID is expected to be approximately 39,000. Tab le 1 shows the projected population anticipated in five (5) year increments until the year 2030, as included in the UWMP. The percent increases for the population growth are also shown in the table.
Table 1
Current and Projected Population per UWMP
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Service Area
Population 36,100 37,088 37,924 38,492 38,869
% Increase 2.7 2.3 1.5 1.0
The BAWSCA has also published population projection s in the “Water Conservation Implementation Plan” that are based on ABAG Project ions from 2007. The BAWSCA population projections are slightly lower than the populations assumed in the UWMP as shown in the Table 1A.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
495
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 6 Table 1A
Current and Projected Population per BAWSCA Water Conservation Implementation Plan
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Service Area
Population 36,273 37,165 38,035 38,661 39,079
% Increase 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.1
This WSA uses the more conservative population projections contained in the UMMP.
Over the last three years, EMID has purchased an av erage of 5,232 acre-feet 1 per year
(AFY) of water from SFPUC. Table 2 shows EMID’s wat er quantities purchased from 2009 to 2011 and the annual average during those three years.
Table 2
Total Water Supply Deliveries to EMID from SFPUC during 2003 to 2007
Year Supply Deliveries (AFY)
2009 5,686
2010 5,400
2011 4,610
Annual Average (200 9 – 20 11 ) 5, 232
Contractual Water Supplies
In 1934, San Francisco combined the Hetch Hetchy sy stem and the Spring Valley system to create the SFPUC system. The rights to lo cal diversions were originally held by the Spring Valley Water Company, which was forme d in 1862. The SFPUC is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. EMID does not hold any existing water rights and all of its water supply assurances come through the contract with SFPUC. In 1984, SFPUC executed a Settlement Agreeme nt and Master Water Sales Contract (Contract) with the members of the BAWSCA. The Contract is governed by the Master Sales Agreement (MSA), which expired in June 2009. In August of 2009, BAWSCA and its member agencies signed a new Water S upply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco. The contract runs through June 30, 2034 and it guarantees a supply assurance of 184 mi llion-gallons-per-day (MGD) to BAWSCA member agencies. The supply assurance to EMID is 5.9 MGD or 6,608 AFY.
Water Supply Improvement Program
In order to enhance the ability of the SFPUC’s wate r supply system to meet identified service goals for water quality, seismic reliabilit y, delivery reliability, and water supply, the SFPUC is undertaking a Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). The WSIP
1 Acre Feet = 325,851 gallons
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
496
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 7 will deliver capital improvements aimed at enhancin g the SFPUC’s ability to meet its water service mission of providing high quality wat er to its customers in a reliable, affordable, and environmentally sustainable manner.
The origins of the WSIP are rooted in the “Water Su pply Master Plan” dated April 2000.
Planning efforts for the WSIP gained momentum in 20 02 with the passage of San Francisco ballot measures Propositions A and E, whi ch approved the financing for the water system improvements. Also in 2002, Governor G ray Davis signed Assembly Bill No. 1823, the Wholesale Regional Water System Secur ity and Reliability Act. The AB 1823 imposed various state-mandated programs on the wholesale regional water systems. One of the mandates is for SFPUC to adopt the WSIP. The WSIP is expected to be completed in 2016.
EMID Water Supply Projections
The SFPUC has the capacity to meet the demands of its retail and wholesale customers in wet and normal years. The Water Supply Agreement provides for a 184 MGD or 206,106 (AFY) supply assurance to BAWSCA member age ncies. SFPUC’s annual supply assurance to EMID is 5.9 MGD or 6,608 AFY as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Annual Supply Assurance from SFPUC
Water Supply Source 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC (MGD) 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
SFPUC (AFY) 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608
According to SFPUC’s Water Supply Master Plan dated April 2000, this amount is subject to further reductions in the event of droug ht, water shortage, earthquake, or rehabilitation or maintenance of the system. Table 4 shows SFPUC’s projected deliveries to EMID for a single dry year and for fi ve (5) consecutive dry years, based on the 2010 allocation. The SFPUC’s plan calls for 10% supply reductions in the first two (2) years followed by 20% reductions for the next t hree (3) years. The percent reductions would be the same for any given five (5) consecutive dry years. During the periods of supply reductions, EMID will have to imp lement the Water Shortage Contingency Plan which was adopted in 1993 to reduc e demand. The EMID’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the triggering levels and actions to be considered for each stage of demand reduction. The plan has th ree stages with each stage set to respond to increasingly more severe conditions. The refore, the system demand will decrease to meet the reduced allocations by the SFPUC.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
497
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 8 Table 4
EMID Projected Annual Supply Allocations for a Single and Multiple Dry Years
Water Supply
Source 2010
Single
Year
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
SFPUC (AFY) 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
% Reduction 10% 10% 20% 20% 20%
EMID Water Shortage Contingency
The EMID Water Shortage Contingency Plan was adopte d in January 1993 in response to the Assembly Bill X1-11 requiring all California urban water retailers supplying water to more than 3,000 customers or supplying more than 3,000 acre feet per year of water to adopt a water shortage contingency plan as part of the Urban Water Management Plan. The objective of this legislation is to prom pt every water agency to plan ahead for droughts and to prepare a series of responses based upon the severity and length of drought. EMID’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan inc ludes four (4) stages with associated triggering levels.
Stage I: This is the normal stage where there is a continuin g effort to conserve water regardless of water supply. This stage involves pub lic education and enforcement of current regulations such as requiring the installat ion of ultra-low-flow toilets in new construction.
Stage II: This stage is triggered when the total volume of SFPUC water storage falls below the two-year demand base by 5 – 20%. The Stag e II shortage will result in mandatory water conservation with a goal of reducin g water demand between 5 – 20% as determined necessary by the EMID Board. A resolu tion declaring a water shortage emergency with a list of prohibited water uses will be adopted by the EMID Board of Directors. This stage will include increased public education such as water bill inserts advising customers how to conserve water.
Stage III: This stage is triggered when the total volume of SFPUC water storage falls below the two-year demand base by 20 – 30%. The Sta ge III shortage will result in mandatory water conservation with a goal of reducin g water demand between 20 to 30% as determined necessary by the EMID Board. In t his stage and the next stage, a larger range of prohibited uses will be considered and a new rate structure with progressive penalties for overuse will be implemented.
Stage IV: Stage IV is triggered when the total volume of SF PUC water storage falls below the two-year demand base by 30 to 50%. In thi s stage a mandatory rationing program will be initiated with a goal of reducing water demand up to 50%.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
498
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 9 System Demand Projections
The most common method of projecting system demand is by applying the population growth factor to the baseline number. For this repo rt, the average three year supply delivery of 5,232 AFY from Table 2 was used as the baseline number with the 6,608 AFY guarantee assurance from SFPUC. Table 6 shows t he future system demand projections until 2030. The table also shows the an nual difference (excess supply allocation). The excess supply allocation can be us ed to meet the demands anticipated from proposed projects under consideration.
Table 6
Future System Demand Projections
3-Year
Average 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC (AFY) 5,232 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608
% Population Increase 2.7 2.3 1.5 1.0
Demand Projections (5,373) (5,497) (5,579) (5,635)
Annual Excess 1,235 1,111 1,029 973
Net Additional Demand from the Proposed Projects
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Proj ect: Staff has determined that the existing land use condition at 362 Lakeside Dri ve is similar to the land use condition for the proposed R&D buildings. Therefore, the hist orical consumption data for 362 Lakeside Drive was used as a basis to project water demand for the proposed additional 953,000 sq. ft. of R&D space. The consum ption data shows that 44 gallons of water per year for each square feet of space is nee ded. Based on the calculations, approximately 129 AFY will be required for the new R&D buildings. Furthermore, the Gilead Sciences is proposing 1,547,600 sq. ft. of a dditional office space. The historical consumption data for VISA 3 was used to calculate t he future demand. The data from VISA 3 shows that 22 gallons per year for one squar e feet of office space is needed.
Based on the calculations, approximately 104 AFY wi ll be required to meet the demand generated from the proposed office buildings. The p roposed project also includes demolition of 8 existing buildings, which consumed approximately 27 AFY. Therefore, the net project demand for the proposed project is 206 AFY as shown in Appendix B.
15-Acres Site Project: Wilsey Ham, consulting engineers, performed the se wer generation rates for the proposed project. It was d etermined that 71,085 gallons per day, or 80 AFY of wastewater will be generated from the project. To calculate the total water demand, the irrigation component, typically 1 0%, is added to the sewer generation rate. Therefore, the total water demand required for the 15-Acre Site project is 88 AFY as shown in Appendix C.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
499
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 10 400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidel ands Park) Residential Project:
The average water consumption of a residential unit in EMID service area is 13 units per month. Using that as a baseline demand for a pr oposed 76 residential units with a 10% additional demand for outside landscaping, tota l demand for the project is 30 AFY as shown in Appendix D.
Chess Hotel Project: Using three years consumption history (2009, 2010, and 2011) from Crown Plaza Hotel and applying this to propose d 115 room hotel, projected demand is approximately 17 AFY. Subtracting 2 AFY o f consumption from Black Angus restaurant to be demolished, total demand projection is approximately 15 AFY as shown in Appendix E.
Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project: Historical consumption data from VISA 3 was used to calculate the projected demand for the project. The data for VISA 3 shows that 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office s pace is required. The proposed project with 800,000 sq. ft. of office space will generate approximately 54 AFY of total demand.
The existing demand based on the historical consump tion data for 1155-1191 Chess Drive is 18 AFY. Therefore, the net demand resultin g from the proposed project is calculated by subtracting the existing consumption from the total demand, resulting in 36 AFY as shown in Appendix F.
Bayside Towers III Project: Using consumption of 22 gallons per square-feet calculated from VISA 3, projected demand for 92,900 square-feet of office space is 6 AFY. Adding 10% for irrigation, total projected dem and is 7 AFY as shown in Appendix G.
VISA V Project: Using consumption of 22 gallons per square-feet of office space, calculated from VISA 3 historical use, projected de mand for 8,000 square-feet of office space including irrigation is approximately 2 AFY as shown in Appendix H.
Marina: Since details of this project are not yet known, p rojected demand is conservatively estimated at 5 AFY.
Table 6 shows the total projected annual additional (net) demand generated from the various development projects that are under review by the City of Foster City. EMID has a first-come first-serve policy for serving new dev elopment projects and each new project requires a demand analysis. The water deman d analysis for the Pilgrim Triton Project was completed in February 2007 and it is in cluded in the Table 6 to show the cumulative demand. Typically, residential projects require more water demand than commercial/office/R&D projects.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
500
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 11 Table 6
Annual Additional Demand from Various Projects
Development Project Additional Demand (AFY)
Pilgrim Triton Project 264 (Appendix A)
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus 206 (Appendix B )
15-Acres Project 88 (Appendix C)
400 Mariners Island Blvd., San Mateo
(Tidelands Park) Residential Project
30 (Appendix D)
Chess Hotel Project 15 (Appendix E)
Chess/Hatch Drive Offices Project 36 (Appendix F)
Bayside Towers III Project 7 (Appendix G)
VISA V Project 2 (Appendix H)
Marina Project 5 (Estimate)
Total Net Demand 653
Table 7 shows the total system demand projected for EMID including the demand from the proposed projects. The total system demand is c alculated by adding the net demand generated from the proposed projects to the system demand projections from Table 5.
Table 7
Total System Demand
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
System Demand
Projections 5,232 5,373 5,497 5,579 5,635
Net Demand from
Proposed Projects 0 653 653 653 653
Total System Demand 5,232 6,026 6,150 6,232 6,288
Comparison of Supply Allocation vs. Multiple Dry Years Demand
Table 8 shows the supply allocations from Table 3 a nd projected total system demands from Table 8, through the twenty year planning hori zon as required by SB 610. As discussed in Table 4, during a period of five conse cutive dry years, the SFPUC’s plan calls for 10% supply reductions in the first two (2 ) years followed by 20% reductions for the next three (3) years. To meet the reductions, E MID will have to cutback its consumption in kind by implementing the Water Short age Contingency Plan based on the severity of the drought. The EMID’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan describes the triggering levels and actions to be considered for each stage of demand reduction. The plan has three stages with each stage set to respon d to increasingly more severe conditions.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
501
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 12 As shown in the table, there will continue to be su fficient supplies to meet all projected demand, including the net additional demand generat ed from the proposed projects in all conditions over the next twenty five years. Thi s conclusion is dependent on EMID implementing the mandatory demand reduction as outl ined in the EMID Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
Table 8
Annual Supply Allocation vs. Multiple Dry Years Demand (AFY)
Allocation
Single Dry
Year
10%
Reduction
Year 2
10%
Reduction
Year 3
20%
Reduction
Year 4
20%
Reduction
Year 5
20%
Reduction
2010
Allocation 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2010
Demand (5,232) (4,709) (4,709) (4,186) (4,186) (4,186)
Excess 1,376 1,238 1,238 1,100 1,100 1,100
2015 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2015
Demand (6,026) (5,423) (5,423) (4,821) (4,821) (4,821)
Excess 582 524 524 465 465 465
2020 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2020
Demand (6,150) (5,535) (5,535) (4,920) (4,920) (4,920) Excess 458 412 412 366 366 366
2025 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2025
Demand (6,232) (5,609) (5,609) (4,986) (4,986) (4,986) Excess 376 338 338 300 300 300
2030 Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
2030
Demand (6,288) (5,659) (5,659) (5,030) (5,030) (5,030)
Excess 320 288 288 256 256 256
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
502
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 13 Demand Management Measures
Over the years, EMID has implemented the following demand management measures in an effort to reduce the overall demand for water . Water conservation helpful tips are available online and in brochures to educate custom ers. Every year during the national Public Works week, local schools and teachers are i nvited to participate in water facility tours and activities to promote water conservation.
Water Audit – Residential water audits are performed whenever requested by a customer or an unusual spike in a customer’s water consumption is observed.
Plumbing Retrofit Kits – Water conservation kits (shut off nozzles for gar den hoses, low-flow shower heads, low-flow sink aerators, and mini-flush toilet retrofit devices) are available to the residents, free of charge.
System Audits, Leak Detection, and Repairs – EMID routinely performs system audits, leak detection and repairs to reduce unacco unted for water. EMID has approximately 8,200 water accounts, all of which ar e metered. Currently, all of EMID’s 4,000 plus residential water meters are scheduled f or replacement. In addition, EMID is allocating $300,000 every other year to replace val ves systematically as part of its Capital Improvement Program.
Large Landscape Conservation Programs - EMID has prepared a booklet called “Planting and Irrigation Guidelines” to assist deve lopers, property owners, and homeowners in selecting appropriate plant materials and installing irrigation systems to create water conserving landscapes which are approp riate to Foster City soil and climate conditions. This booklet is available to the public, free of charge.
Landscape Water Use Evaluation – EMID provides free evaluation of outdoor irrigation systems and develop detailed recommendat ions on how to reduce water use on landscaping.
High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate Program – This program provides up to $125 to replace old clothes washing machines with n ew Energy Star compliant water conserving washing machines.
Ultra Low Flow Toilet Rebate Program – This program provides up to $150 for each toilet that is replaced with an Ultra Low Flow toil et. Every family can claim up to three toilets and receive up to $450.
Conservation Pricing – In 2010, EMID implemented conservation pricing to w ater rates to fund operations and capital improvement re quirements of the Water Enterprise and encourage water conservation. It was highly effective in reducing consumption.
Residential Turf Rebate Program – Effective May 2011, EMID implemented a residential synthetic turf replacement rebate progr am. Customers receive $4 per square DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
503
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 14 foot, up to $2,000 maximum, for replacing existing lawn and irrigation system with synthetic surface.
“Lawn Be Gone” Rebate Program – In FY 2010/2011, EMID implemented a “Lawn Be Gone” conversion program, administered by BAWSCA, where rebate is given to replace existing lawn with approved list of drought resista nt plant materials. Single-family residential customers can receive $0.50 per square foot, up to a maximum of $500 rebate. Irrigation customers can receive $0.50 per square foot, up to a maximum of $3,000.
Smart Irrigation Controller Rebate – Smart controllers measure depletion of soil moisture and activate the irrigation system when ne eded. Residential customers can receive 100% of the cost of the controller up to $1 50 maximum rebate per controller, and two controllers maximum per home. Commercial or multi-family customers can receive 100% of the cost of the controllers up to $ 50 per station with a maximum rebate of $5,000 per customer.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis in the WSA, as well as the in formation contained in the UWMP, SFPUC’s Water Supply Master Plan dated April 2000, and Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract with SFPUC date d August 2009, EMID will have sufficient water supply to serve the existing custo mers and the proposed projects under consideration. The conclusion of sufficient supply is based on the assumption that the demand reduction programs mandated by the SFPUC and included in the EMID’s water shortage contingency plan are implemented during dr ought years. The excess supply during a normal year is approximately 5% of the guaranteed allocation. Therefore, EMID will need to monitor and continue to be diligent in conserving water to reduce system- wide demand in the future.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
504
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 15 Appendix A
Water Demand Analysis
Pilgrim Triton Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Office Space (296,000 Sq.
Ft.)
20 Based on Consumption
Data for VISA 3
1 Demand for 1 Acre Park 2 Based on Consumption
Data for Ketch Park
Demand for Residential
(730 units)
263
Based on 13 Units per
Month
2 Total Project Demand
285
Demand from Existing
Buildings to be Demolished
(21)
Consumption Data for
Existing Buildings
3 Net Project Demand 264
1 Consumption data for VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the new office space proposed for t he project.
According to the VISA 3 data, 22 gallons of water per year for each sq. ft. of office space is needed. 2 EMID’s average monthly consumption for a residential property is 13 units. 3 According to the water consumption data for the ex isting buildings, approximately 21 AFY of water was consumed in 2007.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
505
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 16 Appendix B
Water Demand Analysis
Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed R&D
Space (953,000 sq. ft.)
129
Based on Consumption
Data for 362 Lakeside
Drive
1 Demand for Proposed
Office Space (1,547,600 sq.
ft.)
104
Based on the VISA 3
Consumption Data
2 Demand from 8 Building to
be Demolished
(27)
Consumption Data for 320,
324, 331, 333, 346, 355,
366, 368 Lakeside Drive
Net Project Demand 206
1 Consumption data for 362 Lakeside Drive was used t o project water demands for the new R&D space propo sed for the project. According to the data, approximately 44 gallons of water per year for each sq. ft. of R& D space is needed.
2 Consumption data for VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the new office space proposed for t he project.
According to the VISA 3 data, 22 gallons of water per year for each sq. ft. of office space is needed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
506
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 17 Appendix C
Water Demand Analysis
15-Acres Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Project Using the Sewer
Generation Analysis
80 Based on the Wilsey Ham
Sewer Generation Rates
1 Spreadsheet
Demand for Irrigation 8 Typically 10% of the Sewer
Generation
2 Net Project Demand 88
1 According to the sewer generation rates spreadshee t prepared by Wilsey Ham on 3/17/07, 71,085 gallons per day of sewer will be generated from the proposed projec t.
2 10% is added for irrigation demand
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
507
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 18 Appendix D
Water Demand Analysis
400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidelands Park) Residential Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Residential (76
units)
27 Based on 13 Units per
Month
1 Demand for Irrigation 3 Typically 10%
Net Project Demand 30
1 EMID’s average monthly consumption for a residential property is 13 units.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
508
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 19 Appendix E
Water Demand Analysis
Chess Hotel Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed Hotel
(115 Rooms)
17 Based on 3-Year Average
Consumption for Crowne
Plaza Hotel
1 Demand from Existing
Building to be Demolished
(2)
3-Year Average
Consumption for Black
Angus Restaurant
2 Net Project Demand 15
1 Average consumption data from Crowne Plaza Hotel f or 2009, 2010, and 2011 were used to prorate per ro om consumption.
2 Average consumption data from Black Angus Restaura nt for 2009, 2010, and 2011 were used and subtract from the demand for proposed hotel to calculate net demand.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
509
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 20 Appendix F
Water Demand Analysis
Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed Office
Space (800,000 sq. ft.)
54 Based on VISA 3
Consumption Data
1 Demand from Existing
Buildings to be Demolished
(18)
Consumption Data for
1155-1191 Chess Drive
2 Net Project Demand 36
1 VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the n ew office space proposed for the project. Consumpt ion data for VISA 3 shows 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office space is needed. 2 According to the water consumption data for the ex isting buildings, 1155-1191 Chess Drive, approximat ely 18 AFY of water was consumed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
510
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 21 Appendix G
Water Demand Analysis
Bayside Towers III Project
Demand (Acre Ft. per
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Office Space (92,900 sq.
ft.)
6 Based on VISA 3
Consumption Data
1 Demand for Irrigation 1 Typically 10%
Net Project Demand 7
1 VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the n ew office space proposed for the project. Consumpt ion data for VISA 3 shows 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office space is needed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
511
Q:\PubWorks\Water Supply Assessment\WSA Report Updated Based on Revised Gilead Info (November 2012).doc 22 Appendix H
Water Demand Analysis
VISA V Project
Demand (Acre Ft. pe r
Year)
Demand for Proposed
Office Space (8,000 sq. ft.)
1 Based on VISA 3
Consumption Data
1 Demand for Irrigation 1 Conservative Projection
Net Project Demand 2
1 VISA 3 was used to project water demands for the n ew office space proposed for the project. Consumpt ion data for VISA 3 shows 22 gallons of water per year for 1 sq. ft. of office space is needed.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
512
Memorandum
DATE January 29, 2021
TO
Timothy Maier
(650) 286-3237
[email protected]
cc: Sofia Mangalam
FROM
Curtis Banks, AICP Principal
Planner
Carla Violet, Senior Planner
RE: CEQA Compliance for Proposed Gilead New Park
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Memorandum is both an Addendum (Addendum No. 4) to the certified 2012 Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse # 2008122064 (2012 SEIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164, and documentation of one or more Categorical Exemptions under CEQA Section 15300. This Memorandum evaluates changes to the Gilead Sciences Master Plan that have been proposed since certification of the 2012 SEIR (and the subsequent Addenda No. 1,0F
1 2, 1F
2 and No. 3 2F
3).
As discussed in this Memorandum, the proposed changes to the project would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those identified in the 2012 SEIR. The project also qualifies for a categorical exemption under CEQA Section 15300 under a Class 4, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land, and a Class 11, CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 – Accessory Structures.
1 On April 3, 2014, the Planning Commission approved Addendum No. 1 to the SEIR amending Mitigation Measure NOI-b in order to allow an extension in the construction hours if certain criteria are met. 2 On August 15, 2016, the City Council approved Addendum No. 2 to the 2012 SEIR to substantiate that there were no new environmental effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect from the reallocation of 250,000 square feet of office space to 250,000 square feet of laboratory space. 3 On May 7, 2020, the City Council approved Addendum No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR to substantiate that there were no new environmental effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect from the demolition of 308 surface parking spaces and construction of a new amenity building at 305 Velocity Way.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
513
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
The City is in receipt of an application for a Use Permit to demolish a 739-stall surface parking lot and construct the new Gilead Park (workspace plaza), including a private park, amphitheater, gardens, and ancillary parking (29 spaces). The project area consists of two parcels, totaling 236,126 square feet (5.35 acres) and Gilead proposes to merge the two existing parcels into a single parcel. A map of the project location and vicinity is shown in Figure 1. Currently, Gilead is pursuing the project as a temporary, limited-duration use (five years); however, the use permit will include a condition that a General Development Plan (GDP) amendment will be required for the Gilead Park to remain long-term. The demolition and new construction under the proposed Use Permit and project boundary amendment are collectively referred to as “2021 Project Modifications” throughout this Memorandum.
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the 2021 Project Modifications and based on the analysis in this Memorandum, has concluded that there are no substantial project changes, substantial changes in circumstances, or new information that would result in any new significant effects or any increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect. The 2021 Project Modifications, which involve an increase in private open space and a decrease in parking spaces, constitute a minor refinement of the 2012 SEIR project description and this minor refinement would not result in significant environmental effects beyond those already identified in the 2012 SEIR. Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required. In addition, and as discussed further below, the 20121 Project Modifications also qualify for two categorical exemptions under CEQA Section 15300 (Class 4, Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land and Class 11, Section 15311 – Accessory Structures).
PRIOR PROJECT APPROVALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On February 16, 2010, the City Council certified the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (2010 EIR) to increase the allowed square footage of a ±40-acre portion of the Gilead Campus (known as the “South Campus”) from 629,154 square feet of building space to 1,200,480 square feet of biopharmaceutical laboratory and office space, structured and at-grade parking, and supporting facilities. In addition to certifying the 2010 EIR, the City adopted Ordinance No. 554 approving an amendment to the Vintage Park GDP and Ordinance No. 556 entering into a Development Agreement between the City of Foster City, the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and Gilead Sciences, Inc. for the permitting and construction of up to 1,200,480 square feet for the Corporate Campus.
On November 29, 2011, Gilead submitted the 2012 Master Plan proposal to amend the 2010 Master Plan and the Vintage Park GDP to integrate the approved South Campus mentioned above with an additional approximately 32 acres (known as the “North Campus”) acquired from Electronics for Imaging (EFI) adjacent to the South Campus for a maximum campus buildout of 2,500,600 square feet on approximately 73 acres.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
514
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
515
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
The 2012 Master Plan proposed redeveloping portions of the approximately 73-acre project site, including demolition of up to 12 of the existing office and laboratory buildings, and construction of up to 17 new buildings. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a total of up to 22 office and laboratory buildings (comprising approximately 2,500,600 square feet of interior space) and 6,050 parking stalls on the project site.
On March 30, 2016, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to reduce the total amount of office space permitted in the South Campus and increase the amount of laboratory space while staying within the maximum campus buildout of 2,500,600 square feet. Addendum No.2 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this reallocation and was approved by the City Council on August 15, 2016.
On December 19, 2019, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to demolish 308 surface parking spaces and build a new 60,836-square foot Wellbeing Center at 305 Velocity Way. Addendum No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR analyzed this new use and was approved by the City Council on May 7, 2020.
The approved GDP, as amended in 2012, 2016, and 2020, allows the buildout parameters shown in Table 1.
The 2012 SEIR prepared for the 2012 Master Plan in accordance with CEQA concluded that, with the exception of five impacts, all impacts of the 2012 Master Plan would be mitigated to a less- than-significant level with implementation of the 2012 SEIR’s mitigation measures included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The five significant and unavoidable impacts from the 2012 SEIR are associated with project-related traffic that would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment (NOI-3), air quality impacts related to project operations (AIR-2, AIR-3, and AIR-6), and a conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact (PLAN-1).
On October 21, 2013, the City Council certified the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2008122064) for the 2012 Master Plan (2012 SEIR), and the 2012 Master Plan and the Amended Vintage Park GDP/Rezoning for the 2012 Master Plan along with the MMRP was approved by the City Council on November 4, 2013 (Ordinance No. 576).
PROJECT CHANGES
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing 739-space surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Sciences’ employees and their visitors (Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan). The park would temporarily occupy two parcels for a period of 5 years. The two parcels were anticipated to include two office buildings (305/307) by the 2012 Master Plan.
The 2021 Project Modifications would include two gathering spaces, an event promenade, garden, presentation stage, and landscaped gateway feature along the east intersection of Velocity Way and Bayside Way. It would also provide landscaped and recreational turf areas, as well as a 29-stall surface parking lot accessible from Velocity Way.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
516
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
517
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
While 129 trees would be removed because of the 2021 Project Modifications, an additional 275 trees would be planted throughout the site.
Table 1 Approved Gilead Campus Square Footage Parameters Component
2012 SEIR
Maximum Square
Feet
2016 Addendum
No. 2 Maximum
Square Feet
2020 Addendum
No. 3 Maximum
Square Feet
South Campus
Office 500,000 250,000 250,000
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory 953,000 1,203,000 1,203,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse 5,100 5,100 5,100
Total South Campus 1,458,100 1,458,100 1,458,100
North Campus
Office 1,024,000 1,024,000 1,024,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse 18,500 18,500 18,500
Amenity 0 0 60,836
Total North Campus 1,042,500 1,042,500 1,103,336
Integrated South and
North Campus
Office 1,524,000 1,274,000 1,274,000
Biopharmaceutical
Laboratory 953,000 1,203,000 1,203,000
Materials
Storage/Warehouse 23,600 23,600 23,600
Total for Integrated
Campus 2,500,600 2,500,600 2,561,436
Note: Italics indicate revisions to the GDP evaluated and approved in Addendum No. 2 and No. 3 to the 2012 SEIR.
Source: Urban Planning Partners, 2021.
The approximately 5.35-acre site includes two parcels: Accessor Parcel Number (APN) 094-122- 070 and 094-122-080, bounded by Buildings 301 and 303 and Velocity Way to the north, the proposed Wellbeing Center on the northeast, Bayside Way to the south, Building 309 on the southeast, and another existing surface parking lot to the west. The 2021 Project Modifications would accommodate a future planned, and not yet programmed 30,000-square foot Building 307.
The 2021 Project Modifications considered in this analysis are whether the introduction of a new park, and a decrease in parking from 6,050 to 5,340 stalls —a net decrease of 710 stalls—would result in any new or substantially greater impacts. The summary of changes among the 2012 SEIR, Addenda No. 2 and No. 3, and 2021 Project Modifications is shown in Table 2 below.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
518
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Table 2 Summary of Changes Among the 2012 SEIR, 2016 Addendum No. 2, 2020 Addendum No. 3, and 2021 Project Modifications
Characteristic 2012 SEIR
2016
Addendum
No. 2
2020
Addendum
No. 3
2021 Project
Modifications
North Campus
Office Space 1,024,000 sf No Change No Change No Change Materials Storage/Warehouse 18,500 sf No Change No Change No Change Amenity Space 0 sf No Change 60,836 sf No Change
Parking Stalls 3,796 No Change No Changea 3,086b
Total North Campus
Building Square Footage 1,042,500 sf No Change 1,103,336 sf South Campus
Office 500,000 sf 250,000 sf No Change No Change
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 sf 1,203,000 sf No Change No Change Materials Storage/Warehouse 5,100 sf No Change No Change No Change Parking Stalls 2,254 No Change No Change No Change
Total South Campus Building
Square Footage 1,458,100 sf No Change No Change No Change Integrated South and North Campus
Office 1,524,000 sf 1,274,000 sf No Change No Change
Biopharmaceutical Laboratory 953,000 sf 1,203,000 sf No Change No Change Materials Storage/Warehouse 23,600 sf No Change No Change No Change Amenity Space 0 sf No Change 60,836 sf No Change
Parking Stalls 6,050 No Change No Change No Change
Total Building Square Footage
for Integrated Campus 2,500,600 No Change 2,561,436 sf No Change Note: sf = square feet
a The 2020 Addendum eliminated 308 North Campus parking spaces and added 15 spaces (including one EV charging station). This results in a net decrease of 293. However, there is currently a surplus of spaces on the North Campus and the decrease in existing parking would not change the 3,796 spaces anticipated for the North Camus at full buildout.
b The 2021 Project Modifications would eliminate 739 North Campus parking spaces and add 29 spaces.
This results in a net decrease of 710 spaces.
Source: LSA Associates, 2012; Urban Planning Partners, 2016; and Flad Architects, 2020, HDR, Inc. 2021.
However, the 2021 Project Modifications would serve existing employees on the Gilead Campus.
As discussed below, the 2021 Project Modifications do not constitute a substantial change to the DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
519
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
project evaluated in the 2012 SEIR that would require major revisions to the certified 2012 SEIR because of a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect.
CEQA ANALYSIS
ADDENDUM
This portion of the analysis is prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 which states:
“The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” Section 15162 specifies that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for a project unless:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration 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 the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects of a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
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 was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
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 would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
520
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Urban Planning Partners reviewed the requested 2021 Project Modifications and found that there would be no new significant effect or an increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect resulting from a substantial change to the project analyzed in the certified 2012 SEIR, a substantial change in the project circumstances, or new information of substantial importance which could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence when the 2012 SEIR was certified. Therefore, under CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, no further environmental review is required.
The 2021 Project Modifications will be required to comply with the 2012 SEIR MMRP as a Condition of Approval along with all the Conditions adopted as a part of Ordinance No. 576.There are no new impacts or more severe impacts not already identified and analyzed in the 2012 SEIR that would result due to project changes, new information, or changed circumstances and therefore, no new or different mitigation measures would be required.
The Abbreviated Appendix G Checklist (which is equivalent to Appendix F of Foster City’s Environmental Review Guidelines) below compares potential environmental impacts of the project to the findings of the 2012 SEIR, notes whether the 2021 Project Modifications would result in new significant impacts or impacts substantially greater or more severe than those previously identified in 2012 SEIR, and includes an explanation substantiating the findings for each topic. It uses the abbreviation “SU” for “significant and unavoidable” and “LTS” for “less than significant.” The checklist also lists mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval (SCAs) applicable to the impacts.
When a dash (--) appears in the checklist below, it means that the 2012 SEIR and subsequent addenda did not identify any MMs or SCAs related to that environmental impact. N/A appears when an MM or SCA was identified but it does not apply to the project (e.g., the project location does not meet the criteria specified in the MM or SCA). The SCAs that appear in the checklist represent the City’s latest standards, revised August 29, 2018.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
521
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
A. AESTHETICS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Scenic Vistas and City Skyline LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Scenic Resources within a
State Scenic Highway LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Visual Character LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
d. Light and Glare LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ VIS-1b -- LTS w/MMs
Discussion
Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would have a less-than-significant effect on scenic vistas and scenic resources within a State scenic highway. The 2021 Project Modifications would replace an existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park and would not alter the five scenic viewpoints identified in the 2012 SEIR. The project site is not located within the viewshed of a State scenic highway.
The 2012 SEIR further determines that Specific Development Plan/Use Permit applications for individual buildings within the 2012 Master Plan will also be subject to the Foster City design review process. As such, the proposed park will be subject to Foster City design review process.
Design review ensures that the design of the park will be consistent with the City’s objectives and policies related to project design. Therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications will have a less-than- significant impact on the visual character of the project site and its surroundings.
The 2021 Project Modifications would not develop new buildings or structures with reflective facades that could increase the level of glare. However, the park would have new lighting fixtures that could potentially result in significant new sources of nighttime light. The 2021 Project Modifications would implement 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure VIS-1b, related to review and approval of outdoor night lighting, to reduce lighting impacts to less-than-significant levels.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
522
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
B. AIR QUALITY
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Construction Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ AIR-1 -- LTS w/MMs
b. Operational Criteria Air
Pollutant Emissions SU ☒ ☐
AIR-2
AIR-3
--
Project-level
LTS w/MMs
Cumulative
SU
c. Toxic Air Contaminants LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ AIR-4 -- LTS w/MMs Discussion
Construction of the 2021 Project Modifications would involve demolition of existing vehicular paving and concrete, clearing, grading, and building activities, which would temporarily generate fugitive dust from disturbed soils and equipment emissions. Consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the level of construction-period air pollutants would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require implementation of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD’s) Best Management Practices and other measures to reduce fugitive dust impacts during construction.
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Science employees and their visitors. As an amenity space, the 2021 Project Modifications are not expected to generate additional vehicle trips, as the users of the park are Gilead employees and visitors that would already be on the campus. When compared to the two office buildings contemplated for the project site as part of the 2012 Master Plan and 2012 SEIR, the proposed park would generate fewer vehicle trips. The project site would be served by Gilead Sciences’ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program, as required by Mitigation Measures AIR-2 and AIR-3 under the 2012 SEIR.
Due to these factors, the 2021 Project Modifications’ level of operational-related criteria air pollutants would be less severe than the findings of the 2012 SEIR. However, consistent with the conservative findings of the 2012 SEIR, cumulative operational-related criteria air pollutants as a net result of the 2012 Master Plan would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Consistent with the findings of the 2012 SEIR, health risk impacts related to the 2021 Project Modifications’ construction-emitted toxic air contaminants (TACs) to nearby existing sensitive receptors would be less than significant after the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-4. In DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
523
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
addition, the 2021 Modifications would not include a back-up generator, so the 2021 Project Modifications would not be subject to 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure AIR-5 and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to operations-emitted TACs near existing sensitive receptors.
Impacts of the existing environment on the 2021 Project Modifications are not required by CEQA 3F 4 and so are not analyzed in this CEQA document.
4 Supreme Court of California, 2018. California Building Industry Association v Bay Area Air Quality Management District. No S213478. December 17.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
524
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Historical Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Archaeological Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- SCA-CULT-1 LTS
c. Paleontological Resources LTS ☒ ☐ -- SCA-CULT-2 LTS
d. Human Remains LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace an existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park. The 2012 SEIR showed that the buildings and structures that would be demolished as part of the 2012 Master Plan would not result in any cultural impacts because the buildings constructed on the project site were built sometime after 1980 and did not possess significant historical associations or architectural qualities.
Similarly, the project area consists of tidal marsh deposited during the Holocene (10,000 years ago to present) up until the late 19th century, referred to commonly as “Bay Mud,” and engineered fill deposited during the early development of Foster City. The former marshland would have been unsuitable for prehistoric human habitation and the artificial fill would be unlikely to contain any significant paleontological resources. Bay Mud is known only to contain aged molluscan fossils, which are not significant. Thus the 2012 SEIR found that there was a low possibility of encountering prehistoric archaeological deposits or paleontological resources during buildout of the 2012 Master Plan. However, while unlikely, ground-disturbing activities associated with site preparation, the construction of building foundations, and underground utilities could adversely affect previously unknown archaeological cultural and paleontological resources. This conclusion would also apply to the 2021 Project Modifications.
Compliance with the following SCAs, which are functionally equivalent to the SCAs that were in effect at the writing of the 2012 SEIR, would ensure that any construction-related impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are mitigated to a less-than-significant level: SCA-CULT-1:
Prehistoric or Historic Archaeological Materials – Discovery During Construction (9.20) and SCA- CULT-2 Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction (9.19).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
525
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Seismic Shaking Hazards LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Soil Erosion LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
c. Soil Settlement LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ GEO-2 -- LTS w/MMs
d. Expansive and Corrosive Soils LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ GEO-3a
GEO-3b -- LTS w/MMs
Discussion
The project site is in a seismically active region, and the nearest active fault is the San Andreas Fault peninsula segment, located approximately 5.4 miles to the southwest. Based on California Geological Survey (CGS) fault maps, no potentially active faults underly the site. 4F 5 While the
project site could be affected by ground shaking, the project would not develop new buildings that could be damaged or result in injury to occupants—2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure GEO-1, related to earthquake-resistant structures, would not apply to the project. Due to the lack of buildings, potential impacts due to seismic shaking hazards at the project site would be less severe than those contemplated by the 2012 SEIR and would be less than significant.
The 2012 SEIR determined that the 2012 Master Plan area, including the project site, is underlain with 40 to 60 feet of Bay Mud, which may be susceptible to additional settlement under the weight of new development. In addition, the 2012 SEIR found that expansive or corrosive soils could cause substantial damage to roads, parking areas and sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. The 2021 Project Modifications’ susceptibility to settlement and expansive or corrosive soils would be equal or less in severity than the 2012 SEIR findings. While the underlying soils could still pose risk of damaging structures or property, the 2021 Project Modifications would not introduce new building loads, compared to the two office buildings contemplated for the project site as part of the 2012 Master Plan and 2012 SEIR. In addition, consistent with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would implement, as needed, Mitigation Measures GEO-2, GEO-3a, and GEO-3b to reduce potential impacts related to soil settlement and expansive or corrosive soils to a less-than-significant level.
5 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010, op. cit.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
526
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
E. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. GHG Emissions LTS w/MM ☒ ☐ GCC-1 -- LTS w/MM
b. Consistency with Applicable
GHG Plans LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2012 SEIR evaluated potential impacts related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from construction and operation of the 2012 Master Plan. The 2012 SEIR determined that operation of the 2012 Master Plan would exceed applicable GHG emissions thresholds. The 2012 SEIR found that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant impact with Mitigation Measure GCC-1 which requires preparation of a Campuswide Sustainability Plan. The 2012 SEIR also showed that the 2012 Master Plan would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or the early Statewide action measures. It would be compliant with the strategies developed by the State to reduce GHG emissions and be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would also reduce the GHG emissions.
According to the City of Foster City’s thresholds of significance, a project would have a significant impact if it would produce total emissions of more than 1,100 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) annually or more than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population (employees) annually. The 2012 SEIR required implementation of Mitigation Measure GCC-1, preparation of a Campuswide Sustainability Plan to meet the 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year standard to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant impact.
The 2021 Project Modifications would replace the existing surface parking lot with a private outdoor park for use by Gilead Sciences’ employees and their visitors. As an amenity space, the 2021 Project Modifications are not expected to generate additional emissions. Therefore, the 2021 Project Modifications would not substantially increase the severity of significant impacts identified in the 2012 SEIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to GHG and climate change that were not identified in the 2012 SEIR.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
527
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
A Campuswide Sustainability Plan was prepared by Gilead Sciences in 20145F 6; therefore, the 2021
Project Modifications would not be subject to 2012 SEIR Mitigation Measure GCC-1.
6 Gilead Sciences, Inc. 2014. Foster City Campus Sustainability Plan. Accessed January 10, 2021. https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/6191/final-approved- gilead-sust-plan-11-14-14_1.pdf
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
528
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impacts Related To:
2012 SEIR
Findings with
Implementation
of SCA or MM
(If Required)
2021 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
Relationship to
2012 SEIR Findings
Applicable
MMs
Applicable
SCAs
Relationship
to 2012 SEIR
Findings
Equal
or Less
Severity
Substantial
Increase in
Severity
a. Hazardous Materials Use,
Exposure, Storage and
Disposal
LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
b. Release of Hazardous
Materials into the
Environment
LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐ HAZ-1a
HAZ-1b -- LTS w/MMs
c. Exposure of Hazardous
Materials LTS w/MMs ☒ ☐
HAZ-2a
HAZ-2b
HAZ-2c
-- LTS w/MMs
d. Hazardous Materials within a
¼-Mile of a School LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
e. Hazardous Materials Release
Sites LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
f. Emergency Evacuation Plan LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
g. Wildland Fires LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
h. Airport Hazards LTS ☒ ☐ -- -- LTS
Discussion
The 2021 Project Modifications would be less or equal in severity compared to the 2012 SEIR findings related to hazards and hazardous materials. Compared with the 2012 SEIR, the 2021 Project Modifications would have less significant effects related to emission of hazardous materials near schools; proximity to hazardous materials release sites; emergency evacuation plans, wildland fires, and airport hazards. As analyzed in the 2012 SEIR, the 2012 Master Plan area—which contains the project site—is not located within 1/4-mile of a school6F 7 or within 1/8-
mile of a hazardous materials release site under current investigation. The 2012 SEIR further reports that development within the 2012 Master Plan area would not require closure of any emergency evacuation streets designated by the City’s Multi-Hazard Functional Plan and Community Evacuation Plan; would not have significant potential for wildland fires; and does not meet height or distance criteria to be considered an aviation hazard by either the San Carlos or San Francisco International Airports.
While the 2021 Project Modifications propose a lower intensity of development than was contemplated for the project site in the 2012 SEIR, impacts related to hazardous materials could still occur during construction. As noted in the 2012 SEIR, construction activities within the 2012
7 Foster City-San Mateo School District, 2012. District Maps. Website: www.smfc.k12.ca.us/district_maps.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
529
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021
Master Plan area could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials or accidental exposure of hazardous materials to construction workers and the public. The 2021 Project Modifications would implement Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a, HAZ-1b, HAZ-2a, HAZ-2b, and HAZ-2c to reduce impacts related to release and exposure of hazardous materials to a less-than- significant level.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 77046A97-2B67-4581-BE3B-C047831D7D1C
7.1 Attachment 4 - Planning Commission Resolution No.P-21-22 for Addendum No. 5 to
FSEIR (CEQA)
530
Timothy Maier
January 29, 2021