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.
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)
531
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.
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)
532
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.
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)
533
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 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)
534
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.
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)
535
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.
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)
536
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.
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)
537
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.
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)
538
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.
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)
539
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.
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)
540
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.
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)
541
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.
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)
542
RESOLUTION NO. P- 22 -22
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY
RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FOSTER CITY
ZONING MAP TO MODIFY THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE 57-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
MATER PLAN AND TO INCLUDE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TEMPORARY GILEAD PARK INTO A PERMANENT PARK – 300-068 LAKESIDE DRIVE; 301 AND 309 VELOCITY WAY IN NEIGHBORHOOD VP – GILEAD SCIENCES, INC – RZ2022-0001
CITY OF FO
STER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHER
EAS, 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 WHER
EAS, 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
WHER
EAS, 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"); and
WHER
EAS, 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 WHER
EAS, 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
WHEREA
S, 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- DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
543
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
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 WH
EREAS, 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 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;
WH
EREAS, 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; WH
EREAS, the City of Foster City, in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 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 determine whether the analysis in the memorandum adequately address the potential impacts resulting from the proposed GDP amendment and the change in the temporary Gilead Park into a permanent park; and WH
EREAS, the memorandum concluded 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 2012 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 F SEIR, prepared in accordance with the requirements ofSection 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Foster City Environmental Review Guidelines (Addendum No. 5); and
WH
EREAS, on December 15, 2022, the Planning Commission independently reviewed and considered Addendum No. 5 to the 2012 FSEIR, and addenda thereto, the proposed GDP amendment, the facts and analysis in the Staff Report, written and oral testimony, and other evidence on the record of proceedings exercised its independent judgment in finding that none of the conditions described in Sections 15162 or 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines calling for the preparation for a subsequent or supplemental EIR or negative declaration have occurred, specifically:
a. No
substantial changes have been made to the Project that require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
544
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
b. No substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the c. Project will be undertaken that require major revisions to the CEQA Documents due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and
d. No new information received by the City of significance importance which was not known previously and could not, with the exercise of reasonable due diligence now or at the time the FSEIR was certified, been known that would show that: (a) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the FSEIR; (b) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than as shown in the FSEIR; (c) that 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 proponent declines to adopt them; or (d) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt them; and
WHEREA
S, full public involvement in the preparation of this amendment to the Foster City Zoning Map has been ensured through duly noticed Planning Commission Study Sessions, public hearings and other means, including the following:
1. City C
ouncil 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 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 for staff complete the hearing package.
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 2012 FSEIR and Rezoning/General Development Plan Amendment of the Vintage Park General Development Plan.
WHEREA
S, the Planning Commission is required by state law to hold at least one (1) public hearing before recommending adoption of an amendment to the City’s Zoning Map and the current Vintage Park General Development Plant; and WHERE
AS, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly posted for consideration of the amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan at the Planning Commission meeting on December 1, 2022, and on said date the Planning Commission continued the item to December 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Addendum No. 5 and other written correspondence, verbal testimony, staff reports, supplemental memorandums, and
background reports on December 15, 2022 and recommended City Council adoption of the Addendum No. 5 to the 2012 FSEIR by adoption of Resolution P- 21 -22; and
NOW, THERE
FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission, based on facts and analysis in the Staff Report, written and oral testimony, and in the project and exhibits DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
545
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
presented, finds:
1. Th
e 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 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 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 ; DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
546
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
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 are 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.
BE IT FURT
HER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City hereby recommends City Council approval of an amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan to 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 to replace Exhibit A , Exhibit B, and Exhibit B-1 of Ordinance No. 601, while all other exhibits remain consistent, attached hereto and incorporated herein.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
547
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution of the City of Foster City Planning Commission at a Regular Meeting held on December 15, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky, Haddad, Venkat, and Chair Adams NOES, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Jagtiani
_____________________
EVAN A. ADAMS, CHAIR
ATTEST:
________________________________
MARLENE SUBHASHINI, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
548
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
EXHIBIT A
A
MENDED 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 (parkin g s
paces (at -grade and in parking structures), cafeteria, pilot plant, meeting spaces, manufacturing and fitness facilities) with the option to separate vehicular and pedestrian c
irculation 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, a
ttached hereto and incorporated herein.
b. W
ithin 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 s
paces).
c. W
ithin 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 B, 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
549
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
E
XHIBIT B
I
ntegrated Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan (Graphic) DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
550
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
EXHIBIT B-1
I
NTEGRATED GILEAD SCIENCES CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
(DENSITY/INTENSITY OF PERMITTED USES)
*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 reclassifying 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
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
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
551
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
Building
Number
Range of
Stories
Height
Range
Height Range
(with Roof
Screen)*
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 DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
552
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
EXHIBIT B-2
G
ILEAD SCIENCES VESTED RIGHTS
The f
ollowing 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
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 othe
r uses,
provided; however in no event shall the total building area exceed 1,200,480 square feet.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
553
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
E
XHIBIT B-3
CO
NDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The C
M/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 par
king ratio for biopharmaceutical laboratories in the Gilead Sciences Integrate d C
orporate 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 b e i
n 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. N
o 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. A
ny 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 C
onditions 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
554
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
- 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.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
555
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
EXHIBIT B-4
T
RANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
The G
ilead 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.
G
ilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan
Transportation Demand Management Plan
dat
ed
A
ugust 7, 2012
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
556
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
557
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
558
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
559
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
560
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
561
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
562
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
563
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
564
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
EX
HIBIT C
GRA
PHIC FOR THE ±4 ACRE PORTION OF VINTAGE PARK
(APN: 094-122-140)
Bridgepointe Pkwy
Bridgepointe Circle
Ch
Vintage Park Dr
State Route 9
Reef Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariner's Island Blvd
Dr
Dr
Foster City Blvd
Vel ocity Way
Vel ocity Way
Permitted Density/Intensity:
Wi
thin 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).
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
565
Resolution No. P- 22 -22
RZ2022-0001
EX
HIBIT D
GRAPHIC FOR VINTAGE PARK GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AREA
DocuSign Envelope ID: 693F8680-27C6-43D3-AA95-7E1D114CFA03
7.1 Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Resolution No. P-22-22 for GDP-Rezoning
566
December 2012
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED
CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008122064
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
567
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
568
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
PUBLIC HEARING – January 17, 2013
State Clearinghouse # 2008122064
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Foster City, as Lead Agency, has completed a Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (Subsequent EIR) for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (2012 Master Plan). The 2012 Master Plan would amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan, under which the 2010 Corporate Campus Master Plan (2010 Master Plan) was approved. The amendments would increase the amount of building space and land area beyond that identified in the 2010 Master Plan. The 2010 Master Plan was examined in the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR, which was certified on February 16, 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING: The Planning Commission is scheduled to receive public comments on the Subsequent EIR on January 17, 2013, at 7:00 p.m. at Foster City Council Chambers, located at 620 Foster City Boulevard.
PUBLIC REVIEW TIMELINE: The public review period for the Subsequent EIR begins December 14, 2012 and ends January 28, 2013. The City must receive all written comments regarding the adequacy of the Subsequent EIR within this time period. Written comments may be submitted in person, by mail, by e-mail, or by fax. The mailing address is 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, California 94404, the email address is [email protected] and the fax number is (650) 286-3589. Direct all comments to the attention of Kohar Kojayan, Senior Planner.
DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY: Copies of the Subsequent EIR are available for review Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., at the City of Foster City City Hall, Community Development Department, 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, California, 94404, except on specified holidays. The Subsequent EIR is also available at the Foster City Public Library, at 1000 East Hillsdale Boulevard, and online, at http://www.fostercity.org/.
PROJECT LOCATION: Vintage Park – 300-368 Lakeside Drive; 301 Velocity Way - (APNs: 094-901-290; 094- 901-300; 094-901-310; 094-901-340; 094-901-370; 094-901-380; 094-901-390; 094-901-400; 094-901-410; 094-904- 290; 094-904-300; 094-904-310; 094-904-320; 094-904-330; 094-904-340; 094-122-050; 094-122-060; 094-122-070; 094-122-080; 094-122-110; 094-122-120; 094-122-130; 094-122-150), ± 72 acres of a portion of the Vintage Park business park owned by Gilead Sciences. The project site is bounded by East Third Avenue to the north, Vintage Park Drive/Marsh Drive to the east, Bridgepointe Shopping Center/Home Depot in San Mateo to the south, and Mariners Island Boulevard in San Mateo to the west. Figure 1 depicts the location of the project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project would amend the 2010 Master Plan and the Vintage Park General Development Plan to incorporate and develop an additional approximately 32 acres acquired from Electronics for Imaging (EFI) adjacent to the 40-acre site comprising the 2010 Master Plan. The 2012 Master Plan would redevelop a portion 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.
Development envisioned under the proposed 2012 Master Plan would require an amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan/Rezoning, an amended and restated Development Agree- ment, and various other City entitlements, including demolition, construction, and building permits.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
569
SIGNIFICANT ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The Subsequent EIR provides an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. With the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, no significant impacts would result with implementation of the proposed project, except for the following impacts:
• The project would conflict with General Plan noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact.
• Project-related traffic would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment. • Operation of the project would result in a significant project-level and cumulative net increase in criteria pollutant emissions, resulting in a conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 Clean Air Plan.
These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, since the mitigation measures identified in the Subsequent EIR would not reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The project site is not listed on any of the lists of hazardous materials sites enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
QUESTIONS: If you have any questions about this project, please contact Kohar Kojayan, Senior Planner at (650) 286-3237 or [email protected]
.
Figure 1: Project Site for Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Mariners Island Blvd.
Project Site
Lakeside Drive
Foster City Blvd.
E. Third Ave.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
570
December 2012
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED
CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008122064
Submitted to:
City of Foster City
610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, California 94404
Prepared by:
LSA Associates, Inc.
2215 Fifth Street
Berkeley, California 94710
510.540.7331
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
571
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
572
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ..................................................................................... S-1 A. PURPOSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) S-1 B. REPORT ORGANIZATION ........................................................................................... S-2 C. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................... S-3 D. SUBSEQUENT EIR ........................................................................................................ S-4 E. SUBSEQUENT EIR SCOPE ........................................................................................... S-5 F. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .................................... S-6 G. SUMMARY TABLE ....................................................................................................... S-8 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1 A. BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ...................................... 1 B. PROJECT SITE .................................................................................................................. 9 C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................. 12 D. PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................... 13 E. DISCRETIONARY CITY ACTIONS .............................................................................. 27 F. SUBSEQUENT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS ............................................................. 28 G. USES OF THIS EIR ......................................................................................................... 30 III. PLANNING POLICY ................................................................................................................ 31 A. FOSTER CITY GENERAL PLAN .................................................................................. 31 B. FOSTER CITY ZONING ORDINANCE ........................................................................ 42 C. GILEAD SCIENCES GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MASTER PLAN) ........... 46 D. VINTAGE PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES AND VINTAGE PARK SIGNAGE GUIDELINES ................................................................................................................... 47 E. COMPREHENSIVE AIRPORT LAND USE PLANS ..................................................... 48 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ....................................................... 55 A. LAND USE ....................................................................................................................... 57 B. VISUAL QUALITY ......................................................................................................... 67 C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING ...................................................... 83 D. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................ 95 E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................................... 111 F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .......................................................... 125 G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ............................................................... 145 H. NOISE ............................................................................................................................. 207 I. AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................... 227 J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION ............................................. 257 K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................................................... 277
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
573
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ii V. ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 305 A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 306 B. EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ALTERNATIVE .......................................................... 309 C. REDUCED OFFICE ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................... 312 D. REDUCED LABORATORY ALTERNATIVE ............................................................. 314 E. LAKESIDE DRIVE OPEN ALTERNATIVE ................................................................ 317 F. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ULTIMATELY REJECTED ........................ 318 G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE ................................................ 318 VI. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ..................................................................................... 321 A. GROWTH INDUCEMENT ............................................................................................ 321 B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES .............................................................. 322 C. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ......................................................... 323 D. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS ............................................................... 327 VII. REPORT PREPARATION ...................................................................................................... 329 A. REPORT PREPARATION ............................................................................................. 329 B. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 330 C. COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................................... 339
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
Appendix B: Transportation Impact Analysis
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data
Appendix D: Noise Data
Appendix E: Water Supply Assessment
Appendix F: Animated Simulation
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
574
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT iii
FIGURES
Figure II-1: Project Site Location ................................................................................................. 2 Figure II-2: Existing Aerial View ................................................................................................. 3 Figure II-3: Maximum Building Envelope, 2012 Addendum (Addendum #2) ............................ 8 Figure II-4: Maximum Building Envelope ................................................................................. 14 Figure II-5: Site Perspective ....................................................................................................... 15 Figure II-6: Landscape Plan ....................................................................................................... 21 Figure II-7: Circulation Plan ...................................................................................................... 23 Figure III-1: Existing General Plan Designation ......................................................................... 33 Figure III-2: Existing Zoning Designation .................................................................................. 43 Figure III-3: San Carlos Airport Influence Area Boundaries ...................................................... 51 Figure III-4: San Francisco International Airport Influence Area Boundaries ............................ 52 Figure IV.A-1: Land Uses in the Plan Area ..................................................................................... 59 Figure IV.B-1: Viewpoint Location Map ........................................................................................ 69 Figure IV.B-2: Visual Simulations from Viewpoint 1 .................................................................... 70 Figure IV.B-3: Visual Simulations from Viewpoint 2 .................................................................... 71 Figure IV.B-4: Visual Simulations from Viewpoint 3 .................................................................... 72 Figure IV.B-5: Visual Simulations from Viewpoint 4 .................................................................... 73 Figure IV.B-6: Visual Simulations from Viewpoint 5 .................................................................... 74 Figure IV.C-1: City of Foster City Population Growth, 1970-2030 ................................................ 84 Figure IV.C-2: Projected 2012 Master Plan Housing Demand by City .......................................... 90 Figure IV.D-1: Regional Faults ....................................................................................................... 99 Figure IV.G-1: Study Intersections and Freeway Segments .......................................................... 147 Figure IV.G-2: Comparison of No Project and Plus Project Land Uses ........................................ 151 Figure IV.G-3: Existing Transit Routes ......................................................................................... 157 Figure IV.G-4: Existing Bicycle Facilities .................................................................................... 158 Figure IV.G-5: Existing Inter
section Peak-Hour Volumes, Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control Devices .................................................................................................... 163 Figure IV.G-6: Trip Distribution ................................................................................................... 173 Figure IV.G-7: Trip Assignment -- Proposed Project .................................................................... 174 Figure IV.G-8: Existing Plus Project Intersection Peak Hour Volumes -- Proposed Project ........ 177 Figure IV.G-9: Probable Future Development Locations .............................................................. 178 Figure IV.G-10: Cumulative Project Trip Distribution ................................................................... 183 Figure IV.G-11: Cumulative Conditions Intersection Peak Hour Volumes .................................... 184 Figure IV.G-12: Cumulative Roadway Improvements .................................................................... 187 Figure IV.G-13: Proposed Circulation Plan and Recommendations ............................................... 195 Figure IV.H-1: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels Change from Existing to Existing with Project ... 215 Figure IV.K-1: California GHG Emissions by Sector (2000-2009 Average) ................................ 284 Figure IV.K-2: Bay Area GHG Emissions by Sector (2007) ........................................................ 285
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
575
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT iv TABLES
Table I-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... S-9 Table II-1: Existing Buildings ................................................................................................... 11 Table II-2: Summary of the Changes between the 2010 Master Plan (as Modified by Addendum #2) and 2012 Master Plans ................................................................... 17 Table II-3: Development Summary .......................................................................................... 18 Table II-4: Proposed New Buildings ......................................................................................... 19 Table II-5: Parking Ratios ......................................................................................................... 26 Table II-6: Required Permits and Approvals ............................................................................ 28 Table III-1: Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs ........................................ 37 Table IV.B-1: Vintage Park Design Guidelines Policy Consistency ............................................. 80 Table IV.C-1: Foster City Population Growth ............................................................................... 83 Table IV.C-2: Housing and Employment Data – Foster City and San Mateo County ................... 88 Table IV.C-3: Projected 2012 Master Plan Housing Demand by City Based on Residential Location of Current Gilead Employees .................................................................. 91 Table IV.C-4: Project Housing Demand Compared to RHNA ...................................................... 92 Table IV.C-5: Housing and Employment Data Without and With Project .................................... 93 Table IV.D-1: Modified Mercalli Scale ....................................................................................... 101 Table IV.G-1: Land Use Assumptions for Project Site under Existing and Cumulative No Project Conditions ................................................................................................. 150 Table IV.G-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria .................................................................... 153 Table IV.G-3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ................................................................ 154 Table IV.G-4: Freeway Segment LOS Criteria ............................................................................ 154 Table IV.G-5: Existing Transit Service ........................................................................................ 155 Table IV.G-6: Existing Intersection LOS Results ........................................................................ 161 Table IV.G-7: Locally Acceptable LOS Criteria .......................................................................... 162 Table IV.G-8: Existing Freeway Segment LOS Results .............................................................. 165 Table IV.G-9: Trip Generation Rate Comparison ........................................................................ 170 Table IV.G-1
0: Trip Generation Summary – Proposed Project ..................................................... 171 Table IV.G-11: Existing Plus Project Intersection LOS Results ................................................... 179 Table IV.G-12: Existing Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results .......................................... 180 Table IV.G-13: Future Probable Developments ............................................................................. 181 Table IV.G-14: Cumulative Conditions Trip Generation Estimate Summary ............................... 182 Table IV.G-15: Cumulative Roadway System Improvements ....................................................... 185 Table IV.G-16: Net Change in Land Uses for Project Site under Cumulative Conditions ............ 186 Table IV.G-17: Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS Results .............................................. 191 Table IV.G-18: Cumulative Plus Project Freeway Segment LOS Results .................................... 192 Table IV.G-19: Required Parking Supply Calculation ................................................................... 205 Table IV.G-20: Parking Demand Estimate and Supply Comparison ............................................. 206 Table IV.H-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ........................................................................... 208 Table IV.H-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ....................................................................... 209 Table IV.H-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards for Industrial and Commercial Noise Sources........................................................................................................ 210 Table IV.H-4: Noise Limits .......................................................................................................... 210 Table IV.H-5: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ............................................................................... 212
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
576
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT v Table IV.H-6: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels at 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Travel Lane, dBA ............................................................................................................. 217 Table IV.H-7: Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax .......................... 220 Table IV.H-8: Construction-related Noise Levels, dBA .............................................................. 222 Table IV.I-1: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants ........................................................ 228 Table IV.I-2: Ambient Air Quality at the 897 Barron Ave., Redwood City, Monitoring Station ................................................................................................................... 234 Table IV.I-3: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................................ 238 Table IV.I-4: San Francisco Bay Area Attainment Status .......................................................... 243 Table IV.I-5: General Plan Goals and Policies Related to Air Quality....................................... 244 Table IV.I-6: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day ............................................. 248 Table IV.I-7: Regional Emissions from Existing On-Site Uses ................................................. 250 Table IV.I-8: Project Regional Emissions .................................................................................. 250 Table IV.I-9: Mitigated Project Regional Emissions .................................................................. 251 Table IV.J-1: SMFCSD 2011-2012 Enrollment at Schools Serving Foster City ........................ 259 Table IV.J-2: SMFCSD 2011-2012 Enrollment at Schools Serving Foster City ........................ 260 Table IV.J-3: EMID Current and Planned Water Supply and Demand (acre feet/year) ............. 262 Table IV.J-4: Projected EMID Deliveries For Five Consecutive Dry Years (acre feet/year) ..... 263 Table IV.J-5: EMID Water Supply and Demand Projections Plus Project (acre feet/year) ........ 273 Table IV.K-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases ................................................. 278 Table IV.K-2: General Plan Goals and Policies that Would Reduce GHG Emissions ................ 292 Table IV.K-3: Project Compliance with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies ............................................................................................................... 297 Table IV.K-4: Annual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) .................................................. 301 Table IV.K-5: Annual Mitigated GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) ................................. 302
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
577
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT vi
GLOSSARY
A Inhalation breathing factor
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
AB Assembly Bill
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AERMOD Model used in preparation of Health Risk Assessments AIA Airport Influence Area
ALS Advanced Life Support
AP-EFZA Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
ARB California Air Resources Board
AT Average time over which exposure to an air pollutant is measured BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAT Best Available Technology
BAWSCA Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BCT Best Conventional Technology
bgs Below the ground surface
BMP Best Management Practice
Cair Concentration of particulate matter in air
CalEEMod California Emission Estimator Model
Cal/EPA California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal-OSHA State of California Occupationa l Safety and Health Administration Cal Recycle California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association Census United States Census
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFC California Fire Code
CGS California Geological Survey
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
578
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT vii CH4 Methane
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COA condition of approval
CO2E carbon dioxide equivalent
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWM Chemical Waste Management
DHS California Department of Health Services
Differential A phenomenon in which non-saturated, cohesionless soil is made more dense by Compaction earthquake vibrations, causing differential settlement.
DIR California Department of Industrial Relations
DOSH California Division of Occupational Safety and Health DSL digital subscriber line
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
CAAQS California Air Quality Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARE Community Air Risk Evaluation
CBC California Building Code
C/CAG San Mateo City/County A ssociation of Governments CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Res ponse, Compensation, and Liability Act CHP California Highway Patrol
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Program
CMWMP California Department of Public H ealth Medical Waste Management Program CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CRAF Cancer risk adjustment factor
CWA U.S. Clean Water Act
DCM Methylene Dichloride
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
579
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT viii DBA diameter of tree at breast height
DBR Adult daily breathing rate
DPM Diesel particulate matter
ED Exposure duration
EDB 1,2 Dibromoethane
EDC Dichloroethane
EF Exposure frequency
EFI Electronics for Imaging
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMID Estero Municipal Improvement District
EMF electro-magnetic field
EMS Emergency Medical Services
EMT Emergency Medical Technician
ESA/EHSA Environmental Site Assessment and Environmental Health and Safety Assessment ESL Environmental Screening Levels
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FCFD Foster City Fire Department
FCPD Foster City Police Department
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FRM Federal Reference Method
GHG Greenhouse gases, the gases primarily responsible for global climate change GIS geographic information system
GPS Global Positioning System
HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HMIS Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
580
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ix HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICBO International Conference of Building Officials
IFCI International Fire Code Institute
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
Lateral Spreading The phenomenon in which surface so il is displaced along a zone that has formed within an underlying liquefied layer.
LCSD Lower Crystal Springs Dam
Ldn Day-night equivalent noise level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq Continuous equivalent noise level
Liquefaction The transformation of soil from a solid to a liquefied state during which saturated soil temporarily loses strength resultin g from the buildup of excess pore water pressure, which may occur during earthquakes.
LLRW low-level radioactive wastes
Lmax Maximum instantaneous noise level
Lmin Minimum instantaneous noise level
LOS Level of Service
MEI Maximum Exposed Individual
MFP Multi-Hazard Functional Plan
mgd million gallons a day
MMT Million metric tons
mpg Miles per gallon
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MRP regional stormwater permit
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
N
2O Nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NB New building
NFPA National Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association NHTSA Department of Transportation’s Nati onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration NLB New lab building
ND No data
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
581
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT x NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Science NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NO
2 Nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report NOx Nitrogen oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NWIC Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University O
3 Ozone
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment OPR State of California Governor’s office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Pb Lead
PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl, a class of organic compounds considered toxic Perc Tetrachloroethylene
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PM Particulate matter
PM
2.5 Suspended Particulate Matter of 2.5 Microns in Diameter PM10 Suspended Particulate Matter of 10 Microns in Diameter ppb Parts per billion
pphm Parts per hundred million
pphm Parts per hundred million
ppm Parts per million
ppv Peak particle velocity
PRC State of California Public Resources Code
PV Photovoltaic
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976
REL Referenced exposure level
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
rms Root mean square
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
582
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT xi ROG Reactive organic gases
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986 SB Senate Bill
SBWMA South Bayside Waste Management Authority
SEL Sound exposure level
SF
6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SHMA Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
SIP State Implementation Plan
SMCEHD San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division SMFCSD San Mateo-Foster City School District
SMUHSD San Mateo Union High School District
SO
2 Sulfur dioxide
SR 92 State Route 92
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TA San Mateo County Transportation Authority
TAC Toxic air contaminant
TCA Trichloroethane
TCE Trichloroethylene
TCM Chloroform
TDM Transportation demand management
TIA Transportation Impact Analysis
TSM Traffic Systems Management
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
UBC Uniform Building Code
UFC Uniform Fire Code
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
583
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\0-Cover-TOC-Glossary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT xii USGS United States Geological Survey
URBEMIS An urban emissions model
UST Underground Storage Tank
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
VOC Volatile organic compound
WHO World Health Organization
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
μg/m
3 Micrograms per cubic meter
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
584
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-1 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
A. PURPOSE OF THE SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this Subsequent EIR describes the potential environmental impacts of the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (2012 Master Plan or project), which is a long-term plan for the physical development of the Gilead Sciences biopharmaceutical campus. The 2012 Master Plan would amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan, under which the 2010 Corporate Campus Master Plan (2010 Master Plan) was approved. The amendments would increase the amount of building space and land area beyond that identified in the 2010 Master Plan. The 2010 Master Plan was examined in the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR1,2 (2010 EIR), which was certified on February 16, 2010.
This Subsequent EIR is designed to fully inform City of Foster City (City) decision-makers, other responsible agencies, and the general public of the currently-proposed project and the potential impacts of its approval. This Subsequent EIR also examines various alternatives to the 2012 Master Plan, and recommends a set of mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts.
The City of Foster City is the lead agency. This Subsequent EIR, along with the 2010 EIR, will be used by the City of Foster City, the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the public in their review of the proposed project and the various approvals required to implement the 2012 Master Plan, as described in Chapter II, Project Description. If the 2012 Master Plan is not approved by the City of Foster City, Gilead Sciences could proceed with development allowed under the 2010 Master Plan, including the development analyzed in Addenda #1 and #2, and other existing entitlements.
This Subsequent EIR evaluates the 2012 Master Plan on a programmatic level, in part because specific building designs have not yet been identified or proposed. Specific projects proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan would be examined in light of this Subsequent EIR and the 2010 EIR to determine whether additional environmental documents would need to be prepared. Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a programmatic environmental review (referred to as a program EIR) as follows:
A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be character- ized as one large project and are related either: (1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or (4) as individual
1 LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (Public Review Draft). January.
2 LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, Response to Comments Document. July.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
585
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-2 activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways.
Use of a program EIR can provide the following advantages: (1) provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action; (2) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis; (3) avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations; (4) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts; and (5) allow reduction in paperwork.
This Subsequent EIR identifies general effects resulting from the development contemplated by the 2012 Master Plan. Individual development projects proposed within the 2012 Master Plan area (e.g., individual buildings) would receive project-specific environmental evaluation, as necessary, during the development review process. This review would likely involve the preparation of an Initial Study checklist, which would be used to determine whether the environmental impacts of an individual project are adequately addressed in this Subsequent EIR or whether further environmental review is required. (The conditions under which a Subsequent EIR is prepared and the content of such an EIR are described in subsection D., Subsequent EIR, of this chapter.)
B. REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Subsequent EIR is organized into the following chapters:
Chapter I – Introduction and Summary: Discusses the overall purpose of the Subsequent EIR; summarizes the organization of the document; discusses the function of a Subsequent EIR as described in the CEQA Guidelines; and summarizes the project and the impacts that would result from the project.
Chapter II – Project Description: Provides background information about the project, including the project’s environmental review history; discusses existing conditions at the project site; describes the objectives and physical characteristics of the project; and identifies the required approvals.
Chapter III – Planning Policy: Evaluates the 2012 Master Plan in the context of applicable planning-related policies.
Chapter IV – Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures: Describes the following for each environmental topic: existing conditions (setting); potential environmental impacts and their level of significance; and measures to mitigate identified significant impacts. Potential adverse impacts are identified by level of significance, as follows: less-than-significant (LTS), signifi- cant (S), and significant and unavoidable (SU). The significance of each impact is categorized before and after implementation of any recommended mitigation measures.
Chapter V – Alternatives: Provides an evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project, includ- ing the No Project alternative.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
586
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-3 Chapter VI – Other CEQA Considerations: Provides additional specifically-required analyses of the proposed project’s potential growth-inducing effects, significant irreversible changes, cumulative impacts, and effects found not to be significant.
Chapter VII – Report Preparation: Identifies preparers of the Subsequent EIR, references used, and persons and organizations contacted.
C. PROJECT UNDER REVIEW
The project under review is the Gilead Sciences 2012 Master Plan, which amends the Gilead Sciences 2010 Master Plan to incorporate and develop an additional approximately 32 acres acquired from Electronics for Imaging (EFI) adjacent to the 40-acre site comprising the 2010 Master Plan. This Subsequent EIR has been prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Gilead Sciences 2012 Master Plan in the City of Foster City. The proposed project would redevelop a portion of the approximately 73-acre
3 project site, including demolition of up to 12 of the existing office and laboratory4 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. Specific utility infrastructure would be designed when individual building projects are proposed.
Currently, the project site, as shown in Figure II-2 (see Chapter II, Project Description), is developed with 17 buildings up to five stories in height, including NLB-1, which is currently under construction in the southeastern corner of the site. The total interior square footage of the existing buildings, including NLB-1, is 926,735 square feet. The site currently contains 3,847 parking stalls.
The 2010 EIR (as modified by Addenda #1 and #2) assumed the 2010 Master Plan would redevelop a 40-acre site (comprising over half of the 2012 Master Plan site), including the demolition of up to six of the existing office and laboratory buildings, and construction of up to seven new buildings.
Buildout of the 2010 Master Plan would have resulted in a total of up to 17 new buildings (approxi- mately 1,200,480 square feet of interior space) and 3,022 parking stalls on the site.
Development envisioned under the proposed 2012 Master Plan would require an amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan/Rezoning, an amended and restated Development Agree- ment, and various other City entitlements, including demolition, construction, and development permits. A more detailed description of the proposed project is provided in Chapter II, Project Description.
As noted above, if the 2012 Master Plan is not approved by the City of Foster City, Gilead Sciences could proceed with development allowed under the 2010 Master Plan.
3 The 73-acre total excludes the segments of Lakeside Drive and Reef Drive within the project site, and Vintage Lake.
4 Laboratory buildings include research and development uses.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
587
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-4 D. SUBSEQUENT EIR
CEQA requires that public agencies document and consider the environmental implications of their discretionary actions and prepare an EIR if substantial evidence exists that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. As described previously, the 2010 EIR evaluated the environ- mental impacts of the 2010 Master Plan. However, the CEQA Guidelines establish a process for analyzing changes to a proposed project after the certification of the initial EIR.
When changes to an approved project are proposed, a lead agency evaluates the changes and docu- ments their potential environmental effects by preparing either a Subsequent EIR, a Supplemental EIR, or an Addendum to the existing EIR. A Subsequent EIR is prepared if the revised project would potentially result in new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of existing impacts, and these impacts would require major changes to the existing EIR. The Subsequent EIR functions as a stand-alone document, meaning that a reader can use it to understand the impacts of the revised project in their entirety. A Supplement to an EIR, by contrast, is prepared only if the potentially new or intensified impacts would require minor additions or revisions to the existing EIR. A Supplemental EIR is typically used in conjunction with the previous EIR, and may contain only select topical analyses. An Addendum is prepared if the revised project would result in no new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the initial EIR.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 lists the conditions requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR:
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 environ- mental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken 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; or 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 declarations;
(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 measure or alternative.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
588
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-5 The 2012 Master Plan requires a Subsequent EIR because, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, it would represent a change to the 2010 Master Plan as it was defined in the 2010 EIR, and this change would require substantial revisions to the 2010 EIR due to potential new significant environmental impacts. In particular, the project would result in significant impacts to those environmental topics addressed in Chapter IV of this Subsequent EIR. These significant impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Alternatives to the project that would reduce the significant impacts of the 2012 Master Plan are discussed in Chapter V, Alternatives.
As discussed above, the Subsequent EIR is a stand-alone document intended to help readers under- stand the environmental implications of the 2012 Master Plan in their entirety. Thus the focus of the analysis is on the changes to existing environmental conditions that would result from implementa- tion of the 2012 Master Plan. However, the Existing Entitlements Alternative in Chapter V, Alterna- tives, compares the environmental effects of the 2012 Master Plan to the environmental effects of existing site entitlements (i.e., the 2010 Master Plan).
E. SUBSEQUENT EIR SCOPE
On March 15, 2012, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to help identify the types of impacts that could result from the proposed project, as well as potential areas of controversy. The NOP was mailed to public agencies (including the State Clearinghouse), organizations, and individu- als considered likely to be interested in the proposed project and its potential impacts. The public comment period ended on April 16, 2012. A public scoping session was also held on April 5, 2012.
The NOP and written comments received during the scoping period are included as Appendix A.
As a result of an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the project, review of the 2010 EIR, consultation with City staff, and review of comments received as part of the scoping process, the following environmental topics are addressed as separate sections in this Subsequent EIR:
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, and Recreation; and
Global Climate Change.
These are the same topics analyzed in detail in the 2010 EIR.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
589
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-6 F. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This summary provides an overview of the analysis contained in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. CEQA requires a summary to include discussion of: (1) potential areas of controversy; (2) significant project-level impacts, with proposed mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid those impacts; (3) cumulative impacts; (4) significant irreversible and unavoidable impacts; and (5) alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or avoid the environmental impacts of the project. A summary is also required to discuss issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives, and whether or how to mitigate significant environmental effects.
1. Potential Areas of Controversy
Letters and verbal testimony (from the April 5, 2012, scoping session) received as comments on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) raised a number of potential areas of controversy, including: visual impacts; traffic congestion; noise; air pollution from vehicles; health impacts; traffic safety; and emergency access. In addition, some of the comments received in response to the NOP address the merits of the project itself and not the potential adverse environmental impacts that are the subject of this Subsequent EIR. The NOP and written comments are included in Appendix A of this EIR.
2. Significant Impacts
Under CEQA, a significant impact on the environment is defined as “… a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”5 Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in adverse environ- mental impacts in several environmental areas. Impacts in the following areas would be significant without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level if the mitigation measures noted in this Subsequent EIR are implemented:
Visual Quality
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Hydrology and Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transportation and Circulation
Noise
Air Quality
Global Climate Change
5 Remy, Thomas, Moose, and Manley, 2007. Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act, p.184; Public Resources Code 15382; Public Resources Code 21068.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
590
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-7
3. Significant Unavoidable Impacts
The proposed project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
The project would conflict with General Plan noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact.
Project-related traffic would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment.
Operation of the project would result in a significant project-level and cumulative net increase in criteria pollutant emissions, resulting in a conflict with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 Clean Air Plan.
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Project
The five alternatives to the proposed project analyzed in Chapter V of this Subsequent EIR are summarized below. These alternatives (with the exception of the CEQA-mandated No Project alterna- tive) were intended to achieve most of the basic objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding significant environmental effects. The following five alternatives were developed based on input from the Foster City Planning Commission, the public, City staff, and the consultant team to reduce the significant impacts of the project.
1. The No Project alternative assumes the continuation of existing conditions within the project site. The site would remain developed with existing office and laboratory uses in one- to five-story buildings. NLB-1, which is currently under construction, is assumed to be completed. Including NLB-1, the site would contain 926,735 square feet of building space under the No Project alternative.
2. The Existing Entitlements alternative assumes that the project site would be developed in accordance with the existing entitlements issued as part of approval of the 2010 Master Plan (including Addenda #1 and #2). The alternative would allow for a total of 1,363,480 square feet of building space on the site, including 445,432 square feet of laboratory space and 918,048 square feet of office space. Under this alternative, the approximately 32-acre former EFI property would remain in approximately its existing condition. 6 That site would
contain only Building 301, which contains 163,000 square feet of building space.
3. The Reduced Office alternative assumes that overall development within the project site would be reduced compared to the 2012 Master Plan in order to reduce environmental impacts, with a focus on office development. The alternative would allow for a total of 1,905,480 square feet of building space on the site, including 1,460,048 square feet of office space and 445,432 square feet of laboratory space.
6 The 1997 EFI General Development Plan/Rezoning allows for the development of 1,000,000 square feet of office, research and development, light assembly, exercise, cafeteria, and childcare uses on the approximately 32-acre former EFI property and adjoining property occupied by the building at 303 Velocity Way. The approved zoning includes the already- developed 303 Velocity Way building (295,000 square feet) and Building 301 (163,000 square feet). However, buildout to 1,000,000 square feet (total) would require supplemental environmental review. Thus this development is not assumed to be part of the Existing Entitlements alternative.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
591
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-8
4. The Reduced Laboratory alternative assumes a slight reduction in overall development on the project site compared to the 2012 Master Plan while retaining approximately the same amount of laboratory space. The alternative would allow for a total of 2,244,240 square feet of building space on the site, including 1,268,048 square feet of office space, 952,592 square feet of laboratory space, and 23,600 square feet of materials storage and warehouse space.
5. The Lakeside Drive Open alternative assumes that the 2012 Master Plan would be implemented as currently proposed, but that Lakeside Drive would remain open between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive.
The No Project alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative in the strict sense that environmental impacts associated with its implementation would be the least of all the scenarios examined (including the proposed project). However, the No Project alternative would fail to achieve any of the project’s objectives. The secondary environmentally superior alternative would be the Existing Entitlements alternative, which would reduce overall development on the site by approximately 1,137,120 square feet. This reduction in development intensity would also reduce the impacts of the project on traffic congestion, noise, and air quality. The Lakeside Drive Open alternative would be the third most environmentally superior alternative because it would not cause the State Route (SR) 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard to degrade to unacceptable levels during the AM peak hour, and would avoid impacts to the Lincoln Centre and North Foster City Shuttle routes.
G. SUMMARY TABLE
Information in Table I-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, has been organized to correspond with the environmental issues discussed in Chapter IV. The table is arranged in four columns: (1) impacts; (2) level of significance prior to mitigation; (3) mitigation measures; and (4) level of significance after mitigation. Levels of significance are categorized as follows:
LTS Less Than Significant
S Significant
SU Significant and Unavoidable
For a complete description of potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures, please refer to the specific topical discussions in Chapter IV.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
592
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-9 Table I-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
III. Planning Policy
PLAN-1: The proposed 2012 Master Plan would
conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or
mitigate an environmental impact.
S PLAN-1: Implement Mitigation M easures NOI-1a and NOI-1b. See Section IV.H, Noise.
SU
A. Land Use
There are no significant Land Use impacts.
B. Visual Quality
VIS-1: The proposed project would create additional
sources of day and nighttime light and glare in Foster
City.
S VIS-1a: The specific reflective prop erties of project building materials shall be assessed by the City during Design Review prior to approval of each Specific Development Plan for the proposed project. Design review shall ensure that the use of reflective exterior materials is minimized and that proposed reflective material would not create additional daytime or nighttime glare. Glare shall be minimized per Section 17.068.080 of the Zoning Code.
LTS
VIS-1b: Specific lighting proposals shall be submitted and reviewed as part of each Specific Development Plan for each new building on the project site and shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. This review shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting for the project is downward facing and shielded so as not to create addi- tional nighttime glare. Lighting shall conform to the performance stand- ards established by Section 17.68.080 of the Zoning Code.
C. Population, Employment, and Housing
There are no significant Population, Employment, and Housing impacts.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
593
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-10 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
D. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
GEO-1: Project occupants would be subject to seismic
shaking hazards.
S GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, a design-level geotechnical investigation, in compliance with Foster City guidelines, shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Building Inspection Division for review and approval. The geotechnical investigation shall include a finding that the proposed development fully complies with the CBC, as amended by Foster City ordinances and Building Division requirements. The CBC and applicable Foster City ordinances were developed to ensure that compliant structures would be “earthquake-resistant,” not “earthquake-proof.” The CBC is intended to protect people inside buildings by preventing collapse and allowing for safe evacuation. Structures built according to code should resist minor earthquakes undamaged, resist moderate earthquakes without significant structural damage, and resist severe earthquakes without collapse.
The report shall determine the proposed project’s geotechnical conditions and address potential seismic hazards. The report shall identify building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic damage. In addition, the following guidance for the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be addressed:
• Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conform to the California Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented in the Guidelines for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California. Briefly, the guidelines recommend that the report include: a site screening evaluation; evaluation of on- and off-site geologic hazards; quantitative evaluation of hazard potential; detailed field investigation; estimation of ground-motion parameters; evaluation of landslide, liquefaction, lateral-spreading and ground-displacement hazards; and recommenda- tions to reduce identified hazards.
• All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be implemented as a condition of project approval.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
594
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-11 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
GEO-2: Damage to structures or property related to
man-made fill, unstable soils, or unstable subsurface
materials resulting in settlement or differential
settlement could occur.
S GEO-2: The designers of the proposed project’s building foundations and improvements (including sidewalks, roads, driveways, parking areas, and utilities) shall consider the site to be underlain by Bay Mud and/or non- engineered fill. The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include measures to ensure that potential damage related to unstable soils, includ- ing compressible materials and non-uniformly compacted fill, is mini- mized. Substantial settlement is expected across the site during the life of the project. Future settlement from placement of new loads, as well as existing loads, shall be taken into account in the design of all structures and utilities. Mitigation options may range from removal of the problem- atic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected settlement. All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site-specific design-level geotechnical report, and the City of Foster City Building Division stand- ards, shall be followed to reduce impacts associated with problematic soils.
LTS
GEO-3: Damage to structures or property of the
proposed project related to expansive (shrink-swell)
and corrosive soils could occur.
S GEO-3a: The design-level geotechni cal investigation shall include an evaluation of the potential for expansive soils on the site and shall include measures to ensure potential damage related to expansive soils is avoided.
Mitigation options may range from removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles. All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be implemented to reduce impacts associated with problematic soils.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
595
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-12 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
GEO-3 Continued GEO-3b: The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include an evaluation of the potential for corrosive soils on the site. If the results indicate corrosive soil conditions, appropriate measures to mitigate these conditions shall be incorporated into the design of project improvements that may come into contact with site soils. Wherever corrosive soils are found in sufficient concentrations, recommendations shall be made to protect steel and concrete (and any other material that may be placed in the subsurface) from long-term deterioration caused by contact with corrosive on-site soils. In general, these recommendations are expected to include, but not be limited to, the following provisions.
• Protect buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel, and dielectric coated steel or iron (including all buried metallic pressure piping) against corrosion from soil.
• Protect buried metal and cement structures in contact with earth surfaces from chloride ion concentrations.
• Use sulfate-resistant concrete mix for all concrete in contact with the ground.
• Consult a corrosion expert during the project’s detailed design phase to design the most effective corrosion protection.
In addition, all recommendations of the geotechnical investigations shall be implemented.
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1: Construction period and operation period
project activities could result in degradation of water quality in Vintage Lake, Foster City Lagoon, and the
San Francisco Bay by reducing the quality of
stormwater runoff.
S HYD-1a: Consistent with the requir ements of the Statewide Construction General Permit, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP, which shall be prepared for the entire project site, shall be designed to address the following objectives: 1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion, and all other activities associated with construc- tion activity are controlled; 2) where not otherwise required to be under a LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
596
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-13 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYD-1 Continued RWQCB permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; 3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollu- tants in stormwater discharges; and 4) authorized non-stormwater dis- charges from construction activity adhere to the Best Available Technol- ogy and Best Conventional Technology (BAT/BCT) standard; 5) calcula- tions and design details as well as BMP controls for site run-on are complete and correct; and 6) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed.
The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be consistent with the BMP require- ments in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook - Construction or the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual.
The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations and, as appropriate depending on the project Risk Level, sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters (receiving water monitoring is only required for some Risk Level 3 dischargers). A Quali- fied SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP shall also be responsible for performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance and repair activities. If the project is Risk Level 2 or 3, the project applicant shall also prepare a Rain Event Action Plan as part of the SWPPP.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
597
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-14 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYD-1 Continued HYD-1b: The project sponsor shall fully comply with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, which maintains compliance with the NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit. Responsibili- ties include, but are not limited to, designing BMPs into project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality associated with operation of specific development projects undertaken as part of the 2012 Master Plan. These features shall be included in the drainage plan and final development drawings for individual projects.
Specifically, the final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development.
Applicable requirements of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, as outlined in the December 2011 C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance manual (or updated version) shall be incorporated into project designs, unless the City is specifically exempted from such requirements. Rainwater harvesting and reuse, and passive, low-mainte- nance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred in all areas. Higher-maintenance BMPs may only be used if the development of at-grade treatment systems is not possible, or would not adequately treat runoff. Funding for long-term maintenance of all BMPs must be specified (as the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for these features). The project sponsor shall establish a self-perpetuating drainage system maintenance program for the life of the project that includes annual inspections of any stormwater detention devices and drainage inlets. Any accumulation of sediment or other debris shall be promptly removed. In addition, an annual report documenting the inspection and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and/or Building Inspection Division for review and approval.
The SWPPP and drainage system maintenance plan must be approved by the City prior to approval of the grading plan.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
598
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-15 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
HYD-1 Continued HYD-1c: The project sponsor shall comply with all requirements of the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (COA). At a minimum, in accord- ance with the COAs, a hydrology/hydraulic analysis shall be completed on the existing storm drain system to verify that it is adequately sized to accommodate the runoff from the project. Modifications to the system shall be funded by the project sponsor, as needed. In addition, the existing storm drains shall be cleaned as necessary.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: Upset and accidents involving hazardous
materials releases and transport and use during
construction activities could result in adverse effects to public health or the environment.
S HAZ-1a: The contractor(s) shall designate storage areas suitable for material delivery, storage, and waste collection. These locations must be as far away from catch basins, gutters, drainage courses, and water bodies as feasible. All hazardous materials and wastes used or generated during project site development activities shall be labeled and stored in accord- ance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations. In addition, an accurate up-to-date inventory, including Material Safety Data Sheets, shall be maintained on-site to assist emergency response personnel in the event of a hazardous materials incident.
All maintenance and fueling of vehicles and equipment shall be performed in a designated, bermed area, or over a drip pan that will not allow run-off of spills. Vehicles and equipment shall be regularly checked and leaks shall be repaired promptly at an off-site location. Secondary containment shall be used to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed, or poured.
LTS
HAZ-1b: Emergency preparedness and response procedures shall be developed by the contractor(s) for emergency notification in the event of an accidental spill or other hazardous materials emergency during project site preparation and development activities. These procedures shall include evacuation procedures, spill containment procedures, and required per- sonal protective equipment, as appropriate, in responding to the emer- gency. The contractor(s) shall submit these procedures to the City for approval prior to demolition or development activities.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
599
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-16 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
HAZ-1 Continued Compliance with these mitigation measures may occur in coordination with compliance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Best Management Practices required for the proposed project, as the measures identified above are also intended to protect the water quality of runoff from the site. See Section IV.E, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional detail.
HAZ-2: Exposure of construction workers and the
public to existing or previously unknown
contamination in soil and/or groundwater, and other
safety hazards encountered during site grading and
excavation activities, or exposure to hazardous
materials following project development could result
in adverse health effects.
S HAZ-2a: If previously unknown contaminated soil and/or groundwater is encountered at any time during construction activities (e.g., identified by odor or visual staining, or if any underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes are encountered), the contractor(s) shall ensure that all appropriate response measures are taken to protect human health and the environment. A contingency plan for sampling and analysis of previously unknown hazardous substances shall be prepared by the contractor(s), with the approval of the City, prior to grading and earthwork activities.
As part of this contingency plan, soil and/or groundwater samples shall be collected by a qualified environmental professional (e.g., Professional Geologist, Professional Engineer) prior to further work in the area, as appropriate. The samples shall be submitted for laboratory analysis by a State-certified laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures. The analyti- cal methods shall be selected by the environmental professional. The analytical results of the sampling shall be reviewed by a qualified environmental professional and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agency. The professional shall provide recommendations, as applicable, regarding soil/waste management, worker health and safety training, and regulatory agency notifications, in accordance with local, State, and federal requirements. Work shall not resume in the area(s) affected until these recommendations have been implemented under the oversight of the City or regulatory agency, as appropriate.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
600
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-17 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
HAZ-2 Continued HAZ-2b: Engineering fill brought on-site shall be demonstrated, by analytical testing, not to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. Threshold criteria for acceptance of engineered fill shall be selected based on screening levels and protocols developed by regulatory agencies for protection of human health and groundwater (e.g., RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)). The engineered fill shall be characterized by a qualified environmental professional via representative sampling in accordance with U.S. EPA’s SW-846 Test Methods, and demonstrated to meet the threshold criteria above. The results of the sampling and waste characterization shall be submitted by the contractor(s) to the City Building Division for approval prior to transporting engineering fill onto the project site.
HAZ-2c: The contractor shall prep are a Waste Disposal and Hazardous Materials Transportation Plan prior to construction activities where hazardous materials or materials requiring off-site disposal would be generated. The Plan shall include a description of analytical methods for characterizing wastes, handling methods required to minimize the potential for exposure, and shall establish procedures for the safe storage of contam- inated materials, stockpiling of soils, and storage of dewatered ground- water. The required disposal method for contaminated materials, the approved disposal site, and specific routes used for transport of wastes to and from the project site shall be indicated. The Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval prior to commencement of demolition or development activities. The Waste Disposal and Hazardous Materials Transportation Plan may be prepared as an addendum to the Waste Management Plan required by Ordinance 523.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
601
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-18 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
G. Transportation and Circulation
TRANS-1: The addition of project traffic would
increase the average delay during the AM peak hour
by 5 seconds at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue, which would operate at unacceptable
LOS D (delay in excess of 45 seconds) under
Cumulative Conditions.
S TRANS-1: The project sponsor shall implement the TDM Program described in Appendix G of the TIA in accordance with the C/CAG TDM Requirements. As documented in Table G-1 of Appendix G, the TDM Program would reduce project vehicle trips by at least 8 percent. The traffic counts used to determine the site-specific trip generation rates were collected in 2008, when Gilead Sciences’ transit mode share was 6.5 percent. Since 2008, the transit mode and van pool share has increased from 6.5 to 15.3 percent due to increased shuttle service. Gilead Sciences shall maintain this transit mode share through completion of the proposed project, which would result in an 8 percent reduction in vehicle trips added to the roadway network compared to modeled conditions (and a continued
15.3 percent transit mode split). With this reduction, the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue would operate with 46 seconds of delay (compared to 45 seconds without the proposed project). Therefore, with implementation of the TDM Program, the proposed project would increase the intersection delay at Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue by less than 4 seconds, and this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The City shall require the implementation of an appropriate TDM Program for the life of the proposed project to reduce cumulative impacts on area roadways.
LTS
TRANS-2: The addition of project traffic would 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
resulting in a significant project contribution under
Cumulative Conditions.
S TRANS-2: The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. With the TDM Program in place, the mainline segment of eastbound SR 92 between US 101 and Mariners Island
Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard would operate at an acceptable LOS E during the AM peak hour.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
602
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-19 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANS-3: The proposed project would affect the
routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and the North
Foster City shuttle by closing Lakeside Drive.1
S TRANS-3: The operator shall reroute these shuttles to avoid the closed-off portion of Lakeside Drive. The project sponsor shall pay for the costs associated with rerouting these shuttles. This mitigation measure shall be completed before the closure of Lakeside Drive. The North Foster City shuttle shall be re-routed to Chess Drive and Vintage Park Drive (rather than continuing north along Lakeside Drive). The Lincoln Centre shuttle route shall be re-routed to Mariners Island Boulevard via Reef Drive (rather than continuing south along Lakeside Drive), or to an alternative location that is mutually agreeable to Gilead Sciences and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. Implementation of this mitigation measure would restore the continuity of the shuttle routes and maintain shuttle access to the project site. The travel times of the shuttles are not expected to increase as a result of these changes as the shuttle travel distance would remain the same.
LTS
TRANS-4: The proposed project would add ridership
demand to shuttles that are over-capacity.
S TRANS-4: The project sponsor shall contribute to expansion of existing shuttle services or provide new shuttle services to local transit hubs, such as the East Hillsdale Caltrain Station and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station, at a level commensurate with the project’s shuttle ridership demand attributable to buildout and operation of one or more project elements (i.e., a net increase of 341 shuttle riders at project buildout).
Gilead Sciences shall prepare an analysis of its projected shuttle ridership, develop a plan for how the ridership will be accommodated, and submit the plan to the City for approval during the use permit process.
Contributions to expand existing shuttle service or provide new shuttle service shall be made concurrent with approval of a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit.
LTS
1 This impact would occur only if Lakeside Drive is closed from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
603
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-20 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
TRANS-5: Project construction activities could
interfere with circulation patterns.
S TRANS-5: During the use permit process, the project sponsor shall develop and submit a construction management plan for City approval that specifies measures that would reduce impacts to motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation. The construction management plan shall include the following:
• Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles.
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur.
• Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circula- tion, and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project sponsor. • Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
• A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity, including identification of an on-site complaint manager.
• Provisions for pedestrian and bicycle circulation through the conges- tion zone.
The project sponsor shall implement the construction management plan.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
604
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-21 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
H. Noise
NOI-1: Construction period activities would create
significant temporary noise impacts on existing noise
sensitive land uses adjacent to the site.
S NOI-1a: The construction contractor(s) shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The contractor(s) shall provide the City with the name and contact information of the coordinator. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaints (e.g., beginning work too early, bad muffler) and institute reasonable measures to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.
LTS
NOI-1b: The construction contractor(s) shall implement the following measures at the project site during all demolition and construction activities:
• Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays unless deviations from this schedule are approved in advance by the City. Non-construction activities may take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays but must be limited to quiet activities and shall not include the use of engine-driven machinery. No actual construction activities may take place between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., except that when post-tension slab foundations are being poured, the concrete pumper may be set up but no concrete may be poured.
Forklifts may operate on-site between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays. The Community Development Director may temporarily approve construction activities outside of the approved hours.
• During all project site excavation and on-site grading, fit all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers consistent with manufacturers’ standards. • Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors.
Construct temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise-generat- ing equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Tempo- rary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
605
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-22 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
NOI-1 Continued • Locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest possible distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction. • Utilize “quiet” air compressors and other stationary noise sources where such technology exists.
• Route all construction traffic to and from the project site via designated truck routes and prohibit construction-related heavy truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not audible at existing residences bordering the project site. • Prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating construction activities.
• Pre-drill foundation pile holes to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
• Use multiple pile driving rigs to expedite pile driving activities. • Use “acoustical blankets” to shroud the pile hammer.
Implementation of these measures would reduce construction-related noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. This reduction would be expected to reduce construction noise levels to below the City’s threshold for construction noise impacts on noise sensitive land uses. Therefore, with implementation of this mitigation measure, project-related construction noise impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
606
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-23 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
NOI-2: Mechanical equipment used as part of the
project may generate noise levels that would exceed
the noise level standards in the Foster City Municipal
Code.
S NOI-2: At the time that specific bu ildings envisioned under the Master Plan are proposed, the project sponsor shall conduct a design-level acoustical analysis to ensure that mechanical equipment noise resulting from the project complies with applicable General Plan policies and Municipal Code noise level limits. The acoustical analysis shall include a calculation of noise levels resulting from the proposed equipment at the nearest sensitive receiving land uses, an assessment of noise levels relative to applicable standards, and recommendations to control noise levels in accordance with the applicable limits. The report shall be completed and submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
LTS
NOI-3: Project-related traffic would create a clearly
noticeable permanent change in the noise environment.
S Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. SU
I. Air Quality
AIR-1: Construction of the proposed project would
generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards.
S AIR-1: Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD, the following actions shall be required of construction contracts and specifications for the project, as applicable, and Gilead Sciences shall ensure compliance with these actions:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto public roads adjacent to the project site shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph).
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be com- pleted as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
607
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-24 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
AIR-1 Continued • Construction equipment idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 2 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• The project applicant shall post a publicly-visible sign with the tele- phone number and person to contact at the City of Foster City regard- ing dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. • All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or a moisture probe.
• All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph.
• Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) or other plants that offer dust mitigation shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
• The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground- disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time.
The above measures would reduce construction-period air pollutant emissions to a less-than-significant level.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
608
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-25 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
AIR-2: Operation of the proposed project would
generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the
BAAQMD criteria and violate air quality standards.
S AIR-2: The project sponsor shall implement the TDM Program outlined in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. Implementation of this measure would reduce trip generation by 8 percent beyond the TDM trip reduction accounted for in the project trip generation rates. The resulting emissions are shown in Table IV.I-9, which indicates that emissions would remain above the significance threshold. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
SU
AIR-3: Operation of the proposed project would result
in a significant cumulative net increase in criteria
pollutant emissions.
S AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2.
SU
AIR-4: Construction of the proposed project would
result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
S AIR-4: For any phase of project development that includes buildings within 1,000 feet of a residential dwelling unit, prior to issuing building permits, a construction health risk assessment shall be conducted to assess emissions from all construction equipment during that phase of construc- tion. Equipment usage shall be modified as necessary to ensure that equipment use would not result in a carcinogenic health risk of more than 10 in 1 million. If multiple buildings would be constructed simultaneously, a combined health risk assessment may be prepared.
LTS
AIR-5: Operation of the proposed project would result
in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations.
S AIR-5: All future generator installations shall be located a minimum of 500 feet from any residential dwelling units or a health risk assessment shall be conducted for the proposed generators, with results indicating that any future generator installations and test schedules would not result in a carcinogenic health risk in excess of the following levels:
• Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the non-hazard index (chronic or acute);
• Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 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 non-hazard index (chronic) from all sources within 1,000 feet; or
• Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average from all sources within 1,000 feet.
LTS
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
609
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMM A RY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\1-IntroSummary.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT S-26 Environmental Impacts
Level of
Significance
Without
Mitigation Mitigation Measures
Level of
Significance
With
Mitigation
AIR-6: Operation of the proposed project would
generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the
BAAQMD criteria and violate air quality standards,
resulting in an inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan.
S AIR-6: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2. SU
J. Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation
There are no significant Public Services or Utilities impacts.
K. Global Climate Change
GCC-1: Operation of the proposed project would
exceed applicable GHG emissions thresholds.
S GCC-1: Gilead Sciences shall prepare and submit a Campus-wide Sustain- ability Plan, for approval by the Community Development Director, that identifies the specific design and operational measures that will be imple- mented to meet the 4.6 metric tons of CO
2e per employee per year
standard. The Campus-wide Sustainability Plan may include a combina- tion of energy, water, solid waste, and transportation measures and shall include specific implementation and monitoring measures, confirmation of which shall be submitted to the Community Development Director upon request.
LTS
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
610
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter describes the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan (project) that is evaluated in this Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed project would amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan (the boundaries of which are shown in Figure II-1) to include the 2012 Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan. The 2012 Gilead Sciences Corpo- rate Campus Master Plan is a long-term plan for the physical development of the Gilead Sciences biopharmaceutical campus, and would include new office, laboratory, and material storage/warehouse space.
The following sections include a discussion of: the project’s background and previous environmental review; existing conditions at the site; project objectives; the physical and operational characteristics of the proposed project; changes to the project analyzed in the 2010 Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan EIR (which this document supplements); and the intended uses of this Subse- quent EIR.
A. BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This section describes the planning and environmental review background of the proposed project.
1. 2010 Master Plan Background
The project site is located in the Vintage Park General Development, a 132-acre mixed-use development primarily consisting of office and research and development uses (see Figure II-1). The Gilead Sciences corporate headquarters have been located on the project site since early 1988.
In 2008, Gilead Sciences proposed a Master Plan for a portion of the larger Vintage Park. That Master Plan was ultimately approved in 2010. The 2010 Master Plan was intended to provide for the long- range planning and development of the South Campus,
1 an approximately 40-acre portion of the
current project site. Figure II-1 shows the project site location and Figure II-2 shows an existing aerial view, with the North and South Campuses delineated. The 2010 Master Plan includes the following specific elements:
An increase in building space on the South Campus from 629,154 square feet to 1,200,480 square feet (a net increase of 571,326 square feet);
1 The term “South Campus” refers to the approximately 40-acre area covered by the 2010 Master Plan in the larger Vintage Park plan area and is contrasted with the “North Campus” – also in Vintage Park – which was planned and partially developed by Electronics for Imaging (EFI) in the late 1990s. In the 2010 Master Plan, the South Campus included Buildings 300 and 310, as shown in Figure II-2. In the 2012 Master Plan, these buildings would be located in the North Campus, as shown in Figure II-4. The boundary lines of the North and South Campuses were redrawn as part of the 2012 Master Plan.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
611
Reef DrReef Dr
San MateoSan Mateo
Vintage Park Dr
M
arsh Dr
Velocity WayVelocity WayVelocity WayVelocity Way
ParkParkVintageVintage
CentralCentral
LakeLake
San Francisco BaySan Francisco BaySan Francisco Bay
Central
Lake
M
ariners Island Blvd.
Reef Dr
San Mateo
Vintage Park Dr
M
arsh Dr
Velocity WayVelocity Way
ParkVintage
feet
12000 600
Project Site
Vintage Park
City Boundary
92 San Mateo
Petaluma
680
Oakland
Vallejo
80 San Francisco
San Leandro
Hayward
Fremont
Richmond
Berkeley
Emeryville
PROJECT LOCATION
Emeryville
Pacific Ocean
REGIONAL LOCATION
Redwood
City
San Rafael
101
580
680
880
580
280
101
San Rafael
680
24 Redwood
City
84 SausalitoSausalito
San Francisco Bay
Brisbane
92 Foster
City
FIGURE II-1
Gilead Sciences Integrated
Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Project Site LocationSOURCES: GOOGLE MAPS; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III1.ai (5/16/12)
PROJECT
SITE
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
612
Mariners Island BlvdMariners Island Blvd
Lakeside Dr
Lakeside Dr
Marsh Dr
East Third AveEast Third Ave
Velocity WayVelocity Way
Foster City Blvd
Reef DrReef Dr
Bridgepoint Circle
Vintage Park Dr
NORTH CAMPUSNORTH CAMPUS
SOUTH CAMPUSSOUTH CAMPUS
(Former EFI Property)(Former EFI Property)
(2010 Master Plan)(2010 Master Plan)
Mariners Island Blvd
Lakeside Dr
Marsh Dr
East Third Ave
Velocity Way
Foster City BlvdVintage
Lake
Reef Dr
Bridgepoint Circle
Lakeside Dr
Vintage Park Dr
300
310
320
322
324
335
342
344
346 362
NB/368
(NLB-1)
357353
333
355
331
301
303
NORTH CAMPUS
SOUTH CAMPUS
NOT PART OF
THIS APPLICATION
(Former EFI Property)
(2010 Master Plan)
feet
4000 200
Project Site
Existing Buildings
North Campus
(Former EFI Property)
South Campus
(2010 Master Plan)
Building Under Construction335
FIGURE II-2
Gilead Sciences Integrated
Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing Aerial ViewSOURCES: TERRASERVER, 2-3-12; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III2.ai (10/29/12)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
613
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 4 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
614
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 5 Demolition of up to eight of the existing office and laboratory buildings and construction of up to eight new buildings (such that the campus would ultimately contain up to 17 buildings);
Provision of 3,060 parking stalls (a net increase of 1,067 stalls from existing levels), includ- ing 1,315 spaces in parking garages and 1,745 spaces in surface lots; and The partial closure of Lakeside Drive and conversion of this portion of the public street to a private street owned and maintained by Gilead Sciences, to provide additional landscaping and enhance pedestrian circulation within the campus.
The 2010 Master Plan addresses development that could occur over a 15- to 20-year project buildout period, beginning in 2010 and ending in 2025 to 2030. The 2010 Master Plan governs general plan- ning of the South Campus (including building square footage and massing), but does not establish the specific location, size, style, or structure of individual buildings.
2. 2010 Master Plan EIR
A Draft EIR was prepared to evaluate the potential effects of the 2010 Master Plan and was made available for public review on January 21, 2009. The public hearing on the Draft EIR was held on February 5, 2009.2 The Final EIR was certified and the project was approved on February 16, 2010.3 As part of project approval, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the four significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR:
PLAN-1: The proposed 2010 Master Plan would conflict with transportation policies in the General Plan adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact.
PLAN-2: The proposed 2010 Master Plan would conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact.
TRANS-1: The addition of Gilead Sciences traffic would increase the average delay during the AM peak hour by 4 seconds at the intersection of Foster City Boulevard/Marlin Avenue, which is expected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS) F under Cumulative Conditions.
NOI-1: Construction period activities could create significant temporary noise impacts on existing noise sensitive land uses adjacent to the site.
In addition to the No Project alternative, the Final EIR included an analysis of the following alterna- tives to the 2010 Master Plan:
2 LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (Public Review Draft). January.
3 LSA Associates, Inc., 2009. Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, Response to Comments Document. July.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
615
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 6 The Lakeside Drive Open alternative, which assumed the same development layout and configuration as in the proposed 2010 Master Plan, except that Lakeside Drive would not be subject to closure and privatization.
The Reduced Density alternative, which assumed a reduction of 25 percent in the amount of total building square footage on the site. This alternative would result in a total of up to 900,360 square feet of office and laboratory space on the South Campus, a net increase of 428,495 square feet over the existing buildings.
The Consolidated Building (Two Office Building) alternative, which assumed the same amount of interior square footage would be constructed on the campus as proposed in the 2010 Master Plan. However, this alternative would house all the office and research and development uses in five buildings, instead of eight. The office uses would be located in one eight-story and one ten-story building located near Vintage Lake. The research and development laboratory uses would be located in one three-story building that would border Mariners Island Boulevard and one four-story building that would be located at the southwestern intersection of Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive.
The Reduced Density alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative (after the No Project alternative), primarily because the Reduced Density alternative would avoid the signifi- cant impact associated with cumulative traffic congestion at the intersection of Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue.
After certification of the Final EIR, the 2010 Master Plan underwent a series of changes for which two addenda
4 to the certified Final EIR were prepared. These addenda are described below.
2011 Addendum (Addendum #1).5 Addendum #1 was prepared primarily for proposed changes to New Lab Building-1 (NLB-1)6 located in the southeastern corner of the site. The structure would change from a three-story (73 feet in height at the top of the roof screen) 90,375-square- foot building to a four-story (90 feet in height at the top of the roof screen/penthouse) 192,054- square-foot building. Other proposed campus features, including the location of a parking structure and truck access roads, were also changed. The total square footage of development remained the same, with a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory uses and a maximum of 755,048 square feet of office uses (requiring a total of 3,022 parking spaces). On August 4, 2011, the Planning Commission found that Addendum #1 to the Final EIR adequately analyzed the environmental impacts associated with the proposed changes to NLB-1. See Figure II-2 for the existing aerial view of the site, and the footprint of NLB-1 as evaluated in Addendum #1.
NLB-1 is considered part of the baseline for the purpose of the environmental analysis in this Subsequent EIR, along with existing facilities on the project site.
4 As noted in Chapter I, Introduction and Summary, use of an addendum to a certified EIR is allowed when a revised project would result in no new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the initial EIR. 5 Foster City, City of, 2011. Addendum No. 1 to Final Environmental Impact Report for Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan. July.
6 New buildings within the 2010 Master Plan are referred to as either NLB, for “new lab building,” or NOB, for “new office building,” along with a corresponding number. This naming convention was continued for the two addenda prepared for the 2010 Master Plan.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
616
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 7 2012 Addendum (Addendum #2).7 Since the approval of the 2010 Master Plan and Addendum #1, Gilead Sciences expanded its commercial product line into new therapeutic areas and increased its emphasis on research and development activities, requiring further changes to the Master Plan. Addendum #2 evaluated the substitution of one of the three office buildings adjacent to Vintage Lake (New Office Building-3 [NOB-3] in the 2010 Master Plan) with a two- to eight-story laboratory building (NLB-2, as shown in Figure II-3). To remain within the allowable amount of development, as identified in the 2010 Master Plan and Addendum #1, the new laboratory building (NLB-2) absorbed the building square footage allocated to another pro- posed laboratory building elsewhere on the campus (NLB-3 in the 2010 Master Plan). Adden- dum #2 also added a Pilot Laboratory adjacent to the eight-story laboratory building. Addendum #2 maintained the same level of development proposed as part of the 2010 Master Plan and changed in Addendum #1 (a total of 1,200,480 square feet) with a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory uses and a maximum of 755,048 square feet of office uses. On July 19, 2012, the Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of Addendum #2 to the Final EIR and found that Addendum #2 adequately analyzed the environmental impacts associated with substitution of one of the three office buildings adjacent to Vintage Lake with a two- to eight-story laboratory building and changes to the layout of the Master Site Plan. On September 20, 2012 the City Council adopted Resolution 2012-68, finding that Addendum #2 adequately analyzed impacts related to amendments to the General Development Plan. On September 24, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 569, approving the amendment to the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan. See Figure II-3 for the amended General Development Plan, as evaluated in Addendum #2.
3. Subsequent Land Purchases
Following completion of the 2010 Master Plan, Gilead Sciences purchased an additional approxi- mately 32 acres of campus space from Electronics for Imaging (EFI), which comprises the North Campus (as shown on Figure II-2). The North Campus includes a five-story office building located at 301 Velocity Way. As part of the acquisition of the North Campus, Gilead acquired by assignment a Development Agreement entered into between EFI and the City on July 10, 1997, which is in effect until the earlier date of April 10, 2013, or the effective date of an amended and restated Development Agreement for the project analyzed in this Subsequent EIR. In addition to the Development Agree- ment, a General Development Plan/Rezoning was approved for the North Campus on May 19, 1997 (and amended on July 17, 2000), which allows for a total of 1,000,000 square feet of office, research and development, light assembly, exercise, cafeteria and childcare uses, including the already-devel- oped 303 Velocity Way building (295,000 square feet), which is owned by Gilead Sciences as of November 1, 2012. The environmental effects of the General Development Plan/Rezoning for the North Campus were evaluated in the Electronics for Imaging, Inc. Vintage Park Development Envi- ronmental Impact Report (SCH# 96102060).8
7 LSA Associates, Inc., 2012. Addendum No. 2 to the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. February.
8 Brady and Associates, 1997. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. Vintage Park Development Draft Environmental Impact Report. January.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
617
feet
4000 200
FIGURE II-3
Gilead Sciences Integrated
Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Maximum Building Envelope,
2012 Addendum (Addendum #2)SOURCE: DES ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS, MAY 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III3.ai (12/10/12)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
618
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 9 The integrated master plan for the South Campus and North Campus is the subject of this Subsequent EIR. As of November 1, 2012, Gilead Sciences owns Building 303 on Velocity Way. However, that building is not a part of the project site.
B. PROJECT SITE
The following section describes the project site’s location, surrounding land uses, and site characteris- tics. Gilead Sciences, a biopharmaceutical company, occupies the entire project site. The Foster City campus comprises the Gilead Sciences corporate headquarters. The primary business market areas for Gilead Sciences include drugs for HIV/AIDS and chronic hepatitis, cardiovascular conditions (such as pulmonary arterial hypertension and resistant hypertension) and respiratory diseases (such as influenza and cystic fibrosis).
1. Location
The 72.59-acre project site is located in Foster City, within the Vintage Park General Development Plan. Foster City is located in San Mateo County and is bordered by the San Francisco Bay to the north and east, the cities of Belmont and Redwood City to the south, and the City of San Mateo to the west. Vintage Park, as stated previously, is a 132-acre mixed-use development located in the north- western corner of Foster City. Figure II-1 shows the project site’s regional and local context.
Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided via the Foster City Boulevard exit from State Route 92 (SR 92), just over ¼-mile southeast of the project site, and the East Third Avenue exit from Highway 101, to the northwest of the site. Local access to the project site is provided via Foster City Boulevard, East Third Avenue, Vintage Park Drive, and Mariners Island Boulevard.
2. Surrounding Land Use
The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by a mixture of uses including:
The former EFI headquarters (303 Velocity Way) and Mariners Point Golf Course to the north;
Office and light industrial uses to the east;
Home Depot, Hilton Garden Inn, and Bridgepointe Shopping Center (City of San Mateo) to the south; and
A mix of multi-family and single-family residential uses and the lagoon to the west of Mariners Island Boulevard (City of San Mateo).
Existing land uses within the project site are depicted in Figure II-2, and land uses around the project site are illustrated in the aerial photo included as Figure IV.A-1 in Section IV.A, Land Use.
3. Site Characteristics
The project site is generally level and is bounded by East Third Avenue to the north, Vintage Park Drive and Marsh Drive to the east, a variety of retail and office uses to the south, and Mariners Island Boulevard to the west.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
619
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 10 At the time the 2010 Master Plan was originally proposed, the approximately 40-acre project site consisted of 17 buildings on 15 parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 094-901-290, -300, - 310, -340, -370, -380, -390, -400, -410; and 094-904-290, -300, -310, -320, -330, -340). These buildings and parcels collectively comprise the South Campus (see Figure II-2). After approval of the 2010 Master Plan, two buildings were demolished. One building (NLB-1) is being constructed as of October 2012 on the site of the two demolished buildings. Thus there are currently 16 existing or under-construction buildings on the South Campus.
The 2012 Master Plan would integrate the North Campus and South Campus. The approximately 33- acre North Campus consists of one building,
9 surface parking lots, vacant land, and Vintage Lake on eight parcels (APNs: 094-122-050, -060, -070, -080, -110, -120, -130, and -150). Thus, the approxi- mately 73-acre integrated North and South Campuses have a total of 17 existing buildings and 23 parcels. The project site is completely developed except for three vacant parcels (APNs: 094-122-050, -060, and -150) in the North Campus.
a. Existing Buildings. The project site is developed with office and research and development uses along with associated surface parking and landscaping. There are 15 mostly one- and two-story buildings on the South Campus. NLB-1 (currently under construction) will be four stories. The North Campus contains one five-story building (Building 301). Table II-1 summarizes information about the existing buildings on the project site; these buildings are shown in Figure II-2. The parcels on the site are owned by Gilead Sciences.
b. Other Land Uses. The existing buildings on the project site are primarily used for office, laboratory, and accessory uses; campus uses include the handling of hazardous materials typically used in biopharmaceutical research. No animal testing is conducted in the project site. Two cafeterias are located in buildings on the project site and are intended to encourage employees to stay on campus for meals. One fitness center offers programs that include walking, table tennis, yoga classes, and health and wellness seminars. In addition, there is a 150-person auditorium used primarily for lectures and presentations for employees and visitors. The auditorium is located in Building 362 (along the southern edge of the project site). A major landscape feature of the site is Vintage Lake, a man-made lake located near the center of the site.
c. Employment. As of 2012, the Gilead Sciences campus had a staff of approximately 1,800 employees (globally, Gilead Sciences employs a total of 4,500 people). Of the 1,800 employees based in Foster City, approximately 667 work in sales and typically operate away from the project site. In 2008, Gilead’s 10-year strategic plan projected that the employee count at the Foster City campus would grow to approximately 3,100 by the year 2018. Of these 3,100 total employees, it was estimated that approximately 600 would typically work away from the project site.
9 The project site excludes the building at 303 Velocity Drive (APN #094-122-140), which Gilead Sciences owns as of November 1, 2012. The building is not part of the proposed project.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
620
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 11 d. Open Space, Landscaping and
Plazas. Approximately 59 percent of the
North Campus and approximately 79 percent
of the South Campus (not including the
surface area of Vintage Lake or the paved
portion of the Lakeside Drive right-of-way)
is covered with impervious surfaces, in the
form of paved surface parking lots and one-,
two-, four- and five-story buildings, as
shown on Figure II-2. Approximately 69
percent of the combined North and South
Campuses are covered with impervious
surfaces. The North Campus, with the
exception of Building 301, is composed of
surface parking lots and vacant land. Open
space is provided around the perimeter of
Vintage Lake, where ground cover and trees
have been planted on either side of a path
that circles the lake. In addition, trees and
other landscaping are located in and around
surface parking lots and in between
buildings.
e. Circulation. The interior of the site is primarily accessed by Lakeside Drive and Velocity Way, with access from the north via East Third Avenue, from the east via Marsh Drive and Vintage Park Drive, and from the west via Reef Drive and Mariners Island Boulevard. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks along Lakeside Drive, Reef Drive, and Velocity Way. In addition, pedestrian trails are located along the northern shoreline of Vintage Lake, and walkways are provided between campus buildings.
f. Parking. The site currently contains 3,847 parking stalls (1,962 in the South Campus and 1,885 in the North Campus), as shown on Figure II-2. All the parking stalls are located in surface parking lots. These surface parking lots are located around each building on the campus, and each is accessible from Lakeside Drive or Velocity Way.
As part of the 2009 sale of the North Campus, EFI retained access to parking on the project site to serve Building 303. On January 19, 2009, Gilead Sciences entered into a Reciprocal Easement Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (REA) with EFI. The REA granted EFI an easement to utilize parking spaces on the project site. Gilead Sciences retained the right to relocate the parking easement area to another location within 300 feet of the entrance to Building 303, as required by the Foster City Municipal Code, with 30 days written notice to EFI. The REA remained in effect until November 1, 2012, when Gilead Sciences assumed ownership of Building 303.
4. Land Use Designations
The following subsection provides a brief overview of land use designations within the project site.
Chapter IV, Planning Policy, provides additional discussion of applicable planning policies.
Table II-1: Existing Buildings
Building
Number Building Use
Building
to be
Removed Stories
Building
Square
Footage
300 Office No 2 87,560
301 Office No 5 163,000
310 Office No 2 53,440
320 Office/Laboratory Yes 1 25,728
322 Office Yes 2 42,048
324 Laboratory Yes 1 22,272
331 Office Yes 1 20,737
333 Office Yes 2 37,104
335 Laboratory Yes 1 24,768
342 Laboratory Yes 1 31,000
344 Laboratory Yes 1 29,763
346 Laboratory Yes 1 18,117
353 Laboratory Yes 1 27,648
355 Office Yes 2 54,828
357 Laboratory No 1 33,408
362 Laboratory No 2 63,260
NLB-1 Laboratory No 4 192,054
Total 926,735
Note: 303 Velocity Way is not part of the project site. NLB-1 is under construction as of May 2012.
Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
621
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 12 a. City of Foster City General Plan. The existing General Plan designation of the project site is Research/Office Park. Areas with this designation contain office, research and development, and manufacturing establishments whose operations are relatively clean and quiet. The General Plan offers some guidance regarding the floor area ratio (FAR) of existing buildings in the Vintage Park area; however there are no FAR standards for new development. The General Plan states that existing land use intensities within Vintage Park have an FAR generally ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 and most land uses designated Research/Office Park have an FAR of 0.2 to 0.4. The General Plan further states that vacant Vintage Park sites are anticipated to have an FAR of up to 1.0. The City is currently updating its 1993 General Plan, including the Land Use and Circulation Element, which is expected to be available for public review in early 2013. However, the General Plan designation of the project site is not expected to change.
b. City of Foster City Zoning. The project site is zoned Commercial Mix/Planned Development (CM/PD). The CM District is intended to be combined with the PD Combining District, and only allows those uses specified within the General Development Plan required in connection with the PD zoning district approval. The PD District and CM District are designed to accommodate various types of development and were established to allow flexibility in design. Under this zoning designation, a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit is required to specify permissible uses, area, bulk, yard, and height regulations. Specific findings must be recommended by the Planning Commission (and adopted by the City Council) in order to approve or conditionally approve a General Development Plan, as identified in Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. A General Development Plan is required to be a graphic and schematic plan with a number of required components, including a map showing proposed land uses, buildings, open space, and a circulation system. Refer to Chapter IV, Planning Policy, for additional detail about the PD District process.
c. Vintage Park Master Plan. The project site was originally developed as part of the Vintage Park Master Plan,
10 which was first approved in 1981. The original Vintage Park Master Plan and associated Design Guidelines (first approved in 1984) envisioned a business and working community tightly integrated with the various land uses within and surrounding the site. The Vintage Park Master Plan, as originally proposed, included executive offices, commercial/retail, research and development, and light industrial uses. The various uses were to be integrated with open space to create a park-like setting.
C. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed project would result in the redevelopment of portions of an approximately 73-acre campus with a mix of office uses, laboratories, materials storage/warehouse, and ancillary land uses.
The objectives of the proposed project are to:
Allow for the development of a unified corporate campus; Allow Gilead Sciences the flexibility to respond to its dynamic business needs in the arrangement of buildings and uses throughout the campus while limiting off-site traffic impacts;
10 The Master Plan is considered a General Development Plan, per City zoning regulations.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
622
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 13 Accommodate a total of 5,500 employees;
Provide a safe pedestrian-oriented environment;
Provide an amount of parking on-site that reflects expected demand; Develop the campus in a manner that promotes walkability and with buildings that conserve energy and water;
Reduce the administrative burdens on the City through a flexible General Development Plan; Develop the campus and buildings to be consistent with the Vintage Park Design Guidelines; and
Maintain flexibility in the timing of development, and designation and location of land uses to support Gilead Sciences’ dynamic business needs in laboratory, office, and ancillary support space.
D. PROPOSED PROJECT
This section provides a description of the proposed project based on information provided to LSA Associates, Inc., by the City and Gilead Sciences in the spring of 2012. The proposed project is intended to establish a set of guiding principles for long-range planning on the project site in order to ensure integrated development of the North Campus and South Campus.
On November 29, 2011, Gilead Sciences submitted a request to amend the Vintage Park General Development Plan to integrate the approved South Campus with the newly-acquired North Campus.
The 2012 Master Plan, as shown in conceptual form in Figure II-4, is intended to incorporate the additional parcels and respond to the business needs of Gilead Sciences for up to an approximately 15- to 20-year buildout period (2013 through 2028 to 2033).11 The development diagram shown in Figure II-4 illustrates the maximum buildout potential of the project, and not specific building massing or footprints. Figure II-5 shows a perspective of this conceptual plan.
This Subsequent EIR focuses on the changes between existing conditions and the currently-proposed 2012 Master Plan. These changes are summarized in Table II-2. Upon certification, this Subsequent EIR would supersede the EIR for the 2010 Master Plan.
The 2010 Master Plan (as modified by Addendum #1 and Addendum #2) anticipated the demolition of up to six of the existing buildings (Buildings 320, 324, 331, 333, 346, 355), as shown on Figure II- 2)
12 and the construction of up to seven13 new office and laboratory buildings (NOB-1, NOB-2, NLB- 2, NLB-3, NLB-4, an Annex, and Pilot Lab), and two parking garages, as shown in Figure II-3.
11 The Development Agreement for the project, which is under negotiation as of October 2012, is expected to be generally consistent with the overall project buildout time frame assumed in this Subsequent EIR. 12 Note that Buildings 366 and 368 were demolished as part of the construction of NLB-1 and thus do not appear in Figure II-2.
13 The seven new buildings listed here do not include New Lab Building-1 (NLB-1), which is currently under construction.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
623
feet
4000 200 Not Part of Application
North Campus
South Campus
FIGURE II-4
Gilead Sciences Integrated
Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Maximum Building Envelope, 2012 Master PlanSOURCE: DES ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS,MAY 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III4.ai (10/29/12)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
624
303; not part of project 301300
310
PG2
PG1
NB/309
NB/357
NB/355
MSB
PL
NB/307
NB/305
Ship/Receive
PG3
PG4
NB/322
NB/324 Annex
NB/331
NB/333
NB/342
NB/335
NB/353 362
NB/346
NB/368
(NLB-1)
not to scale
FIGURE II -5
SOURCE: DES ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS, JULY 2012; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_II5.ai (10/29/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Site Perspective - View from the Northwest
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
625
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 16 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
626
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 17 After buildout of the 2010 Master Plan (including the changes analyzed in the two addenda), the approximately 40-acre project site would contain a total of up to 17 buildings and 3,022 parking spaces. The 2012 Master Plan would demolish 12 buildings, of which six would be replaced (NB/322, NB/335, NB/342, NB/353, NB/357 and a Pilot Lab, as an annex to Building NB/355). In addition, the 2012 Master Plan would add a material storage building in the South Campus. The 2012 Master Plan would also construct an additional four buildings (NB/305, NB/307, NB/309, and a Shipping/Receiv- ing Center with associated service yard) and two parking garages, all in the North Campus. In addition, the 2012 Master Plan would increase the intensities and heights of several buildings proposed in the 2010 Master Plan. After buildout, the 2012 Master Plan would contain up to a total of 22 buildings and 6,050 parking stalls on approximately 73 acres.
Table II-2 summarizes the key changes between the 2010 and 2012 Master Plans. The specific components of the currently-proposed project are described in more detail following the table.
Table II-2: Summary of the Changes betw een the 2010 Master Plan (as Modified by Addendum #2) and 2012 Master Plans
Characteristic 2010 Master Plan 2012 Master Plan
Campus Size/
Building Use
A 40-acre site with up to 1,200,480 square feet
of building space comprising:
o 755,048 square feet of office space; and
o 445,432 square feet of laboratory space.
A 73-acre site with up to 2,500,600 square feet
of building space comprising:
o 1,524,000 square feet of office space;
o 953,000 square feet of laboratory space; and
o 23,600 square feet of material storage/
warehouse space.
Demolition Up to six existing buildings (178,786 square feet).1
Up to 12 existing buildings (367,421 square
feet).1
New Buildings Two up to ten-story office buildings;
One up to eight-story laboratory building;
Two up to four-story laboratory buildings;
One up to four-story pilot laboratory; and
One up to two-story annex.
Six up to ten-story buildings;
Three up to six-story buildings; and
Eight up to four-story buildings.
Employees Up to 3,100 employees. Up to 5,500 employees.
Parking Ratio Up to 3,022 parking spaces, with a parking ratio of:
o 1 space per 250 square feet of office space.
o 1 space per 833 square feet of laboratory
space.
Up to 6,050 parking spaces, with a parking ratio
of:
o 1 space per 250 square feet of office space.
o 1 space per 833 square feet of laboratory
space.
o 1 space per 500 square feet of manufacturing
and warehouse space.
Parking Stalls/
Structures
Up to two four- and six-level parking structures.
Surface parking lots located adjacent to
buildings.
Up to four three- to six-level parking structures.
Surface parking lots located adjacent to
buildings.
Shipping Main truck dock in the southeast corner of the site, with access off the eastern portion of
Lakeside Drive.
Main service yard and shipping/receiving in the
northeast corner of the site, with access off the
Marsh Road and Vintage Park Drive.
1 Not including two buildings demolished to allow for construction of NLB-1. 2 Not including NLB-1, which is currently under construction.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
The 2012 Master Plan would guide the general planning of the project site (including total square footage and types of uses) but would not establish the specific uses, location, size, style, or structure of individual buildings. Development details would be specified as part of subsequent approvals for individual development projects undertaken as part of implementation of the proposed project, such as
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
627
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 18 site-specific development plan/use permits and design review. These specific projects would undergo subsequent review, as appropriate, following certification of this program-level Subsequent EIR. If a specific project would not result in environmental impacts beyond those identified in the Subsequent EIR, no further review may be required.
1. Office/Research and Development Uses
In total, the 2010 Master Plan (as modified by Addendum #2) would result in the demolition of up to 178,786 square feet of building space, comprising six one- and two-story buildings. In addition, the 2010 Master Plan (as amended) would result in the construction of up to 1,200,480 square feet of building space, including a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory uses and a maximum of 755,048 square feet of office uses. Office and research and development uses would be located in separate buildings on the campus. Up to two new ten-story office buildings and one eight-story laboratory building would be located along the western edge of Vintage Lake. The 2010 Master Plan also includes up to three new two- to four-story laboratories that would be located at various points along Lakeside Drive. An Annex (adjacent to NB/322) and a Pilot Lab (adjacent to NB/355) would be developed as well.
The 2012 Master Plan, by contrast, would demolish up to 367,421 square feet of building space, consisting of 12 existing one- and two-story office and laboratory buildings. These to-be-demolished buildings include the six remaining buildings that the 2010 Master Plan identified for possible demolition (Buildings 322, 335, 342, 344, 353 and 357) and do not include the two buildings that were demolished to allow for construction of NLB-1.
The 2012 Master Plan would increase allowable
development by 1,300,120 square feet, to up to
2,500,600 square feet of building space. This
includes up to 1,524,000 square feet of office
space (an increase of 768,952 square feet from the
2010 Master Plan); 953,000 square feet of labora-
tory space (an increase of 507,568 square feet
from the 2010 Master Plan); and up to 23,600
square feet of material storage/warehouse space
(no material storage/warehouse space was includ-
ed in the 2010 Master Plan). The allocation of
building space within the North Campus and South
Campus for the 2010 and 2012 Master Plans is
summarized in Table II-3. Table II-4 lists the
individual buildings that could be developed as
part of the 2012 Master Plan.
Specific locations, square footages, and uses have not yet been assigned to each of these buildings, each of which represents a maximum envelope of development (i.e., the total square footage of these buildings, if developed to the maximum height per Table II-4 and Figure II-4, could exceed 2,500,600 square feet). Therefore, these buildings could be developed with any configuration of uses and intensities, as long as the maximum building envelope identified in Table II-3 and Figure II-4 (i.e., a maximum of 2,500,600 square feet of interior space) is not exceeded, and the maximum square footage identified for each use in Table II-3 is not exceeded.
Table II-3: Development Summary
Campus Use
Square Footage
2010 2012
North
Campus
Office N/A 1,024,000
Material Storage/
Warehouse
N/A 18,500
South
Campus
Office 755,048 500,000
Laboratory 445,432 953,000
Material Storage/
Warehouse
N/A 5,100
Integrated
Campus
Office 755,048 1,524,000
Laboratory 445,432 953,000
Material Storage/
Warehouse
N/A 23,600
TOTAL 1,200,480 2,500,600
Note: North Campus includes Buildings 300 and 310.
Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
628
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 19
2. Other Land Uses
In addition to office and research and develop-
ment uses, the 2010 Master Plan includes build-
ings that would also contain accessory uses,
including cafeterias, meeting spaces, manu-
facturing uses, and physical fitness facilities.
The interior building space reserved for these
accessory uses has not yet been identified, but
would be encompassed by the 2,500,600 square
feet of total building space. These uses would
also be incorporated into the 2012 Master Plan.
Hazardous materials commonly used in
biopharmaceutical laboratory settings would
continue to be used as part of the 2012 Master
Plan. The project would also include a pilot
plant, which manufactures small quantities of
active pharmaceutical ingredients and preclini-
cal/clinical trial support materials. The 2012
Master Plan would locate a shipping/receiving
center and service yard in the northeast corner
of the North Campus. The shipping/receiving
center would be used as a location for central-
ized deliveries made by trucks for all campus buildings and the warehouse would be used for short term-storage of these deliveries. Laboratory items would be delivered directly to NB/368 (NLB-1).
Gilead Sciences-owned vehicles would deliver items from the shipping/receiving center to each of the campus buildings.
3. Employment and Expanded Operations
One purpose of the 2012 Master Plan is to accommodate the employee growth that is anticipated to meet the business needs of Gilead Sciences. Gilead Sciences expects that the employee count at the project site may grow to approximately 5,500 by project buildout in approximately 2028 to 2033.
This represents an increase of 3,700 employees over current (2012) staffing levels. Of the 5,500 employees, it is estimated that approximately 1,650 (30 percent) would typically work away from the project site.
Total employment under the 2010 Master Plan was projected to be 3,100, with 600 (approximately 19 percent) typically working away from the project site. Of the 1,800 existing employees based in Foster City, approximately 667 (37 percent) typically work away from the project site.
Compared with existing operations, expanded facility operations would result in increases of regu- lated hazardous material use, water use, average daily vehicle trips, air pollutants, and greenhouse gases. The significance of the impacts from expanded operations is discussed in Chapter V of this Subsequent EIR.
Table II-4: Proposed New Buildings
Building
Number Stories
Maximum Height
At Roof
At Roof
Screen
NB/322 2-4 68 90
NB/324 2-4 68 90
NB/331 1-10 170 192
NB/333 1-10 170 192
NB/335 2-6 102 124
NB/342 2-4 68 90
NB/346 2-4 68 90
NB/353 2-6 102 124
NB/355 1-10 170 192
Pilot Lab 2 64 86
NB/357 2-6 102 124
Annex (322) 1-2 40 62
NB/305 1-10 170 192
NB/307 1-10 170 192
NB/309 1-10 170 192
Ship/Receive 1-2 40 62
MSB 1-2 40 62
Notes: NB = New Building; MSB = Material Storage Building Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
629
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 20
4. Open Space, Landscaping, and Plazas
The 2012 Master Plan would integrate the landscape design for the South Campus with the North Campus. Vintage Lake would function as the central recreation/open space area and vista for the integrated campus. The campus path would cross through the area surrounding Vintage Lake and connect to paths bordering the edge of the lake. The area immediately bordering Vintage Lake is anticipated to have the greatest amount of pedestrian activity. This area would be designed with flowering plum trees, a central plaza, located between the NB/333, -335, -353 and -355 building cluster, and other plazas used to accommodate cafeteria and outdoor dining and outdoor events. To transition from these activity centers, pedestrian paths would extend through the project site. In addition, a double row of trees would be planted along Mariners Island Boulevard, where a new parking structure would be located, to buffer adjacent residential uses. In addition, along Vintage Park Drive a sidewalk would be maintained with a view of Vintage Lake. Figure II-6 depicts the proposed landscape plan. As part of the 2012 Master Plan, impervious site coverage would increase from approximately 69 percent of the site (under existing conditions) to approximately 72 percent. Under the 2010 Master Plan, approximately 81 percent of the site coverage would be impervious.
5. Circulation
Under existing conditions, primary ingress and egress to and from the project site is provided by East Third Avenue at Lakeside Drive, by Mariners Island Boulevard at Reef Drive, and by Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive. These primary access points would be retained as part of the 2012 Master Plan. The existing primary access points would be retained as part of the 2010 Master Plan and 2012 Master Plan. The 2010 Master Plan proposed changing the circulation pattern of the site through the privatization and closure of a portion of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive. The 2012 Master Plan retains the closure and privatization of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive, as originally proposed in the 2010 Master Plan. In addition, the 2012 Master Plan incorporates privatization of the segment of Lakeside Drive from East Third Avenue to Reef Drive, and the segment of Reef Drive between Mariners Island Boulevard and Lakeside Drive, as described below.
Closing the section of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive is designed to increase pedestrian safety and unify the campus. The partial road closure and privatization is intended to slow traffic on that portion of Lakeside Drive, reduce the potential for vehicle/pedestrian collisions, and facilitate the movement of employees throughout the campus by removing the need to cross a public thoroughfare. On February 16, 2010, the City Council passed Resolution 2010-21 approving the vacation of the portion of Lakeside Drive and adjoining public utility and landscape reserve easements.
This portion of Lakeside Drive would be closed as soon as practical. The closed portion of Lakeside Drive would be converted into an open space area with a pedestrian walkway and would not be open to the public. Under existing conditions, sidewalks extend from the Vintage Park Drive entrance along the existing Lakeside Drive pathway and throughout the entire campus, ending at East Third Avenue.
In November 2012, as an action independent of the proposed project, Gilead Sciences assumed ownership and maintenance responsibility for the remainder of Lakeside Drive and the segment of Reef Drive between Mariners Island Boulevard and Lakeside Drive. The 40-foot-wide Lakeside Drive would remain open from East Third Avenue through Reef Drive to the proposed building labeled NB/331, where it would terminate into a proposed cul-de-sac. South of the cul-de-sac, a 24-foot-wide private asphalt drive would be constructed to access adjoining future parking lots. The portion of
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
630
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
10 11
7 8
4269
6 10
5 12
1 3
feet
0 200 400
FIGURE II-6
SOURCE: DES ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS, JUNE 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_II6.ai (10/3/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Landscape Plan
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
631
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 22 Lakeside Drive from the intersection of Vintage Park Drive to a second proposed cul-de-sac near NB/353 would also remain open. Both cul-de-sacs would be 100 feet in diameter (with 50-foot radii).
A 24-foot wide emergency vehicle access drive would be constructed to connect the private asphalt drive to the southern cul-de-sac, and would be constructed out of “Grasscrete” (a type of pervious paving that consists of concrete with holes covering approximately half of the surface that are filled with grass or other pervious material/vegetation) or a similar material.14 This emergency access road would be closed to all through traffic except for emergency vehicles. Figure II-7 depicts the proposed circulation plan.
This Subsequent EIR also evaluates the effects of the proposed project under a scenario in which Lakeside Drive would remain open for its entire length through the project site.
There are currently three shuttle stops on the project site that are operated by the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance and serve the Hillsdale Caltrain Station and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Stations: 300-310 Lakeside Drive; 301-303 Velocity Way; and 335-353 Lakeside Drive. The first two shuttle stops would remain in place with implementation of the proposed project, but the stop currently located at 335-353 Lakeside Drive would be relocated to 355-357 Lakeside Drive.
6. Parking
The specific composition of Gilead Science’s business leads to employment densities (workers per 1,000 square feet) that are lower than are found in a typical office or laboratory facility, thus suggest- ing the appropriateness of customized parking requirements. The 2010 Master Plan reflects the appli- cant’s goal of providing a parking space for every full-time employee, and providing parking facilities that take into account the employment characteristics of Gilead Sciences (e.g., low employment densities typical of biopharmaceutical facilities and approximately 30 percent of employees working off-site on any given day). Accordingly, Gilead Sciences proposed that Section 17.62.060 of the Foster City Municipal Code be amended to allow reduced parking ratios for biopharmaceutical research laboratories (a category that at that time did not exist). On March 1, 2010, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 555, which added Section 17.36.060 to the Foster City Municipal Code.
Section 17.36.060 allowed biopharmaceutical research laboratories to use reduced parking ratios. The actual ratios were to be approved by the City at the time of approval or amendment of the General Development Plan. Through Ordinance 554, which approved the 2010 Master Plan, the City approved the use of a ratio of 1 parking space per 833 square feet of laboratory space and 1 space per 250 square feet of office space.
15 The 2010 Master Plan would provide 3,022 parking stalls at buildout.
In addition, the 2010 Master Plan incorporated two reductions for the purposes of calculating parking requirements. The first, referred to as an “efficiency factor,” recognizes that not all of a building’s square footage is usable. In an office, for example, equipment such as heating and air conditioning, boilers, and insulation reduce the amount of usable space. An efficiency factor of 85 percent was used to approximate the actual usable square footage proposed in the 2010 Master Plan.
14 Foster City, City of, 2010. Resolution 2010-10. Website: citydocs.fostercity.org/viewftr.aspx?cabinet= ResOrdMO&docid=230664.
15 Pursuant to Section 17.62.060 (B)(1)(b) of the Foster City Municipal Code, 1 space per 250 square feet is the parking ratio for office uses.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
632
feet
0 200 400
FIGURE II-7
SOURCE: DES ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS, JUNE 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_II7.ai (10/19/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Circulation Plan
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
633
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 24 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
634
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 25 The 2012 Master Plan would continue to rely on these parking ratios and a 15 percent reduction for implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, as permitted in Section
17.62.060 of the Foster City Municipal Code; in addition, it would apply a ratio of 1 parking space per 500 square feet for manufacturing, warehouse, and other similar uses. Similar to the parking ratio for office uses, the manufacturing/warehouse/other ratio parking ratio is based on the Foster City Municipal Code.
16 The 2012 Master Plan would include 6,050 parking spaces, including 842 spaces that would be shared with existing uses at the 303 Velocity Way building (which is located outside the project site). The North Campus (not including the 842 shared spaces) would contain 2,954 spaces and the South Campus would contain 2,254 spaces. See Chapter IV.G, Transportation and Circulation, for a detailed discussion of the parking supply and demand associated with the proposed project. The site currently contains 3,847 parking stalls (1,962 in the South Campus and 1,885 in the North Campus), all of which are located in surface parking lots around each building on the project site.
As part of the 2009 sale of the North Campus, EFI retained access to parking on the project site. On January 19, 2009, Gilead Sciences entered into an REA with EFI. The REA granted EFI an easement to utilize parking spaces within the shared parking lots. Gilead Sciences retained the right to relocate the parking easement area to another location on the property with 30 days’ written notice to EFI. The REA was terminated when Gilead Sciences assumed ownership of Building 303 on November 1, 2012.
Under the 2012 Master Plan, parking would be provided in structured lots and surface lots. The 2010 Master Plan includes two parking structures: a six-level structure where Reef Drive connects to Lakeside Drive and a four-level structure at the southern boundary of the site. The 2012 Master Plan would retain both structures, which – as currently proposed – would range from three to six levels.
The 2012 Master Plan also includes two additional parking structures in the North Campus west of Marsh Road, between East Third Avenue and Vintage Park Drive. These parking structures would be between three and six levels. Parking spaces, including the required shared stalls for Building 303, would be allocated among the parking structures as follows (see Figure II-4 for the location of these structures and Figure II-7 for the relationship of proposed parking facilities to the overall circulation system):
Parking Garage 1 (North Campus, northeast corner of the project site): 925 spaces Parking Garage 2 (North Campus, northeast corner of the project site): 1,175 spaces Parking Garage 3 (South Campus, adjacent to Mariners Island Boulevard): 658 spaces Parking Garage 4 (South Campus, adjacent to southern boundary of the project site): 412 spaces
In addition to the 3,170 garage parking spaces, a total of 2,880 surface parking spaces would be provided on the project site, including 1,696 spaces on the North Campus and 1,184 spaces on the South Campus. In addition, 62 motorcycle spaces and 308 bicycle parking spaces would be provided on the site. Specific locations for these motorcycle and bicycle parking spaces have not yet been identified. The total numbers of proposed vehicle, motorcycle, and bicycle parking spaces would
16 Foster City, City of, 2010. Municipal Code Section 17.62.060 (B)(5)(a).
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
635
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 26 meet or exceed the requirements of the Foster City Municipal Code. Please refer to Section IV.G, Transportation and Circulation, for a discussion of proposed parking supply and demand.
Currently, there are 3,847 parking stalls on the project site (1,962 on the South Campus and 1,885 on the
North Campus). Given the existing mix of uses, there
is a surplus of 816 parking spaces (including 488
spaces on the South Campus and 328 spaces on the
North Campus). If and when campus development
continues, the project applicant would add parking to
the site when the parking supply declines to the
proposed campus parking ratio and when employees
have fully utilized the available on-site parking. New
parking spaces would be developed in sequence with
building development based on the type of use, as
shown in Table II-5.
7. TDM Plan
As part of the project, Gilead Sciences would continue to implement a TDM Plan to encourage reduced reliance on single-occupancy motor vehicles for work-related trips. For the purpose of this analysis, the TDM Plan is identical to that proposed as part of the 2010 Master Plan and does not include a specific trip reduction goal. The TDM Plan includes the following elements:
Bicycle lockers and racks
Showers and changing rooms
Continued financial support of the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (which operates two shuttle routes in the area) and the addition of a lead-time bus (half hour bus in addition to the current hourly bus) on the North Foster City Center Route and Lincoln Center Route, as warranted
Subsidized public transit tickets
Carpool program
Vanpool program
Commute assistance center
Employee commute survey (to inform future changes to the TDM Plan) Video conference centers
On-site amenities, such as dry cleaning pickup and delivery, exercise facilities, and child care
Guaranteed ride home program for commuters that use alternate forms of transportation
8. Utilities and Infrastructure
The South Campus and North Campus currently support office and research and development uses.
New development proposed as part of the project would connect to existing water, sanitary sewer, Table II-5: Parking Ratios
Land Use
2010
Parking Ratio
2012
Parking Ratio
Office 1 space per
250 square feet
1 space per
250 square feet
Laboratory 1 space per
833 square feet
1 space per
833 square feet
Manufacturing/
Other
N/A 1 space per
500 square feet
Warehouse N/A 1 space per
500 square feet
Source: DES Architects + Engineers, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
636
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 27 storm water drainage, energy, and telecommunications infrastructure. As part of the February 16, 2010 City resolution approving vacation of the portion of Lakeside Drive between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive, the water mains, storm drain, sanitary sewers, and one wastewater lift station located within the right-of-way were also privatized. In November 2012, as an action independent of the proposed project, Gilead Sciences assumed ownership and maintenance responsibility for the segment of Lakeside Drive between East Third Avenue and Reef Drive, and Reef Drive between Mariners Island Boulevard and Lakeside Drive. Gilead Sciences is responsible for the utilities and infrastructure on Lakeside Drive and Reef Drive within the approximately 73-acre project site.
However, the Foster City Fire Department maintains the right to flush the hydrants within the site on an annual basis. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) easements for electrical and gas service would remain for proposed buildings so that PG&E can access and maintain its infrastructure. The 2012 Master Plan would not alter these arrangements.
9. Site Demolition
The 2010 Master Plan would include the demolition of up to six structures (178,786 square feet of interior building space), not including two buildings that were demolished to make way for NLB-1 in 2011 (57,473 square feet of interior building space). The 2012 Master Plan would result in the demolition of six additional structures and associated paved areas (in total, up to 12 existing structures would be demolished on the site). Total demolition under the 2012 Master Plan would comprise 367,421 square feet of interior building space.
Construction debris, such as old foundations, pavement, utilities, and structures, would be collected and hauled off-site. The project sponsor estimated that the 2010 Master Plan would generate approxi- mately 2,021 tons of construction waste, approximately 84 percent of which would consist of concrete debris, including slabs on grade, wall footings, pile caps, and tilt-up exterior walls. Under the 2012 Master Plan, the total construction waste would increase to approximately 3,143 tons, approximately 84 percent of which would consist of concrete debris, including slabs on grade, wall footings, pile caps, and tilt-up exterior walls. The remaining demolition debris associated with development of the 2012 Master Plan would consist of a variety of materials, including roof materials, windows, doors, light fixtures, ceiling materials, partitions, and steel columns. The proposed project would be subject to Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 15.44, which requires certain construction and demolition projects to divert a minimum of 50 percent of debris from landfills. The ordinance requires that a Waste Management Plan be submitted and approved as a condition for the building permit.
10. Project Construction and Phasing
The 2012 Master Plan would be completed over an up to approximately 15- to 20-year period extending to 2028 to 2033, in accordance with the projected business needs of Gilead Sciences. The project applicant began construction of NLB-1 in 2011. The construction period for each building would last approximately 12 to 18 months. The project applicant would be required to submit site- specific plans for each new building proposed on the campus for review and approval by the City.
E. DISCRETIONARY CITY ACTIONS
The proposed project would require the discretionary actions discussed below and summarized in Table II-6.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
637
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 28
1. Amendment to the Vintage Park General Development Plan (Master Plan)/Rezoning On November 29, 2011, the project applicant applied for rezoning (RZ-11-004) in the form of an amendment to the General Development Plan (or Master Plan) for Vintage Park. The project applicant proposes to rezone the site in order to expand the Master Plan area, increase allowable building square footage, and change the configuration of buildings to create an integrated Master Plan that would include the approximately 73 acres of land currently owned by Gilead Sciences. The General Development Plan/rezoning would be brought before the Planning Commission at a public hearing.
The Planning Commission would then make a recommendation regarding approval of the General Development Plan, and this recommendation (if positive) would then be brought before the City Council at a separate public hearing. If the Planning Commission were to recommend against the rezoning proposal, the City Council would not take further action unless an interested party were to file an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.
2. Development Agreement
Project approvals would include amending and restating the Development Agreement for the South Campus, between the project applicant and the City, to include the North Campus. The Development Agreements would provide, among other things, for vesting of entitlements and local land use approvals, and would set forth certain respective rights and obligations of the applicant and the City relating to implementation of the 2012 Master Plan.
3. Subdivision
Similar to the 2010 Master Plan, under
the 2012 Master Plan, existing lot lines
would need to be modified as existing
buildings are removed and new build-
ings are constructed. Because buildout
of the proposed 2012 Master Plan
would be completed over an up to
approximately 15- to 20-year period, lot
line adjustments would occur at the
time use permits for new buildings are
obtained. The project applicant would
work with the City to ensure the
adjusted lot lines are documented in
accordance with the City’s Municipal
Code and Building Code requirements.
F. SUBSEQUENT DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
The 2012 Master Plan would guide the future physical development of the Gilead campus. It would not mandate any specific buildings or activities, but rather describe the entire anticipated development of up to approximately 2,500,600 square feet of office, laboratory, materials storage/warehouse, and ancillary uses through buildout of the campus.
Table II-6: Required Permits and Approvals
Lead Agency Permit/Approval
City of Foster City/
Estero Municipal
Improvement District
• Environmental Review
• Master Plan Approval
• General Development Plan/Rezoning
• Development Agreement
• Specific Development Plan/Use Permit
• Building Permits
• Subdivision
• Certificate of Conformity
Responsible Agencies
San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB)
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) permit for storm
water discharge
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
638
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 29 Following approval of the 2012 Master Plan, the City would require the submittal of a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit before any development could occur on the project site. (A Specific Development Plan and Use Permit are considered to be the same entitlement in Foster City.) Assum- ing the project is phased, the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit would address the specific location and use for which development approval is requested. A Specific Development Plan/Use Permit includes information specified in Section 17.36.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. A Specific Development Plan/Use Permit is required for the approval of site development as well as the design of buildings. Specific Development Plans/Use Permits are reviewed and approved by the Foster City Planning Commission, and may be appealed to City Council.
Items that are required for a Use Permit Review application include, but are not limited to:
Site Plan (existing and proposed), including:
○ Lot size, significant dimensions (setbacks, lot lines, etc.), property lines of subject and adjacent properties and identification of surrounding uses, easements (public and private), and utility companies’ equipment;
○ Internal circulation – streets, sidewalks, driveways and parking and loading areas (public and private);
○ Building outlines, stating number of stories, for on-site buildings and those on adjacent property;
○ Landscape plan;
○ Parking configurations; and
○ Site data table including the percent and square footage of landscape coverage, paving coverage, building coverage, etc.;
Engineering site grading plans, including proposed finished grades, all public improve- ments, and site drainage;
Floor plans (existing and proposed) – complete floor plans showing door and window openings, room designations and dimensions of utility equipment locations and trash enclosures, specifying materials and colors;
Elevations (existing and proposed) – full building elevations of all building sides with details of all wall penetrations such as windows, doors, vents, etc.; exposed equipment such as air conditioners, meters, piping, etc.; all decorative elements such as trim, equipment screens, molding, appliqués, etc.; and all appurtenant and accessory structures on the site plans specifying all building materials and colors; and Compliance with Provision C.3 of the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Municipal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit.
Provision C.3 requires that new development and redevelopment projects mitigate, to the maximum extent practicable, water quality impacts to storm water runoff during construc- tion and operation periods.
This Subsequent EIR is a Program EIR (prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines) that evaluates the effects of implementing the entire project over time, as described above. As specific activities are proposed to implement the 2012 Master Plan, the City will determine whether additional
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
639
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\2-ProjectDescription.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 30 environmental review is required, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guide- lines sections 15162 and 15168(c). The City would make this determination by completing an Initial Study checklist (or equivalent document) at the time the subsequent specific activities are proposed.
Additional environmental review would be required only if: 1) substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the Program EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects; 2) substantial changes in circumstances occur which will require major revisions to the Program EIR due to new or substantially more severe significant envi- ronmental effects; or 3) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Program EIR was certified, shows that the project would have new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects, or that there are certain new mitigation measures or alterna- tives that the project proponent declines to adopt. If the City determines that the specific activity or structure does not require additional environmental review under this test, then the City may approve the activity as within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR. However, if a specific activity or structure would require additional environmental review, then the City would review existing CEQA documentation for development of the 2012 Master Plan and would determine what level of supplemental review is required to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of individual projects.
G. USES OF THIS EIR
A number of permits and approvals, including the discretionary actions listed above, would be required before development of the proposed 2012 Master Plan is able to proceed. As lead agency for the proposed project, the City of Foster City would be responsible for the majority of approvals required for development. Other agencies also may have some authority related to the project and its approvals. A list of the permits and approvals that may be required by the City and other agencies is provided in Table II-6. This EIR is intended to be used by the City and other agencies when deliberating on required permits and approvals.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
640
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 31 III. PLANNING POLICY
This chapter discusses the proposed 2012 Master Plan’s relationship with local land use and planning policies. A project’s inconsistency with a policy is only considered significant if that policy was adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Policies are also addressed in select topical sections of the Subsequent EIR where applicable policies are intended to avoid or mitigate physical environmental effects.
In reviewing this chapter, it is important to understand that the determination of whether a project is consistent with a specific policy can be subjective, and that consistency determinations are best made with a broad understanding of the often-competing policy objectives in a planning document. As a result, policy consistency determinations are ultimately made by the City’s local decision-making body (e.g., Planning Commission or City Council). The analysis in this chapter is intended to provide decision-makers with a list of the goals and policies that are pertinent to the project and site, and a discussion and preliminary conclusion regarding whether the project is generally consistent with these identified goals and policies. These preliminary conclusions are intended to supplement decision- makers’ own understanding of the various policy considerations.
The main guiding documents regulating land use and addressing planning issues within and around the project site include the following: City General Plan (particularly the Land Use and Circulation Element, the Parks and Open Space Element, Conservation Element, 1 and the Noise Element); City
Zoning Ordinance; Gilead Sciences General Development Plan; Vintage Park Design Guidelines; Vintage Park Signage Guidelines; San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan; and Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco Airport. The consistency of the proposed project with other non-land use and planning policies is addressed in the appropriate topical sections of the Subsequent EIR (e.g., Section IV.I, Air Quality). Applicable land use and planning policies from each of the documents listed above are described below.
A. FOSTER CITY GENERAL PLAN
This section describes relevant materials from the Foster City General Plan and discusses the proposed 2012 Master Plan’s consistency with the goals, policies, and programs outlined therein. The City is currently updating the Land Use and Circulation Element of the 1993 General Plan. It is anticipated that the General Plan Update will be completed after review of the applications for the proposed 2012 Master Plan is concluded. The project is not expected to be inconsistent with the land use designations in the revised General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element because no major changes in land use are anticipated as part of the General Plan Update. The following discussion describes the 1993
1 The policies contained in the Conservation Element are analyzed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, where appropriate.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
641
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 32 General Plan, which currently governs planning in the City and on the project site, and the project’s consistency with applicable policies.
1. Description
The Foster City General Plan (General Plan) is a comprehensive plan for the growth and development of the City. The General Plan includes policies related to: land use and circulation; housing; parks, open space and conservation; noise; and safety. These topics are addressed within individual elements of the General Plan. The following three elements of the City’s General Plan include goals or policies that apply to the proposed project: Land Use and Circulation; Parks and Open Space; and Noise.
a. Land Use and Circulation Element. The Land Use and Circulation Element establishes a pattern for land use in Foster City. This element establishes a direct relationship between the timing, amount, type, and location of development with the traffic, and service and infrastructure demands generated by development. The overall vision of the Land Use and Circulation Element is to “main- tain the integrity and high quality living environment of the City’s residential neighborhoods; achieve a successful build-out that balances jobs and housing [and] infrastructure capacity with development needs, and reinforces Metro Center and the City Center; and respond to longer-term land use and circulation needs in an appropriate manner.”
2 As shown in Figure III-1, the General Plan designation for the 2012 Master Plan area is Research/ Office Park. Areas with this designation contain office, research and development, and manufacturing uses whose operations are generally clean and quiet. The project site is located within the Vintage Park General Development Plan area of the City. (The Vintage Park General Development Plan, which was amended as part of the 2010 Master Plan, implements the Vintage Park Master Plan.) The Vintage Park area was originally intended to comprise executive offices, commercial/retail, research and development, and light industrial uses. The General Plan specifies the floor area ratio (FAR) 3 of
existing buildings in the Vintage Park area; however the General Plan does not contain an FAR requirement for new development. The General Plan states that existing land use intensities within Vintage Park have an FAR generally ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 and that most land uses designated Research/Office Park have an FAR of 0.2 to 0.4.
4 The Land Use and Circulation Element also comprehensively plans transportation infrastructure in the City by describing community objectives for the desired level of mobility, the relative willingness to pay for maintaining minimum levels of mobility, and priorities for allocating resources among competing transportation demands. The Land Use and Circulation Element also addresses specific transportation issues in the City, such as congestion, maintenance of public streets, emergency vehicle access, and traffic impacts on neighborhoods.
2 Foster City, City of, 1993. General Plan, Chapter 3: Land Use and Circulation Element. June. 3 FAR: Floor Area Ratio. FAR is a ratio of gross square footage of built structures to total site area. 4 Foster City, City of, 1999, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
642
VINTAGE
LAKE
Lakeside Drive
Mariners Island BoulevardMariners Island Boulevard
Vintage Park Drive
East Third AvenueEast Third AvenueEast Third Avenue
Mariners Island Boulevard
Foster City Boulevard
Foster City Boulevard
Vintage Park Drive Chheessss DDrivveeChess Drive
Hatch Drive
Hatch Drive
Lakeside Drive
not to scale
Project Site
Town Center
Service Commercial
Open Space
Single Family
Research/Office Park
Light Industrial
Area Outside of Foster City
FIGURE III-1
SOURCE: CITY OF FOSTER CITY , 2008; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III1.ai (9/4/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing General Plan Designation
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
643
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 34 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
644
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 35 b. Parks and Open Space Element. The Parks and Open Space Element addresses the preserva- tion of parks and open space, and the conservation of natural resources within the City. The intent of this element is to provide policies which maintain and improve existing natural resources, parks, and open space in Foster City. The overall vision of this element is to preserve and improve the quality of life within existing neighborhoods; assure the proper development of undeveloped property; and assure that redevelopment of developed or underutilized property occurs in an appropriate manner.
The element sets a parkland standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
c. Noise Element. The Noise Element identifies noise issues in the community and provides a basis for the noise regulations prescribed in City ordinances and implemented through the City’s Code Enforcement Program. To meet these objectives, the Noise Element requires that new develop- ment or redevelopment projects be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Noise Element thus establishes land use compatibility standards and suggests ways to reduce noise impacts to adjacent sensitive land uses.
2. Consistency
Applicable planning-related policies in the General Plan, and the general consistency of these policies with the proposed project, are summarized in Table III-1.
a. Land Use and Circulation Element. As previously described, the project site and the rest of the Vintage Park area is designated as Research/Office Park. Land uses within the Research/Office Park designation typically consist of office, research and development, and manufacturing uses. The 2012 Master Plan would demolish up to 12 existing office, and research and development laboratory buildings, and would construct up to 17 new buildings that would contain similar office and research and development uses. As such, the 2012 Master Plan would not change the current land uses on the project site, which are consistent with the uses allowed under the existing land use designation.
As noted above, land use intensities in the Research/Office Park designation generally have an FAR of 0.2 to 0.6. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in an FAR of up to 0.79 (not including parking structures), which would be slightly higher than existing building densities in the Research/- Office Park designation. The FARs listed in the General Plan are intended to be recommendations, but are not requirements for new development (as the General Plan does not contain an FAR require- ment for new development). The proposed increase in building intensity beyond the range specified in the General Plan would not result in significant environmental impacts in and of itself, although related design issues are evaluated in Section IV.B, Visual Quality.
While the proposed 2012 Master Plan would generally be consistent with the General Plan land use designation of the site, the specific mix and intensity of development on the project site would be reviewed and approved during the Specific Development Plan process (discussed below under the Foster City Zoning Ordinance). This review would ensure that the more intense proposed building pattern would be designed in a way that would be compatible with surrounding land uses. The pro- posed project is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, including policies pertaining to traffic congestion levels, as shown in Table III-1.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
645
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 36 b. Parks and Open Space. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would accommodate a staff of 5,500 employees on the project site, which would be an increase of 3,700 employees over current staffing levels. As described in Chapter IV.C, Population, Employment, and Housing, the creation of these jobs could indirectly induce population growth in the City. The increase in the population of Foster City indirectly caused by the proposed 2012 Master Plan could increase demand for park and recreation facilities. As described in Chapter IV.J, Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation, taking into account park space and recreational waterways, and a 2009 population of 30,429, the City has an average of 10.7 acres of park and recreational facilities per 1,000 residents, far exceeding the City’s standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
5 The proposed project would indirectly add residents to the City. In addition, while the proposed 2012 Master Plan would indirectly increase the regional population over the course of the approximately 15- to 20-year buildout period, this population increase would occur in areas throughout Foster City and surrounding cities. This dispersed population increase would also disperse the demand for parks and recreational facilities. As such, an increase in demand for parks and open space indirectly associ- ated with the proposed project would not cause the project to be inconsistent with the Parks and Open Space Element in a way that would create an adverse physical impact (e.g., physical deterioration of a park). Therefore, although the proposed project would not expand the City’s supply of public park space, the City would continue to exceed its park provision standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents and no significant physical impacts would result. In addition, the project would include approximately 21 acres of on-site landscaping, including open space around Vintage Lake. This private open space would be used by Gilead Sciences employees, and could reduce demand on public open space in the vicinity of the project site.
The City requires payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication, or a combination of a fee and land dedi- cation, for residential developments that do not provide adequate open space, based on the 5 acres for every 1,000 residents standard. Since the proposed Master Plan does not include any residential units, the project would not be subject to this ordinance. However, any induced housing demand generated by the project that results in the development of new housing in the City would be subject to the ordinance.
5 Foster City, City of, 2009. General Plan, Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space Element. July.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
646
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 37 Table III-1: Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal or Policy
Number Goal or Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy Land Use and Circulation Element
Goal LUC-F Provide Adequate Services and Facilities. Ensure that new and existing developments can be adequately served by municipal services and facilities.
Buildout of the proposed project would create up to 3,700 new jobs on the project site. New employees generated by the project would marginally increase the demand for public services, such as fire and police services, along with utilities, such as water and wastewater (although this increase in demand would not require the construc- tion of new treatment facilities). All these public services and utilities would be able to serve 2012 Master Plan development without major expansions of service or infrastructure.
Goal LUC-I Provide for Diversified Transportation Needs. Develop, improve and maintain a circulation system which provides efficient and safe access for private vehicles, commercial vehicles, public transit, emergency vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians.
The design of the on-site circulation and parking areas represents a change from the current circulation pattern on the project site. The 2012 Master Plan would result in the partial closure of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive (this closure was approved in 2010 but it has not yet occurred and so is analyzed as part of the 2012 Master Plan). The 2012 Master Plan also integrates the privatization of the segment of Lakeside Drive from East Third Avenue to Reef Drive, and the segment of Reef Drive between Mariners Island Boulevard and Lakeside Drive that is scheduled for consideration by City Council in November 2012. Refer to Chapter II, Project Description, for a detailed explanation of proposed changes. The privatization and closure of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive would prevent the public from using Lakeside Drive as a cut-through route between Mariners Island Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive, but would not substantially reduce the effectiveness of the local road network (access to surrounding areas would be maintained via alternate routes around the site). Proposed roadway widths would be adequate to accommo- date limited internal vehicle circulation and would be accessible to emergency vehicles. The partial closure of Lakeside Drive is proposed to increase pedestrian safety and circulation for Gilead employees, as well as create a more unified campus. In addition, the privatization of the remaining segment of Lakeside Drive and Reef Drive within the project site would not compromise public access, as the physical characteristics of these street segments would remain unchanged (although the segments would be owned by Gilead
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
647
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 38 Table III-1: Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal or Policy
Number Goal or Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy Goal LUC-I
Continued
Sciences and not the City). As such, while the 2012 Master Plan would inhibit access by motorized vehicles through the site, it would improve pedestrian safety and allow for safe access and movement by a variety of transportation modes.
Goal LUC-J Maintain Acceptable Operating Conditions on the City’s Road Network. Maintain acceptable operating conditions on the City’s road network at or above LOS [Level of Service] D and encourage the maximum effective use of public and private vehicles, reduce the growth in peak hour traffic volumes and reduce single passenger trips.
See Policy LUC-50, below.
Policy LUC-25 Research/Office Park. Areas with this designation contain office, research and development, and manufacturing establishments whose operations are clean and quiet. Mixed-use projects which include some retail and residential uses in addition to office and research uses may, under certain conditions, be considered compatible with this designation. Such conditions include compatibility of uses and project design (land planning, architecture, etc.). A large portion of Vintage Park, the vacant lands north of East Third Avenue and the Lincoln Center area are designated for Research/Office Park use. The intensity of development found in Vintage Park and Lincoln Center is very similar, with Floor Area Ratios (FAR) generally ranging from .20 to .60 FAR in Vintage Park, and .26 to .56 FAR in Lincoln Center. The intensity of development for the East Third Avenue, Bridge Landing, and vacant Vintage Park sites is anticipated to have an FAR up to 1.0.
The 2012 Master Plan would result in the development of land uses that are consistent with the Research/Office Park land use designa- tion. The proposed 2012 Master Plan would not introduce any new types of land uses to the project site. The proposed buildings would contain office and research and development uses, similar to the land uses currently on the campus. While the 2012 Master Plan would increase the intensity of office and research and development uses on the site (according to the General Plan, existing FAR in Vintage Park ranges from 0.20 to 0.60), the proposed buildings would have an FAR of 0.79 (not including parking structures). This FAR would be greater than the existing FAR in Vintage Park, but would not exceed the anticipated 1.0 FAR for the vacant areas of Vintage Park.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
648
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 39 Table III-1: Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal or Policy
Number Goal or Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy Policy LUC-38 City Approach to Design (Architectural) Review. The City will establish a continuing program of civic beautification, tree planting, maintenance of homes and streets, and other measures which will promote an aesthetically desirable environment in order that neighborhood areas appear attractive both within and without. The City will use a design review process (called Architectural Review) whereby the design of most public and private development proposals, including those for individual residences, are subject to review and approval by the City. The primary objective of this review is to preserve the character of the neighborhood and community regarding appropriate and
acceptable design for property improvements. Design review shall address, among other things, the following issues: (a) Preservation of the architectural character and scale of neighborhoods; (b) Ensuring that the development is well designed in and of itself, and in relation to surrounding properties; (c) Preservation of waterfront views; (d) Minimizing impacts on the privacy and access to sunlight of adjacent properties; (e) Minimizing impacts due to excessive noise or undue glare; (f) Screening of unsightly uses including trash, loading docks/areas, roof top equipment, and special ventilating systems; (g) Use of setbacks, open space and landscaping, (h) Exterior colors and materials.
Individual projects proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan would be subject to design review at the time of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit approval. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures in Section IV.B, Visual Quality, would reduce potential impacts associated with light and glare to a less-than- significant level. At a conceptual level, the development anticipated by the 2012 Master Plan would not be inconsistent with the basic design criteria outlined in Policy LUC-38. Although proposed buildings could be more massive than existing buildings, they would not be out of scale with existing (remaining) buildings within and outside of the project site, and would not substantially block waterfront views.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
649
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 40 Table III-1: Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal or Policy
Number Goal or Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy Policy LUC-50 Traffic Level of Service Standards. The City shall seek to achieve a traffic service level of “C” or better on City streets and level of “D” or better during peak traffic hours, although it will be necessary to accept level of service “E” or “D” at the Chess Drive/SR 92 Ramps, the Foster City Boulevard/Metro Center Boulevard/Triton Drive, and the East Hillsdale
Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard intersections through the following means:
a. Traffic System Management (TSM).
b. Street maintenance.
c. Capital Improvement Program in coordination with federal, state, county, and district funding programs for street and other transportation improvements.
d. Developer payment of pro rata fair share of traffic
improvement costs for new developments.
As discussed in detail in Chapter IV.G, Transportation and Circulation, while the project would increase delay during peak traffic hours at intersections in Foster City, all intersections would operate at or above a LOS D. Thus, the project would be consistent with LUC-50’s goal of maintaining LOS C or better during non- peak hours and LOS D or better during peak traffic hours.
Policy LUC-53 Bicycle Routes and Pedestrian Paths. Maintain a system of bicycle routes and pedestrian paths, which will include separate bicycle lanes and posted bicycle routes. Pedestrian pathways and easements shall be maintained, either by the City, or, in the case of private ownership, according to a maintenance agreement or landscaping district agreement applicable to the
pathway/easement.
The 2012 Master Plan would provide for pedestrian circulation throughout the project site. Sidewalks are proposed to extend along all internal roadways in the project site, including the open portion of Lakeside Drive and on Velocity Way. In addition, a portion of Lakeside Drive would be closed to all non-emergency vehicles, and would be converted into an open space area with a pedestrian walkway, thereby improving pedestrian circulation and safety on the campus (although this segment would not be open to the public).
Closing a portion of Lakeside Drive would interfere with the existing Class III bike path. However, the rerouting of this Class III bike route along Vintage Park Drive and Marsh Drive to Third Avenue, where it would connect with the existing Class III bike route on Third Avenue, would allow for continued bicycle access around the project site. The proposed closure of Lakeside Drive could also change access to the path connecting Lakeside Drive to Vintage Lake. However, access along the path would remain after implementation of the 2012 Master Plan.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
650
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 41 Table III-1: Applicable General Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs Goal or Policy
Number Goal or Policy Text Project’s Relationship to Goal or Policy Policy LUC-59 Bicycle Parking. Secured bicycle parking shall be encouraged for all commercial and industrial buildings. The City will continue to allow required parking to be reduced by one space for every eight bicycle parking spaces provided, per Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code.
The 2012 Master Plan would include 308 bicycle parking spaces, in accordance with Policy LUC-59.
Parks and Open Space
Goal PC-A Provide Sufficient and Diverse Recreational Opportunities.
Provide sufficient and diverse recreational opportunities for all the City of Foster City residents through the development of new recreation facilities as needed, given available funding and support, and the construction of additional park amenities in existing parks and elsewhere in locations where deficiencies have been identified or opportunities occur.
The 2012 Master Plan includes open space around Vintage Lake and throughout the campus. Following the partial closure of Lakeside Drive, the road would be converted into an emergency access road, open space, and a pedestrian walkway that would provide access throughout the project site. The new open space areas would serve the employees of the campus.
Noise Element
Policy N-5 Mitigating Impacts on Surrounding Uses. The City will require proposals to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties through the following and other means, as appropriate:
a. Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment.
b. Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. c. Whenever possible do not remove fences, walls or
landscaping that serve as noise buffers, although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed.
d. Use soundproofing materials and double glazed windows. e. Control hours of operation including deliveries and trash pickup to minimize noise impacts.
The project would result in noise impacts on adjacent properties and is thus inconsistent with this policy both with and without mitiga- tion. A review of traffic data indicates that the project would result in a substantial (3 A-weighted decibel (dBA) or greater) increase in noise above existing no project noise levels on area roadways. In addition, construction of the proposed project would cause noise levels to exceed 60 dBA Leq-hr (hourly average) and the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq-hr during the multi-year construction period. These noise increases would exceed the City’s significance criterion for construction period noise. Mitigation measures would reduce these impacts, but would not reduce noise levels along roadways to below the standard specified in the City’s significance criterion. Refer to Section IV.H, Noise, for additional detail.
Sources: Foster City, City of, 1993. General Plan. May; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
651
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 42 c. Noise Element. Project-related traffic would result in a significant permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and would thus expose surrounding sensitive land uses, such as residential uses, to permanently increased noise levels. In addition, the project envisions a multi-year construction period, and this construction period would increase noise levels beyond those identified in the City’s significance criteria as being substantial and adverse. See also Impacts NOI-1 and NOI-3 in Section IV.H, Noise).
Impact PLAN-1: The proposed 2012 Master Plan would conflict with noise policies adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental impact. (S)
As discussed in more detail in Section IV.H, Noise, review of traffic data indicates that the project would result in a substantial (3 dBA or greater) increase in noise above existing noise levels under existing plus project conditions. In addition, construction of the proposed project would cause noise levels to exceed 60 dBA (decibels) Leq-hr (hourly average) and the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq-hr during the multi-year construction period. These noise increases would exceed the City’s significance criteria for operational and construction period noise, and could conflict with Policy N-5, which requires development projects to reduce noise impacts on adjacent properties.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the construction-period noise impact to a less-than-significant level, but the roadway noise impact would remain significant and unavoidable as no feasible mitigation exists to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure PLAN-1: Implement Mitigation Measures NOI-1a and NOI-1b. See Section IV.H, Noise. (SU)
B. FOSTER CITY ZONING ORDINANCE
This section describes the Foster City Zoning Ordinance as well as the proposed project’s consistency with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Description
The City of Foster City Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance) implements the policies of the General Plan and other City plans, policies, and ordinances. The Zoning Ordinance divides the City into districts, each of which is assigned different regulations. These regulations direct the construction, nature, and extent of land uses and building form. The project site is zoned Commercial Mix/Planned Development (CM/PD), as depicted in Figure III-2. The CM District is intended to be combined with the PD Combining District, and only allows those uses specified within the use permit required in connection with the PD zoning district approval. The PD District is designed to accommodate various types of development and is established to allow flexibility in design. With the exception of the off- street parking requirements, standards usually prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance may be waived in the PD District.
An application for a PD District must be accompanied by a General Development Plan (or Master Plan, as it is referred to in this Subsequent EIR); a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit would be required for each new building. The rezoning associated with the proposed project would entail an amendment to the existing 2010 Master Plan (or Vintage Park General Development Plan). Specific
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
652
not to scale
Project Site
Commercial Mix /PD*
Commercial Auto
General Business
Light Industrial
Open Space/Conservation
Area Located Outside Foster City
* PD = Planned Development
FIGURE III-2
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing Zoning DesignationSOURCE: CITY OF FOSTER CITY , 2008; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III2.ai (9/4/12)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
653
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 44 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
654
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 45 findings must be made by the Planning Commission and City Council in order to approve or condi- tionally approve a new or amended General Development Plan, as identified in Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. A General Development Plan is required to be a graphic and schematic plan, and to include the following elements:
Proposed land uses;
Location of buildings, structures, and building groups; A tabulation of floor area ratios and maximum heights of proposed buildings; Proposed circulation systems, including preliminary street cross-sections; Proposed parks, playgrounds, school sites, and other open spaces; Location and type of existing and proposed landscaping and identification of any existing trees to be removed;
Development phasing (for the entire project);
Relation to future land uses in the surrounding area, as proposed in the General Plan; and Proposed off-street parking (ratio, locations, and total number of spaces).
In order for the new or amended General Development Plan to be approved, several findings must be made by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicable findings are summarized in the list below.
Development is consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan; Uses proposed will not be detrimental to present and planned surrounding uses; Streets and thoroughfares are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic; Existing or proposed utility services and facilities are adequate for the land use proposed; Proposed off-street parking ratios are consistent with the City’s regulations; and Planned development will not have a detrimental and financial impact on the City or Estero Municipal Improvement District.
Following approval of a General Development Plan, the City requires the submittal of a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit before any development can occur on a project site. If the project would be phased, the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit can address the specific phase for which development approval is requested. A Specific Development Plan/Use Permit includes information specified in Section 17.36.050 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Design guidelines are required to accompany the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit. Section
17.36.080 of the Zoning Ordinance specifies the items that must be included in the Design Guide- lines. In addition, an application for a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit in a PD District must be accompanied by a schedule identifying the approximate start date and completion date for construc- tion.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
655
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 46
2. Consistency
The proposed amendment to the existing 2010 Master Plan (General Development Plan) would be consistent with the intent of the PD Zoning District, which is to allow for flexibility in design to ensure that projects are designed creatively and comprehensively. The amended 2012 Master Plan identifies the configuration, location, and massing of buildings; the location of open space; the proposed circulation system; and other aspects of the physical development of the site, as required by Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
At the time of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit approval, specific projects proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan would be reviewed as part of the City’s Design Review process to ensure that each project conforms to the design review criteria for office and research and development uses. As the 2012 Master Plan is conceptual in nature, at the time of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit approval, subsequent discretionary actions would require additional review (such as that using an Initial Study checklist) to determine whether the impacts of the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit are adequately covered under this Subsequent EIR. As proposed, the 2012 Master Plan is generally consistent with the provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
C. GILEAD SCIENCES GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MASTER PLAN) This section describes the existing Gilead Sciences General Development Plan, also known as the 2010 Master Plan, which would be superseded by the 2012 Master Plan. The 2010 Master Plan is part of the Vintage Park General Development Plan.
1. Description
As described in detail in Chapter II, Project Description, Gilead Sciences proposed the 2010 Master Plan for its 40-acre corporate campus in 2008. The 2010 Master Plan has been modified by two subsequent Addenda. After these modifications, the 2010 Master Plan would allow for the develop- ment of up to 1,200,480 square feet of building space comprising a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory space and a maximum of 755,048 square feet of office space. In addition, 3,022 parking spaces would be provided within the 2010 Master Plan area.
2. Consistency
The proposed 2012 Master Plan (which is the subject of this Subsequent EIR) would replace the 2010 Master Plan. The 2012 Master Plan is in the form of a General Development Plan, as required by Section 17.36.030 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The 2012 Master Plan is intended to expand the site to 73 acres, and allow for the development of up to 2,500,600 square feet of building space on the project site, including 1,524,000 square feet of office space, 953,000 square feet of laboratory space, and 23,600 square feet of materials storage/warehouse space. In addition, up to 6,050 parking spaces would be provided on the site. With implementation of the proposed project, no conflicts would occur with the 2010 Master Plan, as that 2010 Master Plan would be replaced with the 2012 Master Plan.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
656
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 47 D. VINTAGE PARK DESIGN GUIDELINES AND VINTAGE PARK SIGNAGE
GUIDELINES
The following discussion provides a description of the Vintage Park Design Guidelines (Guidelines), as well as the proposed project’s consistency with applicable goals of the Guidelines. The Vintage Park Signage Guidelines are also briefly mentioned, although these guidelines will apply only to future phases of the project once their detailed plans identify specific locations, size, and materials for signage.
1. Description
The amended Vintage Park Design Guidelines were adopted on July 5, 2012 to guide development in the Vintage Park General Development Plan area (design guidelines for the area were initially adopt- ed in 1984). During the design review process, the Guidelines are used by the City when reviewing projects located in Vintage Park. The Vintage Park General Development Plan and associated Design Guidelines envision a business and working community tightly integrated with the various land uses within and surrounding the site. In addition, the Guidelines envision development in Vintage Park as comprising pharmaceutical, offices, research and development, light industrial, hotel, restaurants, and retail land uses. The Guidelines intend development in Vintage Park to be integrated into a planned framework of open space systems that collectively create a park-like setting. The majority of the open space areas in Vintage Park are intended to serve the community by allowing for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation.
The objectives of the Guidelines are listed below:
Maintain over the longer term the design quality and compatibility of all projects within the park;
Attract employers to Foster City by providing a high quality office/research/industrial park; Enhance Foster City’s image as a master planned, well-designed City; Create a quality mixed use development within a “park-like” setting that organizes the mixed land uses, is economically feasible, and shares recreational amenities and parking; Develop a unified hierarchy of site functions and elements including circulation systems, recreational amenities, public and private access, and landscape forms and details; and Design a development that is not only unique and supportive of a wide range of uses, but is also flexible enough to accommodate changing market demands and unforeseen desires.
In addition, the Guidelines include the following sustainable design goals:
Promote walking, biking and using public transportation; Encourage building design that responds to the environmental context; Encourage using high recycled-content building materials or finishes; Reduce water use by water efficient landscaping and drought tolerant vegetation; and Reduce energy use and the carbon footprint of new building and site development.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
657
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 48
2. Consistency
The proposed 2012 Master Plan would be consistent with the intent of the Vintage Park Design Guidelines. The project would result in the construction of new buildings that contain office and laboratory uses, as originally envisioned in the Vintage Park General Development Plan. The flexibility intrinsic to the 2012 Master Plan would allow Gilead Sciences to grow over time and respond to market demands.
In addition, the proposed project would generally be consistent with the goals described above. The partial closure of Lakeside Drive would create a green space corridor, enhance the park-like setting of the campus, and de-emphasize the use of automobiles (and improve pedestrian circulation). Access to Vintage Lake would be preserved, even with the partial closure of Lakeside Drive (as accessible pathways would continue to connect to the shoreline of the Lake). In addition, the proposed project would result in a wider variety of building heights than currently exists on the site.
The project would disrupt the existing Class III Bike Route on Lakeside Drive. However, the rerout- ing of this Class III bike route along Vintage Park Drive and Marsh Drive to Third Avenue, where it would connect with the existing Class III bike route on Third Avenue, would allow for continued bicycle access around the project site, and would increase trip length by only approximately 0.1 mile.
In addition, pedestrian trail access from Lakeside Drive to the trail along Vintage Lake would be maintained such that the trail can be accessed from Reef Drive.
Since the proposed 2012 Master Plan is conceptual in nature, site designs have not yet been proposed for specific buildings on the campus. As previously described, at the time of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit approval, specific projects proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan would be reviewed as part of the City’s Design Review process to ensure that each project conforms to the design review criteria for office and research and development uses under the Guidelines. In addition, proposed signage would be subject to the Vintage Park Signage Guidelines. As the proposed project is conceptual in nature, at the time of Specific Development Plan/Use Permit approval, subsequent discretionary actions would require additional review to determine whether the impacts of the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit are adequately covered under this Subsequent EIR. As proposed, the 2012 Master Plan is generally consistent with the provisions of the Vintage Park Design Guidelines.
E. COMPREHENSIVE AIRPORT LAND USE PLANS
Three public airports serve San Mateo County: the Half Moon Bay Airport (HAF), the San Carlos Airport (SQL), and the San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The project site is located within the vicinity of both SQL and SFO, each of which is governed by its own Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan (CALUP). A description of the proposed 2012 Master Plan’s relationship to and consistency with the each CALUP is provided below.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
658
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 49
1. Overview
State law requires an airport land use commission to prepare and adopt a CALUP for each public-use airport in the county.6 The CALUP is a tool used by airport land use commissions to fulfill their purpose of promoting airport/land use compatibility. The purpose of a CALUP is to provide for the orderly growth of each public airport and surrounding area and to safeguard the general welfare of the inhabitants within the vicinity of the airport and the public in general.
A CALUP is focused on the following three major concerns: 1) aircraft noise impact reduction; 2) the safety of persons on the ground and in aircraft flight; and 3) height restrictions and airspace protec- tion. SQL and SFO are within the jurisdictions of the San Mateo County Comprehensive Land Use Plan
7 (County CALUP) and the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Envi- rons of San Francisco Airport8,9 (SFO CALUP), respectively. CALUPs apply to geographic areas near the airports. Applicable CALUP policies for both airports are discussed below. Noise- and hazards-related considerations associated with these airports are specifically addressed in more detail in those topical sections of this Subsequent EIR.
a. San Carlos Airport. The County CACLUP establishes two Airport Influence Areas (AIAs).
Area A denotes locations where a real estate disclosure notice regarding the proximity of the nearby airport must be provided to a buyer or lessee of property within the boundary. Projects within Area A do not require detailed review. Area B denotes locations that are within either the mapped height restriction area for this airport or the 55 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) aircraft noise contour. Area B defines the thresholds for triggering review and evaluation of proposed developments in proximity to the airport with respect to safety and noise compatibility. 10 As shown in
Figure III-3, the project site is located approximately 4 miles north of SQL and is within Area A. As such, no further detailed review is called for.
In addition, certain types of land uses are recognized by the Airport Land Use Commission as hazard- ous to air navigation in the vicinity of SQL. These land uses include any of the following:
Any use that would direct a steady or flashing light toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing.
Any use that would cause sunlight to be reflected toward an aircraft in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing.
Any use that would generate smoke or rising columns of air.
6 California Public Utilities Code Section 21675(a).
7 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 1996. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. December.
8 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compat- ibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July. 9 Note that the SFO CLUP updates and supersedes Chapter V in the County CLUP, which originally governed SFO. 10 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 1996, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
659
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 50 Any use that would attract large concentrations of birds within approach/climb-out areas. Any use that would generate electrical interference that may interfere with aircraft commu- nications or aircraft instrumentation.
b. San Francisco International Airport. The SFO CALUP also establishes two AIAs. Similar to the SQL CALUP, Area A shows locations where projects do not require detailed review. Area B is a combination of the outer boundaries of the Noise (CNEL 65 dB) and Safety Zone boundaries, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) height notification boundaries (i.e., 14 CFR Part 77 Conical Surface) or the outer boundary of the Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) Approach and One- Engine Inoperative (OEI) Departure Surfaces.
The project site is located approximately 5 miles south of SFO and is located within Area B of the AIA, as shown in Figure III-4. Thus, the City of Foster City is included among the municipalities for which the Airport Land Commission exercises its statutory duties to review proposed land use policy actions (e.g., new or amended general plans or specific plans) and land use development proposals for consistency with the Noise, Safety, and Airspace Protection/Height Limitation elements of the SFO CALUP. To be compatible, a development must be consistent with the relevant policies contained in each element. In addition, a real estate disclosure notice regarding the proximity of the nearby airport would need to be provided to a buyer or lessee of property within the boundary.
Similar to SQL, proposed land uses with characteristics that may cause visual, electronic, or wildlife hazards, particularly bird strike hazards, to aircraft taking off or landing at SFO or in-flight are incompatible in Area B of the AIA. Specific development characteristics that may create hazards to aircraft in flight and which are deemed incompatible with airport uses include:
Any sources of glare, such as highly reflective buildings or building features, or bright lights, including search lights or laser displays, which would interfere with the vision of pilots making approaches to SFO.
Distracting lights that that could be mistaken by pilots on approach to SFO for airport iden- tification lighting, runway edge lighting, runway end identification lighting, or runway approach lighting.
Sources of dust, smoke, or water vapor that may impair the vision of pilots making approaches to SFO.
Sources of electrical interference with aircraft or air traffic control communications or navigation equipment, including radar.
Land uses that, as a regular byproduct of their operations, produce thermal plumes with the potential to rise high enough and at sufficient velocities to interfere with the control of aircraft in flight. Upward velocities of 4.3 meters (14.1 feet) per second at altitudes above 200 feet above the ground shall be considered as potentially interfering with the control of aircraft in flight.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
660
Project
Site
not to scale
Area A: Airport Influence Area (AIA) Boundary
(Real Estate Disclosure Only)
Project Site
Area B: CCAG/ALUC Review Area Boundary
(Real Estate Disclosure and Formal CCAG/AUC Review)
FIGURE III-3
SOURCE: CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY , 2004 I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III3.ai (9/4/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
San Carlos Airport Influence Area Boundaries
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
661
280
380
101
101
82 82
RO
LL
INS
RD
CALIFORN
IA DR
AIRPORT BLVD
EL
CA
MI
NO
RE
AL
M
URCH
ISON
D
R
H
ILL
C
REST
BLVD
HELE
N D
R
TR
OU
SDALE
DR
E 3RD
AVE
N HUM
BOLDT
ST
BAYSHORE HWY
TILTON
AVE
N MCDON NE LL RD
ADE
LINE DR
HILLS
IDE DR
LO
MITA
AVE
N DE
LAWARE
ST
CARM
ELITA AVE
HOWARD
AVE
LOYO LA
DR
RAY DR
DW IGH
T R
D
OCCIDENTAL AVE
OAK G
ROVE AVE
W SAN BRUNO AVE
N S
AN
MATE
O DR
N BAYS
HOR
E BLVD
W
POPLAR
AVE
JE
NEVE
IN
AV
E
BE
RN
AL AVE
MILLB
RAE
A
VE
CRE
SCENT AVE
C
RY
S
TALSPRINGSRD
BLO
OMFIELD RD
HILLSBOR OUGH BLVD
HUNTINGTON AVE
SEBASTIAN DR
FLORIBUNDAAVE
E MILL
BRAE
AV
E
MAGN OLIA AVE
E SAN BRUNO AVE
W
SANTAINEZ
AVE
JACK
LING
D
R
BROADW
AY
RICHM
OND DR
TAYLORBLVD
EL
CERRITO
A
V
E
POPLAR
AVE
CHAT E
AU
DR
RIDGEWOOD DR
EASTON DR
CRESTMOORDR
LAUREL AVE
SAN
AN
TONIO AVE
SHARON
AVE
LARKSPUR
DR
QUES
ADA W
Y
S ASH
TON
AVE
ASHTO
N AVE
BELLA
VIST
A
DR
S GRANT
ST
STATE
HIGHWAY 35
BUR
LIN
GAM
E AV
E
SKYL
INE BOULEVAR
D
OAKS DR
OAK
D
AL
E
RD
ALVA
RADO AV
E
HUN
T DR
EL
PORTAL AVE
SANTA
FLO
RITA
AVE
SUM
MITDR
S M
AGNOLIA
AVE
OL
D
BAYSH
ORE BLVD
EUCALYPTUS AVE
NL D
W O O
SSOM
MAGN
OL
IA AVE
ELCAMINO
REAL
LAER ON IMAC LE
San MateoSan Mateo
HillsboroughHillsborough
MillbraeMillbrae
Foster CityFoster City
BurlingameBurlingame
San BrunoSan Bruno
BelmontBelmont
Redwood CityRedwood City
Highlands-Baywood ParkHighlands-Baywood Park
South San FranciscoSouth San Francisco
00 .4 0 .80.2
Miles
Exhibit IV-4
Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan
for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport
AIRPORT INFLUENCE AREA B --
SOUTHEAST SIDE
NORTH
San FranciscoSan Francisco
BayBay
C/CAG
City/County Association of Governments
of San Mateo County, California
CNEL
65 dB
San FranciscoSan Francisco
International AirportInternational Airport
Elevation 13.2 FeetElevation 13.2 Feet
28 L28
R
10 L
10 R
19L
19R
1 R1 L
Municipal Boundary
Road
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Freeway
Railroad
CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast
LEGEND
Airport Property
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
Outer Boundary of Safety Zones
Open Space
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
14 CFR Part 77 Conical Surface
Outer Boundary of TERPS Approach and
OEI Departure Surfaces
Boundary for Airport Influence Area B
Sources:
100:1 FAA Notification Zone: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. and Jacobs Consultancy, based on 14 CFR Part 77, Subpart B, Section 77.9.
Outer Boundary of TERPS Approach and OEI Departure
Surfaces: San Francisco International Airport, Jacobs
Consultancy, and Planning T echnology Inc., 2009
Safety Compatibility Zones: Jacobs Consultancy Team, 2009; Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011
Noise Contour: URS Corporation and BridgeNet International.
Draft Environmental Assessment, San Francisco International Airport Proposed Runway Safety Area Program, June 2011
miles
0 1.60.8
Municipal Boundary
Road
Regional Park or Recreation Area
Freeway
Railroad
CNEL Contour, 2020 Forecast
Airport Property
BART Station
CALTRAIN Station
Open Space
Local Park, Golf Course, Cemetery
14 CFR Part 77 Conical Surface
Outer Boundary of TERPS Approach and
OEI Departure Surfaces
Outer Boundary of Safety Zones
Boundary for Airport Influence Area B
Sources:
100:1 FAA Notification Zone: Ricondo & Associates, Inc. and Jacobs Consultancy, based on 14 CFR Part 77, Subpart B, Section 77.9.
Outer Boundary of TERPS Approach and OEI Departure
Surfaces: San Francisco International Airport, Jacobs
Consultancy, and Planning Technology Inc., 2009
Safety Compatibility Zones: Jacobs Consultancy Team, 2009; Ricondo & Associates, Inc., 2011
Noise Contour: URS Corporation and BridgeNet International.
Draft Environmental Assessment, San Francisco International Airport Proposed Runway Safety Area Program, June 2011
Area A: Airport Influence Area (AIA) Boundary
(Real Estate Disclosure Only)
Project Site
Area B: CCAG/ALUC Review Area Boundary
(Real Estate Disclosure and Formal CCAG/AUC Review)
FIGURE III-4
SOURCE: CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY , JULY 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_III4.ai (9/4/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
San Francisco International Airport
Influence Area Boundaries
Project
Site
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
662
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 53 Any use that creates an increased attraction for wildlife, particularly large flocks of birds, that is inconsistent with FAA rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, FAA Order 5200.5A, Waste Disposal Sites On or Near Airports, FAA Advisory Circular 150/ 5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports, and any successor or replacement orders or advisory circulars. Exceptions to this policy are acceptable for wetlands or other environmental mitigation projects required by ordinance, statute, court order, or Record of Decision issued by a federal agency under the National Environmental Policy Act.
2. Consistency
The following section evaluates the 2012 Master Plan’s consistency with both the SQL and SFO CALUPs.
a. San Carlos Airport. As described previously, the proposed project would be located approxi- mately 4 miles north of SQL in Area A of the AIA. Area A denotes locations that are both outside the 55 decibel (dB) CNEL aircraft noise contour and the mapped height restrictions, and, thus, would not require detailed review by the Airport Land Use Commission. It is anticipated that the materials used to construct the proposed 2012 Master Plan buildings would be similar to those used in the most recently-constructed building on the campus, and would not create conflicts with design restrictions regarding light or generation of glare. The project would not include uses hazardous to air navigation.
If firms other than Gilead Sciences were to purchase or lease buildings on the site (an action which is not proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan), the real estate transfer documents would be required to disclose that the property is located within the AIA of the SQL.
b. San Francisco International Airport. As described previously, the project site is located approximately 5 miles south of SFO and is located within Area B of the AIA. However, the proposed project is located outside of the mapped 2020 CNEL noise contours, safety compatibility zones, and height restrictions. Because the project site is outside these areas, it would not be subject to the policies of the Noise, Safety and Airspace Protection/Height Limitation elements, even though it would be formally reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission.
In general, the buildings on the site, which could be built to a maximum height of 192 feet at the roof screen, would be compliant with the relevant airspace protection criteria specified in the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 for SFO. To ensure that the 2012 Master Plan would not result in avia- tion-related hazards and would conform to County policy and practice to protect the airspace in the vicinity of each airport in the County, Gilead Sciences would be required to submit the building plans for specific building projects to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a formal airspace impact evaluation, per the Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77 review process. Submittal of plans to the FAA would occur when a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit is submitted for specific devel- opment proposals on the site, following approval of the 2012 Master Plan. Because the project is currently proposed at a conceptual level, building height and configuration would not be precisely identified until a Specific Building Plan/Use Permit is sought by Gilead Sciences.
The results of the FAA airspace impact evaluation would then be provided to Gilead Sciences and the City. The City would consider the FAA airspace impact evaluation prior to deciding whether to approve specific building projects in the project site.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
663
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR III. PLANNING POLICY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\3-Policy.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 54 It is anticipated that the materials used to construct 2012 Master Plan buildings would be similar to those used in the building currently under construction within the project site (NLB-1), and would not create conflicts with design restrictions regarding light or generation of glare. As noted above, the project would not include uses hazardous to air navigation. If firms other than Gilead Sciences were to purchase or lease buildings on the site (an action which is not proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan), the real estate transfer documents would be required to disclose that the property is located within the AIA of the SFO. Therefore, the 2012 Master Plan would not conflict with the SFO CALUP.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
664
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-SettingImpMit.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 55 IV. SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This chapter contains an analysis of each potentially significant environmental issue that has been identified for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan, and, as such, constitutes the major portion of the Subsequent EIR. Sections A through K of this chapter describe the environ- mental setting of the project site as it relates to each specific issue. The impacts resulting from imple- mentation of the proposed project and mitigation measures that would reduce impacts of the project, as appropriate, are also presented in each of the sections.
DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE
Under CEQA, a significant effect is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. The CEQA Guidelines direct that this determination be based on scientific and factual data. Each impact and mitigation measure section of this chapter is prefaced by a summary of criteria of significance. These criteria have been developed using the CEQA Guidelines and applica- ble City policies, such as the Foster City General Plan (General Plan).
1. Issues Addressed in the Subsequent EIR
The following environmental issues are addressed in this chapter:
A. Land Use
B. Visual Quality
C. Population, Employment, and Housing
D. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
E. Hydrology and Water Quality
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
G. Transportation and Circulation
H. Noise
I. Air Quality
J. Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation
K. Global Climate Change
Preliminary analysis, including review of comments received during the Subsequent EIR scoping period, review of the conclusions of the 2010 Master Plan EIR, evaluation of aerial maps, and discussions with City staff, has determined that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural and paleontological resources, shade and shadow, and mineral resources. Consequently, these issues are not examined in this chapter of the Subsequent EIR. Chapter VI, Other CEQA Considerations, briefly discusses each topic and supports the conclusion that the project would not result in significant environmental effects related to these topic areas.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
665
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4-SettingImpMit.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 56
2. Format of Issue Sections
Each environmental topical section comprises two primary parts: (1) Setting, and (2) Impacts and Mitigation Measures. An overview of the general organization and the information provided in the two parts is provided below:
Setting. The Setting section for each environmental topic generally provides a description of the applicable physical setting, or baseline (e.g., existing land uses, soil conditions, traffic conditions) for the 2012 Master Plan area and its surroundings in March 2012, at the beginning of the environmental review process. An overview of regulatory considerations that are applicable to each specific environmental topic is also provided. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. The Impacts and Mitigation Measures section for each environmental topic presents a discussion of the impacts that could result from implemen- tation of the proposed 2012 Master Plan. The section begins with the criteria of signifi- cance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts from the proposed project and mitigation measures, as appropriate. The impacts of the proposed project are organized into separate categories based on their significance according to the criteria listed in each topical section:
less-than-significant impacts (which do not require mitigation measures) and significant impacts (which do require mitigation measures).
Impacts are numbered and shown in bold type, and the corresponding mitigation measures are numbered and indented. Impacts and mitigation measures are numbered consecutively within each topical analysis and begin with an acronymic or abbreviated reference to the impact section (e.g., LAND). The following symbols are used for individual topics:
LAND Land Use
VIS Visual Quality
POP Population, Employment, and Housing
GEO Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
HYD Hydrology and Water Quality
HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
TRANS Transportation and Circulation
NOI Noise
AIR Air Quality
UTL Public Services and Utilities
GCC Global Climate Change
Impacts are also categorized by type of impact, as follows: Less-Than-Significant, Significant, and Significant and Unavoidable. The following notations are provided after each identified significant impact and after identification of mitigation measures:
LTS Less Than Significant
S Significant
SU Significant and Unavoidable
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
666
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 57 A. LAND USE
This section describes existing land uses within and in the vicinity of the 2012 Master Plan area, and evaluates potential land use impacts that could result from the proposed project. The project’s con- sistency with land use policies adopted for the purpose of environmental protection is discussed in Chapter III, Planning Policy.
1. Setting
The following setting information provides an overview of the land uses within the project site and surrounding areas. The section begins with a discussion of the regional and local land use setting, and then provides more specific information about the project site and its vicinity. Land uses around the project site are identified in the aerial photo provided in Figure IV.A-1. Photographs of the site and surrounding area are provided throughout this section as Photo IV.A-1 through Photo IV.A-3.
a. Regional Setting. The project site is located on the San Francisco Peninsula within Foster City, as shown in Figure II-1 in Chapter II, Project Description. Foster City is located approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of San Francisco and approximately 30 miles northwest of the City of San Jose. Foster City is located in San Mateo County and is bordered by San Francisco Bay to the north and east, the cities of Belmont and Redwood City to the south, and the City of San Mateo to the west.
Major transportation corridors in the area include US 101 and SR 92. Foster City is located in Silicon Valley, which is known for its high density of technology companies and technology-related innova- tion.
b. Local Setting. Foster City is a planned community consisting of distinct neighborhoods organized around open spaces and water bodies connecting to San Francisco Bay. The City was designed in the 1960s as a suburban community with a clear community center and an industrial base to support required services. The City was constructed on reclaimed marshlands devoted to dairy farming, and evaporation ponds. Development of the City has been shaped by the mainly water- oriented constraints of filled marshlands, including Marina Lagoon on the west, Belmont Slough on the east, and Foster City Lagoon. Foster City Lagoon extends into the center of Foster City.
The project site is located in the Vintage Park neighborhood, a 132-acre mixed-use development primarily consisting of office and research and development uses (Figure II-1 depicts the boundaries of Vintage Park). Vintage Park is described below in more detail. The focal point of Vintage Park is Vintage Lake, a man-made lake located within the project site. The project site, including Vintage Lake, are located approximately 2,400 feet north of Foster City’s Town Center (Metro Center), an approximately 100-acre neighborhood consisting of high density mixed uses, including office, residential, and retail uses.
The approximately 73-acre project site is generally bounded by East Third Avenue to the north, Vintage Park Drive and Marsh Drive to the east, Home Depot and other commercial uses to the south, and Mariners Island Boulevard to the west, as shown in Figure IV.A-1. Regional vehicular access to the project site is provided via the Foster City Boulevard exit from SR 92, approximately ¼-mile southeast of the project site, and the East Third Avenue exit from Highway 101, to the northwest of the site. Local access to the site is provided via Foster City Boulevard, East Third Avenue, Mariners Island Boulevard, Marsh Drive and Vintage Park Drive.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
667
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 58 Photo IV.A-1: Typical project site office building.
c. Existing Conditions and Land Uses on the Project Site. The project site was originally developed as part of the Vintage Park Master Plan (General Development Plan). The Vintage Park Master Plan and Design Guidelines guide the development of the site, and were first approved by the City Council in 1981 and 1984, respectively, and have been amended since that time. The Vintage Park Master Plan was approved for the entire 132-acre Vintage Park area, which includes the Elec- tronics for Imaging (EFI) campus and the project site. The Vintage Park Master Plan, as originally proposed, included executive offices, residential condominiums, commercial/retail, research and development, and light industrial uses. The Vintage Park Master Plan and Design Guidelines were amended after EFI requested certain changes, including removal of housing from the plans, an increase in the total number of parking spots, a change in building heights, and a modification of development phasing. The 2010 Master Plan included further amendments to the Vintage Park Master Plan and Design Guidelines. These amendments included the addition of traffic calming options for the campus, the illustration of façade design guidelines for parking structures, and modifications to the recommended plant list. Ordinance 554, approved on March 1, 2010, adopted the 2010 Master Plan and amendments to the Vintage Park Master Plan and Design Guidelines. Further amendments to the Design Guidelines and Signage Guidelines were adopted in 2012.
Land uses on the project site are characterized by 15 one- and two-story office and laboratory buildings on the South Campus (i.e., the area comprising the 2010 Master Plan) and one five-story office building on the North Campus (i.e., the remaining portion of the project site, generally to the north of Vintage Lake). NLB-1, which is currently under construction, will be four stories. The boundaries of the North Campus and South Campus are shown on Figure IV.A-1.
Surface parking lots are located around each building
on the project site, and each building is accessible from Lakeside Drive and Velocity Way. The structures on
the site were built from approximately the mid-1980s
to 2007 (NB\368 (NLB-1) is still under construction)
and total approximately 926,735 square feet of interior building space. These buildings contain a mix of office and laboratory uses. Shared surface parking lots –
generally serving small groups of buildings – are
located throughout the site. Landscaping on the site is located within and around parking lots, Lakeside
Drive, building perimeters, and walkways connecting
the southeast corner of the campus to and surrounding
Vintage Lake. The shoreline of Vintage Lake is also
landscaped. Information about existing uses located throughout the project site is provided in Table II-1 in Chapter II, Project Description. Photo IV.A-1 depicts a typical office building located on the project site.
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.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
668
M
ariners Island Boulevard HILTONHILTON
GARDENGARDEN
INNINN
VINTAGEVINTAGE
LAKELAKE
BRIDGEPOINTEBRIDGEPOINTE
SHOPPINGSHOPPING
CENTERCENTER
OFFICE/LIGHT OFFICE/LIGHT
INDUSTRIALINDUSTRIAL
USESUSES
Lakeside Drive
East Third AvenueEast Third AvenueEast Third Avenue
MARINER’S MARINER’S
POINT GOLF POINT GOLF
LINKSLINKS
Chheesss Dri
vee
Ches
s Drive
Hatch Drive
Hatch Drive
Lakeside Drive
92 Foster City BoulevardFoster Ci
ty Boulevard
Foster City Boulevard
MARINER’S
POINT GOLF
LINKS
TIDELANDSTIDELANDS
PARKPARK
TIDELANDS
PARK
OPEN SPACEOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACE
San Francisco Bay
HOMEHOME
DEPOTDEPOT
OFFICE/LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL
USES
BRIDGEPOINTE
SHOPPING
CENTER
TOWNTOWN
CENTERCENTER
TOWN
CENTER
EFI EFI EFI
HOME
DEPOT
VINTAGE
LAKE
HILTON
GARDEN
INN Vintage Park Drive
Vintage Park Drive
M
ariners Island Boulevard
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
USESUSES
RESIDENTIAL
USES
feet
Project Site
9000 450
North Campus
South Campus
FIGURE IV.A-1
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Land Uses in the Plan AreaSOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, NOVEMBER 2011; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IV A1.ai (10/30/12)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
669
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 60 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
670
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 61 Photo IV.A-2: View of Buildings 301 and 303.
d. Land Uses in the Vicinity of the Project Site. The following section describes the land uses found in the vicinity of the project site, as shown in Figure IV.A-1. The project site is located near the northern boundary of Foster City, where urban uses transition to open space along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.
(1) Land Uses to the North. The project site is
bordered to the north by East Third Avenue and the
former EFI building (a view of which is shown in Photo
IV.A-2). As of November 1, 2012, Gilead Sciences
assumed ownership of this building, which is not part of the project site. Gilead Sciences may lease a portion of the building to EFI. Velocity Way forms a loop in the
North Campus, connecting to Lakeside Drive to the
west and Marsh Drive and Vintage Park Drive to the
east. Across East Third Avenue are the Mariner’s Point
Golf Links and Bay Marshes Open Space. The former
EFI campus consists of a 10-story building fronting East Third Avenue. The San Francisco Bay is located
immediately beyond the golf course.
(2) Land Uses to the East. The easternmost portion of the project site is bordered by Vintage Park Drive and Marsh Drive, beyond which are light industrial, office, and parking uses. East of the project site, at the intersection of Vintage Park and Lakeside Drive, is a site that contains several one-story buildings, although most of the site is devoted to parking and storage. Foster City Boulevard, which extends north to the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and south towards the northern limits of Town Center, is located further east of this site. Buildings around Foster City Boulevard in the vicinity of the site are generally one- to two-stories tall and contain office and light industrial uses.
(3) Land Uses to the South.To the south of the project site is a major commercial district in the City of San Mateo. Land uses immediately adjacent to the site to the south include a Home Depot and a six-story Hilton Garden Inn, both of which are located on Chess Drive. South of Chess Drive is the Bridgepointe Shopping Center, which includes big box stores, such as Target and Staples, and expansive surface parking lots. No roads connect the southern boundary of the project site to the Bridgepointe Shopping Center.
(4) Land Uses to the West. The project site
is bordered by the four-lane Mariners Island Boulevard
to the west. Land uses across Mariners Island Boule-
vard include a mix of one-, two-, and three-story
multi-family and single-family residential uses (as
shown in Photo IV.A-3), and the Marina Lagoon.
These residential uses and lagoon are located in the
City of San Mateo. Tidelands Park, consisting of
mostly undeveloped open space, is located adjacent to
the northwest corner of the project site. In addition, a 76-unit condominium project has been approved (but
Photo IV.A-3: Typical residential development along
Mariners Island Boulevard.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
671
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 62 not yet developed) at the southwest quadrant of Mariners Island Boulevard and East Third Avenue, adjacent to Tidelands Park.
2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The following section presents a discussion of the impacts related to land use that could result from implementation of the proposed project. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the land use impacts that would result from the proposed project. All such impacts would be less than significant (significant planning policy-related impacts are discussed in Chapter III).
a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant impact if it would:
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community; Alter the type or intensity of land use on a project site, causing it to be substantially incompatible with surrounding land uses or the overall character of surrounding neighbor- hoods;
Fundamentally conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance), adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and where such conflict would actually result in an adverse physical change in the environment; or
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. Less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project are discussed below. Potential conflicts with land use policies and regulations are addressed in Chapter III, Planning Policy.
(1) Divide an Established Community. The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature (such as an interstate highway or railroad tracks) or removal of a means of access (such as a local road or bridge) that would impair mobility within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. For example, the con- struction of an interstate highway through an existing community could constrain travel from one side of the community to another.
The proposed 2012 Master Plan would result in the removal of up to 12 existing buildings, totaling 367,421 square feet of office and research and development uses, and several surface parking lots.
The project site would ultimately contain up to 2,500,600 square feet of office and laboratory uses, four structured parking lots, surface parking lots, open space along Vintage Lake, and other open space and landscaped areas. After implementation of the 2012 Master Plan, building square footage would more than double from existing conditions, from 926,735 square feet to up to 2,500,600 square feet of building space (a net increase of 1,573,865 square feet of building space).
No new roadways would be constructed as part of the 2012 Master Plan, although the proposed project includes the closure of a portion of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive.
That closure, which would preclude both public motor vehicle and pedestrian access into the site, was
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
672
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 63 approved as part of the 2010 Master Plan (Resolution 2010-21 (February 16, 2010)). However, the effects of the closure are discussed here since, as of spring 2012, the roadway segment has not yet been closed. The purpose of the partial closure is to facilitate the movement of employees throughout the campus by removing the need to cross a public thoroughfare, and to increase pedestrian safety.
In addition, as an action independent of the 2012 Master Plan that was approved in November 2012, Gilead Sciences assumed ownership and maintenance responsibility for the remainder of Lakeside Drive and Reef Drive. The 40-foot-wide roadway would remain intact from East Third Avenue through the intersection with Reef Drive, up to the proposed building labeled NB/331, where it would terminate at a proposed cul-de-sac. South of the cul-de-sac, a 24-foot-wide private asphalt drive would be constructed to access adjoining future parking lots. The portion of Lakeside Drive from the intersection of Vintage Park Drive to a second proposed cul-de-sac near the building labeled NB/353 would also remain intact. Emergency vehicles would be able to drive along the entire length of Lakeside Drive, and private pedestrian pathways would link the two cul-de-sacs.
The partial closure of Lakeside Drive would impede access through the project site by non-emergency vehicles and the public. However, a 2008 transportation study of three projects proposed in Foster City (including the 2010 Master Plan), which examined the effects of partially closing Lakeside Drive, shows that relatively few vehicles use Lakeside Drive as a cut-through route. 1 Pedestrian use of the
roadway as a cut-through route is also thought to be infrequent (no through-traveling pedestrians were observed by members of the EIR team during repeated site visits). While the public would not be able to drive or bike through the site, the major roads that border the site, including Vintage Park Drive, East Third Avenue, and Mariners Island Boulevard, would not be altered. Motor vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians would be able to use these other roadways to access land uses surrounding the project site, but would not be allowed to cut across the campus. Therefore, the partial closure of Lakeside Drive would not divide an established community.
An existing pedestrian pathway provides access to Vintage Lake. There are multiple access points to the trail, including a western trailhead approximately 170 feet from the intersection of Reef Drive and Lakeside Drive. From this point, the trail extends southeasterly, along a curvilinear route, along the southern edge of Vintage Lake. An eastern trailhead is also on Lakeside Drive, approximately 55 feet from the intersection of Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive. Two possible guard stations are proposed as part of the closure of Lakeside Drive.
Therefore, the net effects of the closure of a segment of Lakeside Drive would be a slightly longer vehicle/bike trip for certain non-Gilead travelers who might have typically used Lakeside Drive to access points beyond the 2012 Master Plan area, and diminished access for cyclists and pedestrians using the public trail to Vintage Lake. However, closure of Lakeside Drive would not substantially impede access to neighborhoods and open space in Foster City around the project site.
The primary users of Lakeside Drive are Gilead and EFI employees (who may continue to use Building 303 even though it has been purchased by Gilead Sciences). Since the portion of Lakeside Drive serving the former EFI campus (i.e., the segment of the road between Reef Drive and East Third Avenue) would remain open to the public (although privately owned and maintained by Gilead
1 Fehr & Peers, 2008. Final Report, Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis. December.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
673
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 64 Sciences), the partial closure of Lakeside Drive would not obstruct EFI employees from reaching their campus. As such, the partial closure of Lakeside Drive would not impede access to the two campuses by employees, visitors, and other associated vehicles.
Pedestrian access for Gilead employees would be improved as a result of the 2012 Master Plan due to the reduction of vehicle traffic and an enhanced pedestrian environment (including through the con- version of a portion of Lakeside Drive into an open space area with a pedestrian walkway). Sidewalks are proposed to extend from the Vintage Park Drive entrance along the proposed Lakeside Drive pathway, and throughout the entire campus, ending at East Third Avenue.
(2) Land Use Conflicts. As previously described, the project site is surrounded by a variety of land uses, including office park uses and open space to the north; office and light industrial uses to the east; retail and hotel uses to the south; and single-family and multi-family residential uses and open space to the west. Most of the surrounding uses are separated from the project site by major roadways, including Mariners Island Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive. The project site is currently developed with 16 one-, two-, and five-story office and laboratory buildings (and one four-story building under construction) and associated surface parking and landscaping. The proposed project would not introduce new land uses to the project site (although uses accessory to office and labora- tory uses, such as cafeteria and gymnasium uses beyond those that already exist, may be incorporated into certain buildings). These accessory land uses would not represent a substantial change in land use, as similar uses are currently present within the project site. After implementation of the 2012 Master Plan, the project site would continue to be used by Gilead Sciences for biopharmaceutical research and development, and no conflicts with surrounding uses would occur. The project would intensify use of the site through the reuse of surface parking lots for multi-story buildings and parking garages. Although taller and more massive structures would increase the intensity of land use in the project area, the redeveloped uses would not create land use conflicts with existing on-site and surrounding land uses. The 2012 Master Plan area is an appropriate place for intensified uses because it is buffered from surrounding lower-scale residential uses to the west by Mariners Island Boulevard.
As such, the proposed project would not result in incompatible uses. Potential conflicts related to air quality and noise are discussed in Sections IV.H, Noise and IV.I, Air Quality and of this Subsequent EIR.
(3) Conflict With Land Use Policies. The proposed project would be generally consistent with applicable land use plans and policies, but would conflict with policies related to noise that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating significant environmental impacts. Refer to Chapter III, Planning Policy, for additional detail.
(4) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan. The project site is not located within any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area and would not conflict with any such plan.
c. Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in significant land use impacts beyond those that relate to policy conflicts that are discussed in Chapter III, Planning Policy.
d. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would redevelop the site with up to 2,500,600 square feet of interior office and laboratory building space, an increase of up to 1,573,865 square feet
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
674
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 65 from existing conditions. The proposed project would not introduce any new land uses to the project site, but would increase the intensity of development. However, an increased intensity of uses would not be incompatible with the existing surrounding development pattern. In addition, land uses proposed for the project site would also be internally compatible. As such, operation of the proposed project would not result in long-term land use impacts in conjunction with other planned development (including the planned residential development in the City of San Mateo to the west of the site that is summarized in Chapter IV.C, Population, Employment, and Housing). Projects included in the cumulative analysis would all be required to conform to General Plan policies (including those for jurisdictions outside Foster City, as applicable) and to applicable design guidelines that are intended to minimize land use conflicts. While the proposed project and cumulative projects would result in land use changes, such changes are generally consistent with the City’s goals and policies that are found in the General Plan. These policies include ones promoting the growth of businesses in the City and the use of land in a way that is sensitive to surrounding neighborhoods.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
675
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
A. LAND USE
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4a-LandUse.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 66 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
676
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 67 B. VISUAL QUALITY
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed 2012 Master Plan on visual resources in the vicinity of the project site. This analysis also considers the proposed 2012 Master Plan’s consistency with applicable visual resources-related policies. Photographs are included to illustrate the site’s visual qualities. Visual simulations that show “before” and “after” representations of proposed 2012 Master Plan buildings and landscape changes have been prepared for five representative vantage points in the vicinity of the site, along with a visual animation of a trip through the campus, which can be found in a CD attached to the back cover of the Subsequent EIR (see Appendix F). The visual simulations are intended to convey an impression of the location, scale, and massing of the buildings that could be constructed at the project site, and to demonstrate potential effects of the proposed project on visual resources. As noted in Chapter I, Introduction and Summary, the 2012 Master Plan is currently proposed at a conceptual level, and individual developments within the 2012 Master Plan area would be subject to additional review, including supplemental visual study, as appropriate. The visual simulations and analysis in this section are based on the conceptual plans and massing studies prepared by the project sponsor in May 2012.
1. Setting
The following section describes the visual character of the project site and its surroundings, as well as views in the vicinity of the site. The project site is developed with 926,735 square feet of laboratory, office, and ancillary uses, including the anticipated interior square footage of NLB-1, which is under construction. Approximately 69 percent of the site is covered with impervious surfaces (not including the surface area of Vintage Lake or the paved portion of the Lakeside Drive right-of-way), in the form of paved surface parking lots, building footprints, and other hard surfaces. Parking covers approxi- mately 34 percent of the project site, and open space and landscaping cover approximately 31 percent of the site.
Representative views of the project site are provided in Figures IV.B-2 through IV.B-6. These photos correspond to the viewpoint locations (1 through 5) noted on Figure IV.B-1 for which visual simula- tions of the proposed project have been prepared. For a detailed description of the physical character- istics of the project site, refer to Section IV.A, Land Use.
a. Existing Visual Character of the Project Site. The project site is generally flat and consists of an approximately 73-acre area developed with 17 buildings (including one building that is under construction as of August 2012) that currently or will contain laboratory and office uses, and associ- ated surface parking and landscaping. Of the existing buildings on the site, 15 buildings range from one to two stories in height and Building 301 is five stories. NLB-1, which is currently being con- structed, will be four-stories. The building located at 303 Velocity Way, just to the north of the project site, is 10 stories. Mature trees are located throughout the project site, including along the site perimeter and internal roadways. Vintage Lake, an open body of water in the central portion of the site, is surrounded by open space and is a major visual element of the site.
b. Views from the Project Site. Views from the project site of surrounding land uses are limited from certain locations due to development on the project site and the flat terrain of the area. Existing one-, two-, five- and 10-story buildings, along with the trees that have been planted along exterior and interior roads, generally block views of surrounding areas to the north and east. Where view corridors do exist, they tend to be located at intersections near the edge of the project site. From Reef Drive and
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
677
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 68 Lakeside Drive looking west, there are unobstructed views of some of the residential uses located to the west of the project site; from Lakeside Drive and East Third Avenue looking north, the Mariner’s Point Golf Links can be clearly seen; and viewpoints from the vicinity of Marsh Drive and East Third Avenue have views of the East Bay Hills. Views around the project site are discussed below.
(1) North of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the north by the office building located at 303 Velocity Way and East Third Avenue. From the southern portion of the project site, views to the north are almost totally obstructed by the existing buildings and landscaping on the campus. However, the 10-story building located at 303 Velocity Way is a major landmark in the area and is visible throughout the project site. San Francisco Bay, located to the north of the site, is not visible from any ground-level viewpoint on the project site, due to existing buildings on the North Campus, the flat topography of the site, and the levee along the Bay shoreline. However, the San Mateo Bridge is visible along the northern edge of the project site.
(2) East of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the east by Vintage Park Drive (a four-lane roadway) and Marsh Drive (a two-lane roadway). Views from the southeast portion of the site looking east are generally obstructed by trees planted along Vintage Park Drive. In particular, the one- and two-story office and light industrial buildings east of Vintage Park Drive are not visible from the project site due to the mature trees planted along Vintage Park Drive and the flat topography of the area. From the northwestern corner of the project site, views to the east include the building located at 303 Velocity Way.
(3) South of the Project Site. The southern boundary of the project site is bordered by Home Depot and the Hilton Garden Inn, both of which are located on Chess Drive in the City of San Mateo. Views south of the project site are generally obstructed by landscaping; however, there are views from the site of the back of the Home Depot, as well as the six-story Hilton Garden Inn.
(4) West of the Project Site. The project site is bordered to the west by Mariners Island Boulevard. One-, two-, and three-story single-family and multi-family residential uses line Mariners Island Boulevard to the west. Views of and across Mariners Island Boulevard are generally obstructed by existing landscaping and mature trees bordering the project site, although the roadway and adja- cent residential uses are visible from portions of the campus. Tidelands Park, a major open space facility in the City of San Mateo to the west of the site, is also visible from the northwestern corner of the site.
c. Views of and Through the Project Site. The project site is visible from surrounding areas, although the generally low-slung buildings in the area appear to be visually contiguous with similar urban development surrounding the site. Key views of and through the project site from surrounding public areas are described below.
(1) Views from the San Mateo Bridge. Views of the project site from the portion of the San Mateo Bridge approximately ¼-mile east from the Francisco Bay shoreline are shown in Figure IV.B-
2. From this viewpoint, views of the project site are partially obstructed by commercial buildings, including the 10-story building at 303 Velocity Way, mature trees within the golf course to the north of the site, and landscaping that has been planted around the perimeter of the project site. In the background are extensive views of the Santa Cruz Mountains.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
678
East Third AveEast Third AveEast Third Ave
Foster City Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Mariners Island BlvdMariners Island BlvdMariners Island Blvd Vintage Park Dr Vintage Park Dr
92 4
3 2
1 5
feet
0 650 1300
# Viewpoint Location
Project Site
FIGURE IV.B-1
SOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, 2011; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVB1.ai (8/28/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Viewpoint Locations
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
679
Viewpoint 1: Visual simulation
Viewpoint 1: Existing view
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 1
FIGURE IV .B-2
SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2012.
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\ fi gures\Fig_IVB2-IVB6.indd (10/30/12)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
680
Viewpoint 2: Visual simulation
Viewpoint 2: Existing view
FIGURE IV .B-3
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 2
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\ fi gures\Fig_IVB2-IVB6.indd (10/30/12) SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
681
Viewpoint 3: Existing view
Viewpoint 3: Visual simulation
FIGURE IV .B-4
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 3
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\ fi gures\Fig_IVB2-IVB6.indd (10/30/12) SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
682
Viewpoint 4: Existing view
Viewpoint 4: Visual simulation
FIGURE IV .B-5
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 4
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\ fi gures\Fig_IVB2-IVB6.indd (10/30/12) SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
683
Viewpoint 5: Existing view
Viewpoint 5: Visual simulation
FIGURE IV .B-6
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Visual Simulation from Viewpoint 5
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\ fi gures\Fig_IVB2-IVB6.indd (10/30/12) SOURCE: ANDREW McNICHOL, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
684
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 75 (2) Views from the Intersection of Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive.
Views of the project site from the intersection of Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive are depicted in Figure IV.B-3. The view of the project site is partially obstructed by mature trees, PG&E high-tension power lines, and existing office buildings, including the building located at 303 Velocity Way. No clear view corridor into and through the site exists from this viewpoint. A small portion of the Santa Cruz Mountains is visible in the distance from this vantage point.
(3) Views from Foster City Boulevard. Views of the project site from the portion of Foster City Boulevard on the State Route (SR) 92 overpass are shown in Figure IV.B-4. The view of the project site is distant from this location and is generally obstructed by mature trees, street lights, and existing commercial buildings, including the building located at 303 Velocity Way. However, the top three floors of Building 301 are visible from this vantage point. In addition, the Santa Cruz Mountains are visible around existing urban development and landscaping, although views of the mountains are fleeting.
(4) Views from Vintage Park Drive. Views of the project site from the portion of Vintage Park Drive on the SR 92 overpass are shown in Figure IV.B-5. The view of the project site is mostly obstructed by mature trees and landscaping features, street lights, and existing office buildings. No clear view corridors into and through the site exist from this location.
(5) Views from the Intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive. Views of the project site from the intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive are depicted in Figure IV.B-6. The views from this point are characterized by the high-tension power lines that cross the site, and vegetation around the perimeter of the site. No long-distance views are available from this location.
2. Regulatory Context
The following discussion describes relevant policies of the Foster City General Plan and the Vintage Park Design Guidelines.
a. Foster City General Plan. The Foster City General Plan contains the following policies related to the visual quality and character of development within the City.
Land Use and Circulation Element
Policy LUC-40: Design Review of Commercial and Industrial Projects. The City will use a design review process for commercial and industrial projects to ensure that basic land uses, density, access, internal circulation, visual characteristics, noise, odors, fire hazards, vibrations, smoke, discharge of wastes and nighttime lighting do not negatively affect adjacent or nearby residential land uses.
Residential projects to be located near existing commercial or industrial land uses shall be appropri- ately designed to reduce noise, traffic, visual, and other potential conflicts.
Parks and Open Space Element
Program PC-n: Architectural Review. Review all new development or improvement proposals through the City’s architectural review process for: (1) impacts on access to sunlight; (2) provision of street furniture in public open spaces; and (3) impacts to waterfront views. Policy PC-18: Access to Sunlight. Consider the impact of new development on sunlight to existing public open spaces.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
685
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 76 b. Vintage Park Design Guidelines. The Vintage Park Design Guidelines (Guidelines) were created to implement the Vintage Park Master Plan principles. During the design review process, the Guidelines are used by the City when reviewing projects located in Vintage Park. The Vintage Park Master Plan and associated Design Guidelines intend development in this area to be integrated into a planned open space system in a park-like setting. The Guidelines contain several policies related to the visual quality of the project site. Policies related to site planning are analyzed in this section because they are most applicable to the 2012 Master Plan, which is proposed at a conceptual level of design. Other policies that are applicable to site-specific design would need to be evaluated when individual projects are proposed within the 2012 Master Plan area. Site planning policies and the 2012 Master Plan’s consistency with these policies are discussed below in Table IV.B-1.
3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section analyzes impacts related to visual quality that could result from the proposed project.
The subsection begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate.
a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed project would have a significant effect on visual quality if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway; Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
Create an incompatible change to the skyline of the City; or Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. Development of the proposed project would result in the following less-than-significant impacts to visual resources.
(1) Scenic Vistas and City Skyline. The Parks and Open Space Element of the Foster City General Plan does not define important view corridors and scenic vistas in the vicinity of the project site. While views of the San Francisco Bay, Marina Lagoon, the San Francisco Bay shoreline, and the Santa Cruz Mountains would be loosely considered scenic, they are not formally identified as such in the General Plan. Because specific view corridors are not identified in the General Plan, changes in viewsheds due to development projects are typically not considered significant.
In consultation with City staff, five viewpoint locations were chosen for visual simulations of the proposed project. These viewpoint locations were chosen based on project site visibility and the locations that provide the most representative views of the project site. Figure IV.B-1 shows the viewpoint locations. Figures IV.B-2 through IV.B-6 show existing views of the project site and visual simulations of the proposed project from each of these five viewpoints.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
686
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 77 The visual simulations were prepared using computer modeling and rendering techniques, and are based solely on site layout and maximum building height data provided by the project sponsor (because building materials, colors, architecture, and landscape schematics are not yet available for the proposed project, generic illustrations have been provided). Proposed building heights may vary slightly (no more than 5 feet) in order to meet building code requirements or to accommodate mechanical equipment. The potential addition of up to 5 feet of building height would not be considered a significant change to the visual quality of the buildings as it represents a small fraction of the total building height, and mechanical equipment would be located behind a parapet towards the center of each building. As noted previously, the analysis of impacts to existing views of the project site focuses on site views from public locations such as roadways. Each viewpoint shown in the figures is described and evaluated below.
Views from the San Mateo Bridge (Viewpoint 1). Figure IV.B-2 depicts the view looking towards the project site from the San Mateo Bridge, approximately ¼-mile east of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The existing view from this location encompasses San Francisco Bay, commercial and office buildings, mature trees and other landscaping, and the Santa Cruz Mountains. The visual simu- lation of the proposed project shows new buildings that would be developed as part of the project, including 10-story buildings.
Existing structures and landscaping obstruct approximately 10 to 25 percent of views of the Santa Cruz Mountains from Viewpoint 1. Even though the east-facing foothills of the Santa Cruz Moun- tains contain extensive residential development, the low-rise nature of this development, and the forest cover of the hillsides has allowed for the preservation of a high degree of scenic integrity.
Viewpoint 1 provides an expansive and only partially-obstructed view of the hillsides. However, the General Plan does not dictate that views of these hillsides be unaltered by urban development in the flat lands adjoining San Francisco Bay.
Implementation of the proposed project would obstruct much of the view of the Santa Cruz Moun- tains that is currently available through the project site from Viewpoint 1 on the San Mateo Bridge (views from points further to the east on the San Mateo Bridge would be less obstructed). However, views of the mountains from Viewpoint 1 would be available farther to the north of the project site and from numerous near-shoreline locations. After implementation of the project, the shoreline of San Francisco Bay would appear more urbanized, with a wall of buildings obstructing westerly views towards the mountains in this specific location. However, in the context of the continued availability of expansive mountain views from other locations, and the lack of formal protections for specific viewsheds in the General Plan, changes to views of the mountains from the San Mateo Bridge would not be considered significant. It should also be noted that the San Mateo Bridge is not located on a scenic highway designated as such by the State.
Views from the Intersection of Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive Looking West (Viewpoint 2). Figure IV.B-3 depicts the view of the project site from the intersection of Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive. The view of the project site from this viewpoint is obstructed by mature trees, PG&E high-tension power lines, and existing office buildings. A small portion of the Santa Cruz Mountains is visible in the distance from this vantage point. The visual simulations shown (with landscaping) in Figure IV.B-3 depict the shipping and receiving center, two up to six-story parking structures and Buildings NB/309 and NB/307.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
687
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 78 The project would alter the existing skyline as seen from this viewpoint. However, the change would be consistent with the existing pattern of the skyline, which is interrupted by tall buildings, high- tension power lines, and light poles. In addition, the project would obstruct the existing view of the Santa Cruz Mountains. While this would be an adverse effect, the existing view of the mountains is already mostly obstructed (i.e., approximately 95 percent). Thus, while the project would incremen- tally reduce views of the mountains from this viewpoint, the effect would not be substantial.
Views from Foster City Boulevard Looking Northwest (Viewpoint 3). Figure IV.B-4 depicts the view from a portion of Foster City Boulevard on the SR 92 overpass. Existing views of the project site from this viewpoint are generally obstructed by mature trees, light poles, and existing commercial buildings. However, the top three floors of Building 301 are visible from this vantage point. The visual simulation, included in Figure IV.B-4, shows NB/309, NB/307 and NB/309, which would obstruct views of existing Building 301, but not the building located at 303 Velocity Way.
Limited views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are available from this viewpoint, but the project would not substantially block such views. The project would change the City skyline as seen from this viewpoint by introducing taller and more massive buildings. However, this change to the skyline would not be considered adverse because it would not substantially change existing scenic views.
Views from Vintage Park Drive Looking North (Viewpoint 4). Figure IV.B-5 depicts the view from the portion of Vintage Park Drive on the SR 92 overpass. Existing views of the project site are obstructed by mature trees and landscaping, light poles, and existing office buildings. The visual simulation included in Figure IV.B-5 shows NB/309, NB/307 and NB/305, each of which would be 10 stories in height. Similar to the visual change depicted from Viewpoint 3, the project would change the City skyline as seen from Viewpoint 4 through the development of taller and more massive buildings. However, this change to the skyline would not be considered substantial and adverse because it would not substantially change existing scenic views. No views of the Santa Cruz Mountains are available from Viewpoint 4.
View from the Intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive Looking East (Viewpoint 5). Figure IV.B-6 depicts the view from the intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive. Existing views of the project site from this viewpoint are characterized by the PG&E high-tension power lines. This view would change with implementation of the proposed project as 10- story buildings are developed on the site. After project implementation, the view would be substan- tially more urbanized. However, this change would not be considered significant because the new buildings that would be visible with project implementation would not block scenic views.
(2) Scenic Resources Within a State Scenic Highway. Although sections of SR 92 are eligible for designation within the California Scenic Highway System, the scenic highway designation does not apply to SR 92 in the vicinity of the project site. 1 The project site is not located within the
viewshed of a State scenic highway. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
1 California Department of Transportation, 2012. California Scenic Highway Program. Website: www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. September 5.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
688
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 79 (3) Visual Character. Development of the proposed project would change the visual character of the project site. Up to 12 existing buildings would be demolished and 17 buildings ranging in height up to 10 stories would be constructed, along with associated surface parking lots and up to four parking structures. Mature trees and existing landscaping would be removed from portions of the site and replaced with new trees and landscaping. The proposed project would also implement the partial closure of Lakeside Drive to daily motor vehicle traffic (as approved in 2010) and provide pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, and open space areas in place of roadways and other built areas. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would increase the number of employees on the campus, and would change the circulation pattern on the site. These changes would likely increase pedestrian activity in and around the site. The proposed 2012 Master Plan would increase the intensity of development on the site and would result in the development of a more unified campus with a stronger visual relationship to Vintage Lake.
The visual quality of the site would change with implementation of the project. In particular the interior of the site would appear much more intensely developed, and open views of the sky that are currently available would be blocked by taller and more massive buildings compared to current conditions. However, the adverse visual effects of the more intensive building massing proposed as part of the project would be moderated through the provision of landscaping between buildings and the retention of Vintage Lake as a prominent visual feature on the project site. The increased intensity of uses would thus not substantially adversely affect the existing visual quality of the site.
In general, the taller 10-story buildings would be clustered around Vintage Lake and shorter buildings would be located closer to the periphery of the site. The open visual character of Vintage Lake would provide relief to the more intense building massing in the interior of the site and the lower buildings on the periphery of the site would allow for a visual transition to the lower-height commercial, indus- trial, and residential development surrounding the site. While the visual character of the site would change with implementation of the 2012 Master Plan, this change would not be considered substantial and adverse with retention of Vintage Lake, the provision of landscaping on the site, and the config- uration of building massing such that buildings step down towards the periphery of the site.
In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the Foster City Design Review process as part of the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit for each building. Building permits would not be issued until design approval has been obtained. Design review would ensure that the design of each building is consistent with the City’s objectives and policies related to project design. Building height would be reviewed during the design process as well. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less- than-significant impact on the visual character of the project site and its surroundings.
(4) Policy Consistency. The proposed 2012 Master Plan would generally be consistent with applicable General Plan policies, in that specific projects would be subject to the City’s design review process prior to approval of specific site plans (see Chapter III, Planning Policy, for a detailed discus- sion of the project’s consistency with the Foster City General Plan). The proposed 2012 Master Plan would also generally be consistent with the Vintage Park Design Guidelines, as shown in Table IV.B-
1. 7.1
Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
689
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 80 Table IV.B-1: Vintage Park Design Guidelines Policy Consistency Guideline Guideline Text Projec t’s Relationship to Guideline Goal 3.2-1 Create green space corridors and
circulation systems that enhance
movement throughout Vintage Park.
The proposed project would include landscaped,
pedestrian pathways throughout the campus.
These pathways would connect the various
buildings and amenities within the project site,
including Vintage Lake. In addition, the project
would close a portion of Lakeside Drive, which
would enhance pedestrian movement through
Vintage Park for Gilead Sciences employees.
While the closure of Lakeside Drive would
partially remove a north/south route for non-
Gilead employees, this route is not heavily
traveled. Moreover, Mariners Island Boulevard
and Vintage Park Drive provide alternate routes,
including for bicyclists.
Goal 3.3-1 Create a major park-like setting and
quality open space that is economically
feasible, allows for community access to
the site and provides recreational
opportunities.
The proposed project would include open space
and landscaped features between buildings and
throughout the site. Pedestrian pathways would be
located throughout the campus and would
enhance the walkability of the site. Access to the
Vintage Lake area via an existing pedestrian
pathway would remain.
Goal 3.3-2 Maintain a water feature within Vintage
Park or for sustainability, provide an
open space recreation area that is
landscaped with plant materials
consistent with the Vintage Park plant
palette which shall be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Vintage Lake would be maintained as part of the
project and would be surrounded by accessible
open space. A plant palette for specific
developments would be provided as part of future
Specific Development Plan/Use Permits.
Goal 3.3-3 Provide pedestrian, bicycle and
jogging/fitness pathways around the open
space and links to other pedestrian
feature-areas throughout the project.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 3.2-1 and
Goal 3.2-2. The 2012 Master Plan would provide
pedestrian pathways through the project site.
Goal 3.4-1 Construct and maintain pedestrian,
bicycle, jogging/fitness pathways within
Vintage Park to connect the various park
amenities as well as provide access to
various destination points on and off the
site.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 3.2-1 and
Goal 3.2-2. The 2012 Master Plan would provide
pedestrian pathways through the project site.
These pathways would connect the various build-
ings, parking facilities and amenities on site,
including Vintage Lake. Pedestrian access would
also be provided to roads extending off-site.
Goal 4.0-1 Create a contiguous environment with
the orientation and placement of
buildings.
The project would cluster taller, 10-story build-
ings around Vintage Lake and shorter buildings
around the campus periphery. This proposed
building orientation and configuration would not
intrude on the open space surrounding Vintage
Lake and would allow proposed buildings to step
down in height to buildings surrounding the
project site.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
690
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 81 Table IV.B-1 Continued
Guideline Guideline Text Project’s Relationship to Guideline Goal 4.0-2 In multi-building projects, group
buildings together to enhance pedestrian
circulation and landscape continuity.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 4.0-1.
Goal 4.0-3 Plan circulation patterns which are
integral systems within the network of
landscape corridors, recreational
amenities, building massing and view
opportunities.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 3.2-1, Goal
3.2-2, and Goal 3.4-1. The internal circulation
system is designed to provide framed views of
Vintage Lake.
Goal 4.2-1 Create a contiguous environment with
the orientation and placement of
buildings.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 4.0-1.
Goal 5.1-1 Building massing shall be in relation to
adjacent buildings and compatible with
the surrounding neighborhood.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 4.0-1.
Goal 5.2-1 Create a diversity of building heights to
enhance an integrated and cohesive
campus image.
Building heights would range from two to 10
stories.
Goal 5.2-2 Assure that building height (of new
projects) is compatible with buildings in
the immediate vicinity.
Please refer to the analysis for Goal 4.0-1.
Goal 5.4-1 Shield rooftop equipment with a roof
screen and/or penthouse and provide
pleasant roof views from adjacent taller
buildings.
The conceptual project plans identify roof screens
and/or penthouses on all taller buildings.
c. Significant Impacts. Development of the proposed project would result in one significant impact.
(1) Light and Glare. The proposed project would include new sources of light in Foster City. One- and two-story buildings currently located on the project site are generally obstructed by mature trees and landscaping. With implementation of the project, buildings up to 10 stories in height would be developed on the site. These buildings would be visible against the City skyline and could increase light and glare.
Impact VIS-1: The proposed project would create additional sources of day and nighttime light and glare in Foster City. (S)
During daylight hours, pedestrians and motorists could experience some degree of glare due to light reflecting off the new building facades. During nighttime hours, lighting fixtures incorporated into the design of each building would add new sources of light to the nighttime sky. In order to reduce poten- tial light- and glare- related impacts to a less-than-significant level, the following two-part mitigation measure shall implemented at the time that specific Development Plans are prepared:
Mitigation Measure VIS-1a: The specific reflective properties of project building materials shall be assessed by the City during Design Review prior to approval of each Specific
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
691
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
B. VISUAL QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4b-Visual.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 82 Development Plan for the proposed project. Design review shall ensure that the use of reflective exterior materials is minimized and that proposed reflective material would not create additional daytime or nighttime glare. Glare shall be minimized per Section 17.068.080 of the Zoning Code.
Mitigation Measure VIS-1b: Specific lighting proposals shall be submitted and reviewed as part of each Specific Development Plan for each new building on the project site and shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. This review shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting for the project is downward facing and shielded so as not to create addi- tional nighttime glare. Lighting shall conform to the performance standards established by Section 17.68.080 of the Zoning Code. (LTS)
d. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would alter existing views of scenic vistas within the vicinity of the project site, including views of the distant mountains. Changes to Viewpoint 1, as shown in Figure IV.B-2, would obstruct much of the view of the Santa Cruz Mountains that is currently available through the project site from the western end of the San Mateo Bridge. Although shoreline development is highly regulated, it is conceivable that other future projects could be built near the western shoreline of San Francisco Bay that could combine with the proposed project to further reduce views of the Santa Cruz Mountains. However, expansive mountain views are available from numerous locations in the area, and a substantial diminishment of these views in the foreseeable future is unlikely due to restrictions on near-shoreline development in many municipalities adjoining the San Francisco Bay shoreline. In addition, specific viewsheds are not protected in the Foster City General Plan and changes to viewsheds due to urban development in the flat lands adjoining the San Francisco Bay shoreline would not be considered significant. Therefore, the proposed project would make a less-than-significant cumulative contribution to the obstruction of views of the Santa Cruz Mountains, including views from Viewpoint 1.
The project would also change the visual character of the area by introducing taller and more inten- sive development to the project site. However, this change would not be considered substantial and adverse, as the proposed buildings would be configured such that they would preserve the visual integrity of Vintage Lake and its surrounding open space and would step down in height to surround- ing urban development. In addition, the design of individual buildings would be subject to the City’s Design Review process, which would ensure that new construction is in accordance with the aesthetic character of the area. Therefore, the project would not make a significant contribution to adverse cumulative changes to visual character.
Although the proposed project and future projects in the vicinity of the site could increase light and glare in the area, the City’s General Plan includes goals and policies related to design review, which govern the use of reflective materials and outdoor lighting. With implementation of Mitigation Measures VIS-1a and VIS-1b, the proposed project would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative light and glare.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
692
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 83 C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
This section describes existing and projected population, employment, and housing information in Foster City and San Mateo County and evaluates potential socioeconomic impacts that could result from the proposed project.
1. Setting
The following section utilizes data from the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), California Department of Finance (DOF), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG),1 and the City of Foster City General Plan.
a. Population. Designed as a “Planned Community” in the early 1960’s and incorporated in 1971, Foster City’s population grew rapidly in its first decade as a city. As shown in Table IV.C-1, population increased by 21,045 residents between 1970 and 2010. However, planned communities typically develop around a pre-determined threshold population level and the City has nearly reached buildout capacity, in accordance with the original land use plan. As shown in Table IV.C-1, the City has experienced modest population growth since 1990. The estimated 2012 population of Foster City is 30,895.
2 Table IV.C-1: Foster City Population Growth
Year Population 10-Year Percent Change
2010 30,567 6%
2000 28,803 2%
1990 28,176 21%
1980 23,287 145%
1970 9,522 –
Sources: California Department of Finan ce, 2012, Historical Census Populations of California Cities, Places, and Towns 1850-2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010, 2010 Census Summary File 1, P1: Total Population, Foster City.
As shown in Figure IV.C-1, ABAG projects only a small, steady population increase for the years 2010 to 2030. In 2010, the City’s population was 30,567. The City’s 2020 population is projected to be 31,700, representing a 3.7 percent increase from 2010. The 2030 population is projected to reach 33,000, representing a 4.1 percent increase from 2020. Average 10-year growth rates under such projections are approximately 3.9 percent.
In 2010, San Mateo County’s population was 718,451.
3 According to ABAG, the 2020 population of
the County is projected to be 801,300, representing an 11.5 percent increase from 2010. By 2030, the
1 Some ABAG data is for the City’s “subregional study area,” or its sphere of influence, and not its corporate boundaries. Subregional data are only used when no City level data are available. When subregional data are used, they are explicitly noted.
2 State of California, 2012. Department of Finance. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2011 and 2012, with 2010 Benchmark. Website: www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e- 5/2011-20/view.php (accessed July 5, 2012).
3 United States Census Bureau, 2010. Summary File 1 (STF 1) for San Mateo County, 100-Percent Data, Tables P1.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
693
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 84 population of San Mateo County is projected to increase to 862,800, representing a 7.6 percent increase from 2020. Average 10-year growth rates for the County under such projections are approxi- mately 9.6 percent, or over twice the projected 10-year growth rates for Foster City (reflecting a greater potential for increased residential densities in certain urban nodes in the County, particularly along the El Camino Real corridor).
Figure IV.C-1: City of Foster City Population Growth, 1970-2030
Source: U.S. Census, 2011 and ABAG, 2009.
b. Housing. The following section describes the housing characteristics of Foster City and San Mateo County.
(1) Households. A household is defined as an occupied dwelling unit. In 2012, Foster City had 12,016 households, comprising approximately 4.6 percent of the 258,882 households in San Mateo County.4 ABAG projects that the number of Foster City households will be 12,930 in 2020. By 2030, Foster City is projected to contain 13,570 households.5
The Department of Finance estimates that the average household size for Foster City was approxi- mately 2.56 persons per household in 2012, which was slightly less than the San Mateo County average of approximately 2.78 persons per household.
6 Average household size has slightly increased
in Foster City and San Mateo County since 2010, when it was approximately 2.45 and 2.62 respec- tively.
7 ABAG projects that household sizes for San Mateo County will slightly decrease to 2.73 persons per household by 2030 (Foster City estimates are not available).
4 State of California, 2012, op. cit.
5 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Building Momentum: Projections and Priorities 2009. August. 6 California Department of Finance, 2012. Demographic Research Unit. Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates. January 1.
7 United States Census Bureau, 2010. Summary File 1 (STF 1) for Foster City and San Mateo County, 100-Percent Data, Tables H1 and H10.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
694
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 85 (2) Existing Housing Stock. Foster City’s estimated 2012 housing stock of 12,458 total units is characterized by a majority of single-family detached and attached homes (59 percent of the total), a smaller percentage of multi-family units (41 percent of the total), and a relatively low vacancy rates (3.55 percent).8
(3) Regional Housing Needs Allocation. As required by State law, the Housing Element of the Foster City General Plan discusses the City’s “fair share allocation” of regional housing need by income group as identified by ABAG. ABAG’s determination of the local share of regional housing needs takes into consideration the following factors: market demand for housing; employment oppor- tunities; availability of suitable sites and public facilities; commuting patterns; type and tenure of housing need; loss of units contained in assisted housing that changed to non-low-income use; and special needs housing requirements. The Foster City General Plan Housing Element was last updated in 2009 and covers the period from 2007 to 2014.
In May 2008, ABAG adopted the Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the period of 2007 to 2014, which allocates housing needs for different income levels among the jurisdictions within the nine-County Bay Area.
9 Cities and counties are required to account for the RHNA in the housing elements of their General Plans. Under State law, all housing elements must be reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); housing elements are certified if they comply with State law and meet certain planning objectives. According to ABAG, some public agencies and private foundations will not provide funding for housing and redevelop- ment projects to jurisdictions that do not have a certified Housing Element. In addition, jurisdictions without certified housing elements have faced lawsuits from housing advocacy organizations. While HCD requires cities and counties to show through their housing elements that they can accommodate a projected housing need, the presence of adequate land designated for residential uses does not nec- essarily result in the actual construction of adequate housing supplies. There are no penalties imposed on cities and counties that do not build the number of units projected in their housing elements.
San Mateo County’s RHNA for the period of 2007 to 2014 calls for 15,738 new housing units: 3,588 units (23 percent) for very low income households; 2,581 units (16 percent) for low income house- holds; 3,038 units (19 percent) for moderate income households; and 6,531 units (42 percent) for above moderate income households. Foster City’s allocation is for 486 units: 111 units (23 percent) for very low income households; 80 units (16 percent) for low income households; 94 units (19 percent) for moderate income households; and 201 units (41 percent) for above moderate income households, for a total of 486 units.
Foster City expects to meet its 2007 to 2014 RHNA goal for the total number of housing units primarily through the development of two projects. The Pilgrim-Triton project is approved for 730 units, while the 15-acre project adjacent to City Hall would result in 414 units, for a total of 1,144 new residential units. Between these two projects, the City would provide 658 more residential units
8 California Department of Finance, 2012, op. cit.
9 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Website:
www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdfs/Final_RHNA.pdf (accessed July 23, 2012). May 15.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
695
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 86 than required by the RHNA. In addition, the two projects would meet the City’s RHNA goal for very low, low, moderate, and above-moderate income residential units.10
In May 2012, the ABAG Executive Board approved the Draft RHNA Methodology and Preliminary Subregional Shares for 2014 to 2022 for all jurisdictions and subregions by income category in the San Francisco Bay Area. ABAG assigned Foster City and San Mateo County 429 and 15,984 housing units respectively.
11 Any requests for adjustments to the proposed RHNA would be submitted by Foster City by fall 2012.
c. Employment. Foster City is located near employment centers on the San Francisco Peninsula and central Alameda County; however, the City itself has also developed as a local job center. Two types of employment data are described below: 1) total jobs, which includes the number of all jobs within the community; and 2) employed residents, which includes the number of residents of working age who actively participate in the civilian labor force. A comparison of this data illustrates commute patterns in a community (i.e., if significant out-commuting or in-commuting occurs).
The civilian labor force includes those who are employed (excepting those in the Armed Forces) and those who are unemployed but actively seeking employment. Residents who have never held a job, who have stopped looking for work, or who have been unemployed for long periods of time, are not considered to be part of the labor force.
(1) Total Jobs. According to ABAG, Foster City experienced job losses during the recent economic recession, but strong job growth is expected to occur in the long-term. In 2000, Foster City had 18,480 total jobs, comprising approximately 4.8 percent of all jobs in San Mateo County. The total number of jobs in Foster City decreased 21.5 percent to 14,510 total jobs over the 10-year period between 2000 and 2010. However, by 2030, ABAG projects that the total number of jobs in Foster City will increase 24.9 percent from 2010, reaching approximately 18,130 total jobs. Total jobs in the County decreased from 386,590 in 2000 to 346,320 in 2010 (a 10.4 percent decrease over the 10-year period) and are projected to increase to 473,290 in 2030 (or a 36.7 percent increase from 2010). In 2030, Foster City’s share of jobs is expected to dip slightly to 3.8 percent of the County total and the City is projected to contribute to 2.9 percent of the total increase in County jobs through the 2010 to 2030 period.
(2) Employed Residents. According to ABAG, the City’s subregional study area contained 14,720 employed residents in 2010, a 12.5 percent decrease from 2000. ABAG defines employed residents as employed people who “live in the identified community or county but do not necessarily work there.” Unemployed residents are not counted as employed residents, even if they are actively seeking employment.
ABAG projects that the number of employed residents in Foster City will increase from 14,720 in 2010 to 16,170 in 2020, and then to 17,740 in 2030. This overall growth in employed residents represents an approximately 20.5 percent increase from 2010 to 2030 (or a 10-year average rate of
10 Foster City, City of, 2010. City of Foster City Housing Element. February 1. 11 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2012. Regional Housing Need Allocation Methodology (2014-2022). May 17.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
696
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 87
10.3 percent), lower than the 10-year County-wide increase expected during the same time period (a 10-year average rate of 16.1 percent). The number of employed residents in the County is expected to increase from 330,770 in 2010 to 437,200 in 2030, representing growth of 32.2 percent.
d. Jobs-to-Housing Balance. The jobs-to-housing concept is used to determine whether a community has an adequate number of jobs available to provide employment for all the residents within the community seeking employment. Understanding this concept can be useful in examining the relationship between housing affordability, traffic flows and congestion, and air quality within a community and its larger region. However, the jobs-to-housing ratio is best analyzed at the sub- regional or regional level due to the tendency of people to commute at least some distance, often between cities, to jobs.
(1) Methodology. Typically, the term “jobs-to-housing balance” is used to refer to a relationship between jobs and housing units within a community. A jobs-to-housing-unit ratio of 1.5 is considered ideal, which takes into account residents who do not participate in the labor force (e.g., those who are retired, disabled, students, or non-working parents). The 1.5 jobs-to-housing-units ratio indicates a community has an adequate number of jobs to meet the demand for jobs by its residents, and therefore, is in balance.
A more helpful indicator of balance, however, is the relationship between the number of jobs pro- vided to the number of residents seeking employment (i.e., employed residents). An ideal jobs-to- employed-residents ratio is 1.0, which indicates that there is a job for every employed resident in the community.
A jobs-to-employed-residents ratio that is greater than 1.0 indicates the community provides more jobs than it has residents seeking jobs. With this out-of-balance condition, the community is likely to experience traffic congestion associated with people commuting to jobs from outside the area, as well as intensified pressure for additional residential development to house the labor force. Conversely, a jobs-to-employed-residents ratio of less than 1.0 indicates a community has fewer jobs than employed residents. Under this converse, out-of-balance condition, some residents need to commute outside of the community (i.e., out-commute) for employment. The resulting commuting patterns can lead to traffic congestion and adverse effects on both local and regional air quality.
However, the jobs-to-employed-residents ratio does not account for regional in- or out-commuting due to job/labor mismatches or housing affordability. Even if a community has a numerical balance between jobs and employed residents, sizeable levels of in- and out-commuting are possible, espe- cially where employment opportunities do not match local skills and/or the educational characteristics of the local labor force. In such instances, regional commuting tends to occur. For example, a numeri- cally balanced community may have high housing costs and low-wage jobs, thus encouraging its residents to out-commute to their high wage jobs elsewhere, and its workers to in-commute from outside the community where housing costs are affordable in relation to their low wage incomes. This condition is often referred to as a jobs-to-housing mismatch. A jobs-to-housing match occurs when the types of jobs provided in a community “match” the income needs of the employed workers within the community.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
697
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 88 (2) Jobs-to-Employed Residents in Foster City and San Mateo County. Table IV.C-2 provides housing and employment data for Foster City and San Mateo County.12 This table also provides data indicating projected jobs-to-housing units and jobs-to-employed-residents ratios. As described earlier in this section, a jobs-to-housing-units ratio of 1.5 is considered ideal and indicates that a balanced number of jobs are provided given the number of housing units within the community.
Similarly, a jobs-to-employed-residents ratio of 1.0 is considered ideal.
As shown in Table IV.C-2, Foster City and San Mateo County’s jobs-to-employed-residents ratios in 2010 were 0.99 and 1.05, respectively, indicating roughly balanced conditions. ABAG projects that both Foster City and San Mateo County will maintain balanced jobs-to-employed-residents ratios to 2030, at which time the ratios will be 1.02 and 1.08 respectively. ABAG projects a trend to slightly more balanced jobs-to-housing-units ratios to 2030 in both the City and County. The City and County ratios in 2010 (1.19 and 1.31, respectively) are projected to increase to 1.34 and 1.52, respectively, in 2030.
Table IV.C-2: Housing and Employment Data – Foster City and San Mateo County 2010 2020 2030
City County City County City County
Total Jobs 14,510 346,320 16,220 404,400 18,130 473,290 Employed Residents 14,720 330,700 16,170 379,300 17,740 437,200 Housing Units 12,210 264,400 12,930 287,350 13,570 310,970 Jobs-to-Housing Units Ratio
(Ideal is 1.5) 1.19 1.31 1.25 1.41 1.34 1.52
Jobs-to-Employed Residents Ratio
(Ideal is 1) 0.99 1.05 1.00 1.07 1.02 1.08
Source: ABAG, 2009. Projections 2009; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
e. Foster City General Plan. Applicable population, employment, and housing goals from the Foster City General Plan are presented below.
Land Use and Circulation Element
Goal LUC-C: Provide for Economic Development. Provide for economic development which: (1) maintains the City’s ability to finance City services and construction and maintenance of public improvements; (2) offers local employment opportunities for Foster City residents so that inter-city commuting can be reduced; (3) assures the availability and diversity of resident-serving goods and services; and (4) allows for specialized commercial uses, such as automobile service station, water- oriented commercial uses and day care facilities.
Policy LUC-8: Jobs/Housing Balance. The City will continue to strive for a balance between the number of jobs in the City and the number of housing units available to house workers. To achieve
12 The ABAG housing and resident numbers do not take into account certain recently-approved projects or projects under review in Foster City. The Pilgrim/Triton project and the 15-acre project adjacent to City Hall would add 730 units and 414 units, respectively, to the City’s housing stock. However, these new residential units would not change the conclusions of the analysis in this section as they relate to the proposed 2012 Master Plan’s potential significant impacts related to population and housing.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
698
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 89 and maintain such a balance, the City will encourage and support, through other policies and programs of this element, mixed use projects which provide both housing and employment oppor- tunities, and whenever possible, the development of affordable housing.
Housing Element
Policy H-E-2: Private Development of Affordable Housing. Encourage the provision of affordable housing by the private sector through:
a. Requiring that 20% of the units, excluding bonus units, in specified residential projects be affordable (an inclusionary requirement).
b. Requiring construction or subsidy of new affordable housing as a condition for approval of any commercial development which affects the demand for housing in the City. c. Providing incentives to encourage the provision of affordable housing as provided in Policy H- E-3.
Policy H-E-7: Housing for New Employees and their Families. Given the amount of commercial and retail development expected through build-out of the City, encourage an adequate supply and variety of rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of new employees and their families. Objective H-E-7-a: Ownership Housing for Employees. In order to improve the jobs to housing balance in large-scale commercial developments, the City will undertake outreach efforts to employ- ers and developers, encouraging them to provide joint homeownership programs for employers and employees in order to provide affordable ownership housing for employees of firms locating in Foster City. Target: Ongoing. Responsible Agency: Community Development Department.
2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section includes an analysis of impacts related to population, employment, and housing that could result from implementation of the proposed 2012 Master Plan. The section begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant.
The latter part of this section presents the impacts associated with the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures, as appropriate. All impacts related to population, employment, and housing would be less than significant.
a. Criteria of Significance. The proposed 2012 Master Plan would have a significant impact on population, employment, and housing if it would:
Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly or indirectly; or Displace a substantial number of existing housing units or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The following discussion examines potential less-than- significant impacts of the proposed project.
(1) Induce Substantial Population Growth. The proposed project would increase the amount of office and laboratory space on the project site, increasing total interior square footage from 926,735 square feet (under existing conditions) to up to 2,500,600 square feet. The new building area would contain office and research and development uses (similar to uses that currently exist on site), although accessory uses such as cafeterias and exercise facilities would also be developed in some of the new buildings. The addition of 1,573,865 square feet of interior building space is expected to
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
699
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 90 accommodate up to approximately 3,700 new jobs on the site. After buildout of the 2012 Master Plan, the project site would support a staff of up to 5,500.
The 2012 Master Plan does not include any new residential units, and would not directly generate housing-related population growth. However, population growth could be induced by development of land uses that generate new employment opportunities, which could increase the demand for housing within the community.
The creation of 3,700 new jobs on the project site could cause people to move to Foster City or sur- rounding communities, which would generate additional housing demand in the region. To estimate how many employees would be likely to move to Foster City, it was assumed that the new employees would have the same geographic distribution (in terms of primary residence) as Gilead’s existing employees. Figure IV.C-2 illustrates the current geographic distribution of Gilead employees. Table IV.C-3 identifies the induced housing demand that could result from the proposed project. Currently, of the Gilead employees currently employed on the site, approximately 10.38 percent live in Foster City, while the other approximately 89.62 percent live in other parts of the Bay Area. As shown in Table IV.C-3, based on existing employee addresses, approximately 384 employees would relocate to Foster City as a result of project implementation; assuming that none of these employees would be existing Foster City residents, and assuming that none would share households (each employee thus occupying one housing unit), the project would increase demand for housing in Foster City by 384 housing units.
This number of expected new employees in Foster City is likely an over-estimate, as many new employees would be expected to already be Foster City residents, or live in households with other Gilead employees. The jobs within the project site would likely be attractive to existing City residents, due to shortened commutes. The same conclusion would apply to the induced housing demand shown in Table IV.C-3 for cities other than Foster City.
Figure IV.C-2: Projected 2012 Master Plan Housing Demand by City
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
700
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 91 Table IV.C-3: Projected 2012 Master Plan Housing Demand by City Based on Residential Location of Current Gilead Employees
Residential
Location of
Current Gilead
Employees
(percent of total) a
Projected
Household
Growth
(2010-2030) b
Projected 2012
Master Plan
Related Housing
Demand
(units)
2012 Master Plan
Housing Demand
as Percent of
Household
Growth
San Mateo County 44.85% 46,570 1,660 3.56%
Foster City 10.38% 1,360 384 28.23%
San Mateo 8.95% 9,390 331 3.53%
Redwood City 5.19% 5,940 192 3.23%
Burlingame 4.52% 2,520 167 6.63%
San Carlos 3.68% 1,710 136 7.97%
Belmont 2.93% 240 108 45.15%
San Bruno 1.67% 3,410 62 1.82%
Pacifica 1.51% 230 56 24.23%
Menlo Park 1.26% 2,030 46 2.29%
South San Francisco 1.09% 4,370 40 0.92%
Daly City 1.00% 7,060 37 0.53%
Half Moon Bay 0.84% 240 31 12.90%
Millbrae 0.84% 1,290 31 2.40%
Portola Valley 0.17% 30 6 20.64%
Brisbane 0.08% 1,340 3 0.23%
Atherton 0.08% 70 3 4.42%
Coloma 0.00% 40 0 0.00%
East Palo Alto 0.00% 2,010 0 0.00%
Hillsborough 0.00% 600 0 0.00%
Woodside 0.00% 20 0 0.00%
Unincorporated
San Mateo County c 0.67% 2,010 25 1.23%
All Other Bay Area
Counties 55.15% 458,030 2,040 0.45%
Total 100.00% – 3,700 –
a Employee data provided by Gilead Sc iences. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest 1/100 of 1 percent. b The year 2030 was chosen because it would be the approxim ate time of 2012 Master Plan buildout. Projection source:
ABAG, 2009, Projections 2009.
c Includes the communities of Moss Beach, Montara, El Granada, and La Honda.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
In all communities where induced housing growth from the proposed 2012 Master Plan would be expected, the ABAG-projected household growth would exceed the induced housing demand from the proposed 2012 Master Plan. In other words, the regional supply of housing (based on expected household growth) would be expected to accommodate the increase in demand for housing that could result as part of the project.
As a result, the induced housing demand from the proposed 2012 Master Plan would have a less-than- significant impact on housing supplies. To further confirm the availability of housing units to satisfy the 2012 Master Plan’s induced housing demand, the required 2007 to 2014 and 2014 to 2022 RHNAs for the three communities expected to experience the greatest demand due to the proposed
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
701
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 92 project were reviewed and are shown in Table IV.C-4. Because the RHNA periods only partially overlap with the 2012 Master Plan, which extends until 2033 (11 years beyond the 2014 to 2022 RHNA), the annualized housing rate for each RHNA is provided and compared to the expected annualized housing demand for the project. Annualized rates are calculated by dividing the number of housing units by the number of years in the planning period (7 years for the current RHNA (2007- 2014), 8 years for the next RHNA (2014-2022), and 20 years for the 2012 Master Plan (2013-2033)).
Table IV.C-4 shows that the required RHNA housing units expected to be constructed in the near term would more than satisfy the demand associated with the proposed project. As a result, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to indirect population growth, since the housing demand associated with this growth lies within the housing projections of various communities where the induced housing demand would be expected.
(2) Displacement of Housing or People. There are no existing housing units on the project site. Development of the proposed project would not result in the displacement of housing or people, and therefore, would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Table IV.C-4: Project Housing Demand Compared to RHNA
ABAG RHNA
(2007-2014) a
ABAG RHNA
(2014-2022) b
Projected Demand
from 2012 Master
Plan
(2013-2033)
2012 Master Plan
Housing Demand
as Percent of
Required RHNA
Development
City Total
Annualized
Rate Total
Annualized
Rate Total
Annualized
Rate 2007-2014 2014-2022
Foster City 486 69 429 54 384 19 28% 36%
San Mateo 3,051 436 2,925 366 331 17 4% 5%
Redwood City 1,856 265 2,784 348 192 10 4% 3%
a Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan 2007-2008. June. “ABAG RHNA” = Association of Bay Area Governments Regional Housing Needs Allocation.” b Association of Bay Area Governments, 2012. Regi onal Housing Need Allocation Methodology. May.
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
(3) Jobs-to-Housing Ratio. The following discussion of the jobs-to-housing and jobs-to- employed-residents ratios that would result from the project is provided primarily for informational purposes, as changes in the ratios on the local or County levels would not typically result in physical environmental impacts. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in the creation of 3,700 new jobs in Foster City. Table IV.C-5 provides 2020 and 2030 housing and employment data for the City and San Mateo County, with and without the proposed project. This table is based on the assumption that the near-term (2020) and long-term (2030) number of employed residents and housing units in the City and County do not take into account project-generated employment growth. As mentioned above, a small number of Gilead employees may move to Foster City after implementation of the 2012 Master Plan (and could increase demand for housing, resulting in a marginal increase in the number of future housing units in the City and County, and a more balanced jobs/housing ratio than shown in Table IV.C-5). The jobs/housing balance could also improve if future Gilead employees already live in the City. Table IV.C-5 was thus developed to illustrate the “worst case” effects of the 2012 Master Plan on the area’s jobs/housing balance.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
702
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 93 Table IV.C-5: Housing and Employment Data Without and With Project 2020 2030
Without Project With Project Without Project With Project City County City County City County City County
Total Jobs 16,220 404,400 19,920 408,100 18,130 473,290 21,830 476,990 Employed
Residents 16,170 379,300 16,170 379,300 17,740 437,200 17,740 437,200 Housing Units 12,930 287,350 12,930 287,350 13,570 310,970 13,570 310,970 Jobs-to-Housing
Unit Ratio
(Ideal is 1.5)
1.25 1.41 1.54 1.42 1.34 1.52 1.61 1.53
Jobs-to-Employed
Residents Ratio
(Ideal is 1)
1.00 1.07 1.23 1.08 1.02 1.08 1.23 1.09
Source: ABAG, 2006. Projections 2009; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.
As previously stated, 1.5 is the most desirable jobs-to-housing-units ratio. As shown in Table IV.C-5, the addition of 3,700 jobs with no net change in housing units would cause the City’s estimated 2020 jobs-to-housing-units ratio to increase from 1.25 to 1.54, and the County’s 2020 ratio to increase from
1.41 from 1.42. The proposed project would also increase the City’s projected 2030 jobs-to-housing- units ratio from 1.34 to 1.61, but it would only slightly increase the County’s projected ratio from
1.52 from 1.53. In the short term (2020), the addition of the 3,700 jobs on the project site would improve the City’s jobs-to-housing-units ratio, while in the long-term (2030), an imbalance would continue (although with a surplus of jobs compared to housing units). This indicates that in the long term, the proposed project would contribute to the City’s job supply being out of balance with the number of residents seeking employment. Table IV.C-5 also shows that the project would only marginally affect the County’s jobs-to-housing-units ratio in the short or long term.
While the proposed project would cause a slightly more imbalanced long-term jobs-to-housing-units ratio in the City, this change in ratio (on a Citywide as opposed to a Countywide scale) would not be expected to result in substantial adverse environmental effects related to in-commuting or housing demand.
(4) Jobs-to-Employed Residents Ratio. As noted above, the following discussion of the jobs-to-employed-residents ratio that would result from the project is provided primarily for informa- tional purposes, as changes in the ratio on the local or County levels would not typically result in physical environmental impacts. As previously described, 1.0 is the most desirable jobs-to-employed- residents ratio. Assuming no future Gilead employees move to Foster City, the jobs generated by the proposed project would increase the City’s 2020 estimated jobs-to-employed-residents ratio from
1.00 to 1.23 and would increase the City’s 2030 ratio from 1.02 to 1.23. The project would cause the City to have a more unbalanced jobs-to-employed-residents ratio in the near- and long-term, indicat- ing that with the addition of the jobs created by the 2012 Master Plan, the City would provide more jobs than it has employed residents. However, in the short and long term, the increase in jobs from the proposed project would only marginally change the County’s projected ratios, indicating that on a regional level, the proposed project would not adversely affect the jobs-to-employed-residents ratio.
In addition, while Table IV.C-5 assumes an increase in jobs in the City, it does not take into account the increase in employed residents that would likely be associated with the proposed project because
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
703
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
C. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4c-PopHousing.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 94 it is not known exactly how many employees would become residents of Foster City. It is likely that if these additional employed residents were taken into account, the ratio would be more balanced.
c. Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant population, employment, or housing impacts.
d. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would not cause a substantial amount of popula- tion growth in Foster City or in San Mateo County. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in approximately 384 new residents in Foster City, based on existing Gilead Sciences employee residen- tial locations. Planned and reasonably foreseeable future development would also contribute to population growth in the area. However, since the proposed 2012 Master Plan would not result in substantial population growth, it would not make a significant cumulative contribution to population growth in the region. Furthermore, the growth associated with the project would not be adverse, as it would primarily occur in already-urbanized areas with established public services and infrastructure.
The proposed 2012 Master Plan, in conjunction with other projects, would increase employment in the City. The 3,700 jobs created by the proposed 2012 Master Plan would be within the job growth projected for the City between 2020 and 2030 by ABAG. It is anticipated that jobs in Foster City created by the other proposed projects would also be within ABAG’s projected job growth for the City. Therefore, the proposed 2012 Master Plan would result in less-than-significant cumulative impacts to employment.
Based on the residential location patterns of existing Gilead Sciences employees, approximately 10 percent of future employees generated by the 2012 Master Plan (384 employees) would be expected to live in Foster City. This would correlate to an increased demand for housing units in the City. In conjunction with other planned and reasonably foreseeable commercial development projects, housing demand would be expected to increase. The ABAG housing forecast for the City shows an increase of 1,360 residential units between 2010 and 2030, which would be able to meet any addi- tional demand for housing created by the proposed 2012Master Plan and planned development projects. The 2012 Master Plan would not result in the removal of existing housing and thus would not contribute to any diminishment of housing supply in the area. Therefore, buildout of the proposed 2012 Master Plan and other projects in Foster City would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on population, employment, and housing.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
704
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 95 D. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
This section describes the project site’s geologic environment based primarily on a 2005 site-specific Geotechnical Investigation1 for a portion of the South Campus south of Lakeside Drive, and a 2003 geotechnical peer review2 of several previous geotechnical investigations for the South Campus.
Geologic conditions on the North Campus and South Campus are expected to be similar because the two areas share a similar setting and development history (i.e., former marshlands covered with imported fill). In addition, information sources include published and unpublished geologic reports and maps by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), California Geological Survey (CGS), and City, and a site reconnaissance. This section also assesses potential impacts from strong ground shaking, liquefaction, differential settlement, and unstable or expansive soils. Mitigation measures for the identified significant impacts are provided, where appropriate.
1. Setting
The project site’s existing conditions related to geology and seismicity are described below.
a. Geologic Conditions. The following section describes existing geologic conditions at the project site.
(1) Geology. The project site is located in the Coast Range Geomorphic Province of Northern California, a relatively geologically young and seismically-active region on the western margin of the North American plate. This region is dominated by northwest-southeast trending ranges of low mountains and intervening valleys, which are subparallel to the active San Andreas Fault. In general, the hills and mountains of Coast Ranges are composed of sedimentary rocks underlain by bedrock. Layers of recent alluvium fill the intervening valleys. 3,4 Based on USGS mapping, the
project site is underlain by Quaternary Holocene-aged estuarine deposits (Bay Mud)5 that are less than 9,600 years old and man-made fill that has been placed at the site.6,7
A geotechnical investigation was prepared for the southern portion of the Gilead Campus in prepara- tion for the phased construction of new buildings designated as NLB-1 and NLB-2. The geotechnical investigation included two soil borings and four cone penetrometer tests. Testing indicated that the site subsurface consists of an upper layer of approximately 3.0 to 6.5 feet of fill material, underlain to a depth of 47 to 67 feet below ground surface (bgs) by Bay Mud, further underlain to the maximum
1 Lowney Associates, 2005. Geotechnical Investigation Gilead Sciences Research Expansion: NRB1, NRB2, and Annex Buildings, Foster City. Report No. 347-66A. November 8. 2 Lowney Associates, 2003. Geotechnical Peer Review, Vintage Park Campus, Foster City, California. Doc # 347-
66. May 28.
3 Norris, Robert M., and Robert W. Webb, 1990. Geology of California, 2nd Edition, J. Wiley & Sons, Inc. 4 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2002. Note 36, California Geomorphic Provinces. December.
5 Bay Mud is an estuarine deposit composed of unconsolidated clay that is prone to settlement upon loading. 6 Brabb, E. E., and E. H. Pampeyan, 1983. Geologic Map of San Mateo County, USGS Misc. Investigation I-1257-A. 7 Helley, E. J., and K. R. Lajoie, 1979. Flatlands Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, California, USGS Professional Paper 943. Jointly by DOI, HUD, USGS. (Reprinted 1991)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
705
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 96 depth tested (120 feet bgs) by interbedded layers of dense to very dense clayey sands and stiff to very stiff clays (alluvial deposits).8 This recent geotechnical investigation included only a portion of the project site; however, due to the homogeneous nature of the area, the results of this geotechnical investigation provide insight into the existing conditions for the remainder of the project site. In addition, a geotechnical peer review was conducted by Lowney Associates of existing geotechnical reports and investigations, primarily authored by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants during the 1980s.9 Specific findings and recommendations of these two reports are detailed below.
(2) Soils. The site and surrounding areas were originally part of tidal marshlands known as Brewer’s Island. By 1897 an area of Brewer’s Island (the precursor of Foster City) was partially diked and drained, with additional areas diked and added around 1901. The young Bay Mud dried over time and eventually about 2,220 acres became a dairy ranch while another 550 acres were used as salt ponds.10 As part of the preparation for development as a planned community in the late 1950’s, approximately 14 million cubic yards of sandy silt were pumped in from San Bruno Shoal (a sandbank in San Francisco Bay) to provide 4 to 5 feet of fill throughout the area currently occupied by Foster City.11 Bay Mud, due to its high clay content and inclusion of organic materials, generally is rated high for shrink-swell potential, with a high risk of corrosion to concrete and uncoated steel.
Bay Mud is also characterized by slow permeability and has a low erosion potential.12 The overlying sandy silt fill from San Bruno Shoal has compacted and formed an approximately 3-foot thick stiff to hard surface layer in the vicinity of the site. Regional mapping classifies the soils of the project site as: Urban Land-Orthents, reclaimed complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes.13
The geotechnical investigation and geotechnical peer review identify the site as being covered by 3.0 to 6.5 feet of fill material consisting of very stiff to hard sandy lean clay with gravel, underlain by soft to medium stiff, highly compressible Bay Mud.
14 In addition, based on the report of the geotechnical peer review, there may be areas where earlier surface features, such as levees and sloughs, may have been filled or incorporated as part of earlier development activities. The geotechnical peer review notes that a levee was once located along the western property line of the project site, near the current site of Building 322, and continued around the southern property line. Also, a slough was originally located approximately 15 feet north of the current foundations of Building 324 and various lesser slough and drainage channels were reported throughout the property. 15 8 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
9 Lowney Associates, 2003, op. cit.
10 Foster City, City of, 2008. Community Info, History of Foster City, Creating the Land. Website: www.fostercity.org/ community_info/Creating-the-Land.cfm.
11 Ibid.
12 Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2012. Web Soil Survey, USDA Mapping Website:
websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
13 Ibid.
14 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
15 Lowney Associates, 2003, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
706
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 97 (3) Topography. The irregularly shaped, approximately 73-acre project site is located within an urbanized portion of north Foster City near San Francisco Bay. The existing ground surface eleva- tion is approximately 105 to 107 feet Foster City Datum,16 or 5 to 7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD).17,18 Based on observations during a site reconnaissance by a staff member of Baseline Environmental Consulting on July 26, 2012, and USGS topographic information, the entire site has approximately the same elevation.
19 Vintage Lake is located in the eastern-central portion of the site.
b. Seismic Conditions. The following section describes existing seismic conditions in the region and within the project site.
(1) Regional Seismicity. The entire San Francisco Bay Area is located within the San Andreas Fault Zone (SAFZ), a complex of active faults forming the boundary between the North American and Pacific lithospheric plates. Movement of the plates relative to one another results in the accumulation of strain along the faults, which is released during earthquakes. Numerous moderate to strong historic earthquakes have been generated in northern California by the SAFZ. This level of active seismicity results in a relatively high seismic risk in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The SAFZ includes numerous active faults found by the CGS under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PEFZA) to be “active” (i.e., to have evidence of surface rupture in the past 11,000 years). Active faults in the South San Francisco Bay Area zoned under the A-PEFZA include the San Andreas, Monte Vista, San Gregorio-Seal Cove, Hayward, Calaveras, and Greenville faults.
Regional faults in the South San Francisco Bay area are shown on Figure V.D-1.
In a fact sheet published in 2008, the USGS estimated that there was a 21 percent probability that between 2008 and 2037, a 6.7 or greater magnitude earthquake will occur along the Northern San Andreas Fault. The probability of a 6.7 magnitude or greater earthquake occurring along other local active faults was estimated to be 31 percent along the Hayward-Rodgers Creek Fault, and 7 percent along the Calaveras Fault.
20 (2) Site-Specific Seismicity. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earth- quake Fault Zone (A-PEFZ). The nearest A-PEFZ is the peninsula segment of the San Andreas Fault, about 5.5 miles southwest of the project site.
21,22 Additional faults in the project site vicinity have the
16 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
17 The Foster City Datum is equal to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 plus 100 feet. 18 For most purposes, NGVD is equivalent to mean sea level. Please see IV.E, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of climate change-induced sea level rise.
19 U.S. Geological Survey, 1997, San Mateo Quadrangle, California. Website: nationalmap.gov/ustopo/index.html. 20 U.S. Geological Survey, 2008. Forecasting California’s Earthquakes – What Can We Expect in the Next 30 Years, USGS Fact Sheet 2008-3027. Website: pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3027/. 21 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1974. State of California Special Studies Zones, San Mateo Quadrangle Map.
22 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Website: www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm. December.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
707
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 98 potential to generate seismic shaking, including the Seal Cove/San Gregorio Fault located approxi- mately 13 miles west, and the Hayward Fault located about 13 miles east, and the Monte Vista- Shannon fault zone located along the northeast margin of the Santa Cruz Mountains approximately 13 miles south of the project site.23,24,25
c. Seismic and Geologic Hazards. The following section describes existing seismic and geologic hazards present at the project site. The project site vicinity has not been mapped in conformance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, although mapping is reportedly in progress (discussed further below in Regulatory Setting section).
26 (1) Surface Rupture. Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement during an earthquake. Surface rupture generally can be assumed to occur along an active major fault trace. No active faults have been mapped at the project site; therefore, the potential for fault rupture at the project site is negligible.
27 (2) Ground Shaking. Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake, and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) is the most commonly used scale for measurement of the effects of earthquake intensity (Table IV.D-1). A related concept, acceleration, is measured as a fraction or percentage of the acceleration under gravity (g).28
Estimates of the peak ground acceleration (PGA) have been made for the Bay Area based on prob- abilistic models that account for multiple seismic sources. Under these models, consideration of the probability of expected seismic events is incorporated into the determination of the level of ground shaking at a particular location. The expected PGA (with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in the next 50 years) generated by any of the seismic sources potentially affecting the project site is estimated by the CGS as 0.52 (g).
29 The geotechnical investigation included a site-specific probabilis- tic seismic hazard analysis using computer modeling, which indicates a PGA of 0.55(g) for the site.30
23 U.S. Geological Survey, 2012. EHP California Quaternary Faults. Website: geohazards.usgs.gov/ qfaults/map.php. July 15.
24 U.S. Geological Survey, 2010. Earthquake Hazards Program, Database Search. Website: earthquake.usgs.gov/ hazards/qfaults. November 3.
25 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010. 2010 Fault Activity Map of California, Geologic Data Map No. 6. Website: www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html. 26 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2007. Seismic Hazard Zonation Program.
Website: www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx. February 27. 27 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
28 The acceleration due to gravity, denoted g (also gee) is a unit of acceleration defined as approximately 32 ft/s2, which is the acceleration due to gravity on the Earth's surface at sea level. 29 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2012. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Mapping Ground Motion Page. Website: www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp. 30 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
708
SSAN GREGORIO-SEAL COVE FAULT
SAN
ANDREAS FAULT
W
A
HAY
ARAR
DF ULT
MONTE VISTA FAULT
CALAVERAS FAULT
GREENVILLE FAULT
Project
Site
SAN
ANDREAS FAULT
W
A
HAY AR
DFU L T
Project
Site
SAN GREGORIO-SEAL COVE FAULT
MONTE VISTA FAULT
CALAVERAS FAULT
GREENVILLE FAULT
miles
0 5.25 10.5
EXPLANATION
Fault traces on land are indicated by solid lines
where well located, by dashed lines where approximately located or inferred, and by dotted lines where concealed by younger rocks or by lakes or bays. Fault traced are queried where continuation or existence is uncertain.
Fault Classification Color Code (Indicating Recency of Movement) Fault along which historic (last 200 years) displacement has occurred Holocene fault displacement (during past 11,700 years) without historic record Late Quaternary fault displacement (during past 700,000 years) Quaternary fault (age undifferentiated)
Pre-Quaternary fault (older than 1.6 million years) or
fault without recognized Quaternary displacement
FIGURE IV.D-1
I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVD1.ai (8/9/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated
Corporate Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Regional Faults
Sources: California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010, Geologic Data Map No. 6, 2010 Fault Activity Map of California.
Website accessed at http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html.; Baseline Environmental, 2012.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
709
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 100 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
710
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 101 The PGAs derived from the probabilistic model and site-specific seismic hazard analysis are gener- ally in agreement, and this level of ground acceleration at the project site is a potentially significant hazard.
The closest active fault to the project site is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 5.4 miles to the southwest. The San Andreas Fault is considered capable of generating a MW 7.9 earthquake (similar to the 1906 San Francisco earthquake).31 An earthquake of this magnitude on the San Andreas Fault would generate very strong (MMI VIII) to violent (MMI IX) seismic shaking at the project site.32
Table IV.D-1: Modified Mercalli Scale
I Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances.
II Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing.
III Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated.
IV
During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motor cars rocked noticeably.
V
Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed.
Pendulum clocks may stop.
VI Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight.
VII
Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in building of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken.
Noticed by persons driving motor cars.
VIII
Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts.
Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed.
IX
Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken.
X
Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks.
XI Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Board fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly.
XII Damage total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted.
Source: California Geological Survey, 2002. How Earthquakes and Their Effects are Measured: Note 32.
(3) Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading. Liquefaction is the temporary transformation of loose, saturated granular sediments from a solid state to a liquefied state as a result of seismic ground
31 U.S. Geological Survey, 2008. Earthquake Hazards Program, National Seismic Hazard Maps-Fault Parameters.
Website: geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_search/disp_hf_info.cfm?cfault_id=1abcd. 32 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2003. Earthquake Hazard Map for Foster City. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/ cgi-bin/pickmapx.pl.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
711
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 102 shaking. In the process, the soil undergoes transient loss of strength, which commonly causes ground displacement or ground failure to occur. Saturated soils are a necessary condition for liquefaction.
Soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have higher liquefaction potential than those in which the water table is located at greater depths. Lateral spreading is a form of horizon- tal displacement of soil toward an open channel or other “free” face, such as an excavation boundary.
In a lateral spreading failure, a layer of ground at the surface is carried on an underlying layer of liquefied material over a nearly flat surface toward a river channel or other bank. 33 The lateral spread-
ing hazard will tend to mirror the liquefaction hazard for a site. Regional studies by the USGS for the Bay Area provide information on Quaternary deposits and liquefaction susceptibility in the area.
Based on these regional studies, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) mapping indi- cates that the site’s susceptibility to liquefaction is very high and the liquefaction hazard (susceptibil- ity combined with likelihood) is moderate to high.
34 Regional studies can help provide guidance for
general planning and hazard potential assessment; however, site-specific studies are needed to assess the design and engineering requirements for any particular site.
The geotechnical investigation indicates that the site is blanketed by 3 to 6.5 feet of fill, generally consisting of clays, sands, and gravels. Bay Mud, a highly compressible organic silty clay, is present below the fill to depths of approximately 40 to 60 feet bgs, and is underlain by dense to very dense fine-grained materials. Groundwater occurs at the top of the Bay Mud at depths of approximately 3 to
6.5 feet bgs. Based on data from these investigations, these subsurface materials on the site have low potential for liquefaction or lateral spreading during a seismic event. 35,36
(4) Landslides and Slope Stability. Slope failure can occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil (landslide) or slow, continuous movement (creep). The primary factors influenc- ing the stability of a slope are: 1) the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock; 2) the geometry of the slope (height and steepness); 3) rainfall; and 4) the presence of previous landslide deposits. Regional mapping shows that the project area is mapped as Category 1a, unstable “[a]reas of zero to five percent slope that include tidelands, marshlands, and swamplands that are underlain by moist, uncon- solidated muds.”37 The site is generally flat and therefore not subject to typical landslide hazards; however, slope instability along the shore of Vintage Lake or banks of construction period excava- tions could potentially occur either due to static loads created by new fill and building loads or due to transient seismic loads resulting from shaking at the site.
(5) Unstable Soils, Settlement and Differential Settlement. Differential settlement or ground subsidence may occur if buildings or other improvements are built on low-strength foundation materials (including imported non-engineered fill) or if improvements straddle the boundary between
33 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2001. The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction, A Guide to the Liquefaction Hazard in Future Earthquakes Affecting the San Francisco Bay Area, February. 34 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2011. The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction, A Guide to the Liquefaction- Appendix B, 2011 Supplement, Liquefaction Hazard Map for Foster City. Website: www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapliq.pl. 35 Lowney Associates, 2003, op. cit.
36 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
37 U.S. Geological Survey, 1979. Relative Slope Stability and Land-use Planning in the San Francisco Bay Region, CA. Professional Paper 944.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
712
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 103 different types of subsurface materials (e.g., a boundary between native material (Bay Mud), buried sloughs or levees, older un-engineered fill, and/or new engineered fill). The site-specific investigation notes that differential settlement on the site is not expected to be a significant hazard on the site, assuming that deep foundations are used in new buildings. However, to ensure the stability of surface improvements (such as roads, walkways, and utilities) the investigation includes recommendations that improvements spanning locations subject to differential settlement minimize abrupt grading changes, over-steepen gravity-flow utilities, use flexible utility connections, hinge concrete flatwork to structures, and deepen foundation faces so as to prevent exposure of the bottom of structures due to long term effects of settlement.38 Although differential settlement generally occurs slowly enough that its effects are not dangerous to inhabitants, it can cause significant building damage over time.
(6) Expansive Soils. Expansion and contraction of soil volume can occur when expansive soils undergo alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). During these cycles, the volume of the soil changes markedly. As a consequence of such volume changes, structural damage to buildings and infrastructure may occur if the potentially expansive soils are not considered in project design and during construction.
The geotechnical investigation and geotechnical peer review note that approximately the upper 3.0 to
6.5 feet of materials at the site are man-made fill.
39 Man-made fill is used to alleviate undesirable soil
properties or modify the landscape for specific activities, and can be engineered or non-engineered.
Fill materials can be composed of varying amounts of natural soil materials, construction debris, dredging materials, municipal solid waste, and other materials.40 However, as noted above, the history of Foster City indicates that the man-made fill for the general area was hydraulically pumped in from the San Bruno Shoal (a sandbank in San Francisco Bay), and consists primarily of sandy silts. The geotechnical investigation and geotechnical peer review do not include specific recommendations regarding potential expansive soil hazards.41
d. Regulatory Setting. The following discussion includes a description of the regulatory context for geologic and seismic issues as they relate to development projects.
(1) California Building Code. The 2010 California Building Code (CBC), which refers to Part 2 of the California Building Standards Code in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is based on the 2009 International Building Code, and is the most current State building code. The 2010 CBC covers grading and other geotechnical issues, building specifications, and non-building struc- tures. Foster City follows the most current State building codes. Foster City’s Building Department is responsible for reviewing plans, issuing building permits and conducting field inspections.
The CBC requires that a site-specific geotechnical investigation report be prepared by a licensed professional for proposed developments of one or more buildings greater than 4,000 square feet to
38 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
39 Lowney Associates, 2003, op. cit.
40 Scheyer, J.M., and K.W. Hipple, 2005. Urban Soil Primer. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Website: soils.usda.gov/. 41 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
713
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 104 evaluate geologic and seismic hazards. A geotechnical investigation report is also required for build- ings less than or equal to 4,000 square feet also, except for one-story, wood-frame and light-steel- frame buildings of Type V construction that are located outside of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faults Zones.
The purpose of a site-specific geotechnical investigation is to identify seismic and geologic conditions that require project mitigation, such as surface fault ruptures, ground shaking, liquefaction, differen- tial settlement, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and slope stability. Requirements for the geotech- nical investigation are presented in Chapter 16, “Structural Design,” and Chapter 18, “Soils and Foundation,” of the 2010 CBC. Geotechnical investigation reports are reviewed by the Foster City Building Department prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance.
(2) Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PEFZA). Surface rupture is the most easily avoided seismic hazard. The A-PEFZA was passed in December 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures used for human occupancy. The A-PEFZA’s main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The A- PEFZA only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards (the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, passed in 1990, addresses non-surface fault rupture earthquake hazards, including liquefaction and seismically induced landslides). The law requires the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones, known as Earthquake Fault Zones, around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps. The maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for use in planning and controlling new or renewed construction. Local agencies must regulate most development projects within the zones. Projects include all land divi- sions and most structures for human occupancy. Before a project can be permitted, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed across active faults. The evaluation and written report of a specific site must be prepared by a licensed geologist. If an active fault is found, a structure for human occupancy cannot be placed over the trace of the fault and must be set back 50 feet from the fault trace. The project site is not located within an A-PEFZA.
(3) Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). In 1990, following the Loma Prieta earth- quake, the California Legislature enacted the SHMA to protect the public from the effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other seismic hazards. The SHMA established a State- wide mapping program to identify areas subject to violent shaking and ground failure; the program is intended to assist cities and counties in protecting public health and safety. The SHMA requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. As a result, the CGS is mapping SHMA Zones and has completed seismic hazard mapping for the portions of California most susceptible to liquefaction, ground shaking, and landslides, primarily within the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin. Before a development permit is granted for a site within a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. As of August 2012, the project site has not yet been mapped in conformance with the SHMA, although mapping is in progress according to the CGS. 42 42 California Geological Survey, 2012. Seismic Hazards Zonation Program. Website: www.conservation.ca.gov/ cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
714
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 105 (4) City of Foster City. The Foster City Municipal Code and the Estero Municipal Improve- ment District (EMID) Code are a compilation of Foster City’s and EMID’s applicable ordinances (rules, regulations, or standards). They are the City’s and EMID’s primary codes. Secondary codes include any other codes adopted by reference, such as building, fire safety, and electrical codes.43 Applicable geologic and seismic safety regulations in the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and the amending Uniform Building Code (CBC, as adopted in California) are described below.
General Plan (1993). The following goals, policies and programs from the Foster City General Plan Safety Element44 relate to seismic and geologic hazards within the project site:
Safety Goal
S-A. Protect From Seismic and Geologic Hazards. Protect the community from unreasonable risk to life and property caused by seismic and geologic hazards.
Safety Policy
Policy S-1. Use Most Current Uniform Codes. The City will use the most current uniform codes to review permits for new and modified structures.
Safety Program
Program S-a. Geotechnical and Engineering Reports. The City (Building Division) will require site specific geotechnical and engineering reports for new structures.
Municipal Code Ordinances: Title 15 - Buildings and Construction. Title 15 of the Foster City Municipal Code includes amendments to the 2010 California Building Code that may affect the proposed project. These changes are detailed under individual chapters beginning with 15.04.010 of the Foster City Municipal Code.45
2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
The analysis of the impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity that could result from implemen- tation of the proposed project is presented below. This section begins with criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether a project impact is significant, and identify less-than-significant and the potentially significant geotechnical impacts/hazards associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are provided so as to reduce significant impacts to a less-than- significant level.
a. Criteria of Significance. The project would have a significant geology, soils, or seismicity impact if it would:
43 Foster City, City of, 2012. Municipal Codes. Website: www.fostercity.org/city_hall/codes/. 44 Foster City, City of, 1995, General Plan, Chapter 7, Safety Element. Website: www.fostercity.org/ city_hall/docs/General-Plan-in-PDF-Version.cfm.
45 Foster City, City of, 2012, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
715
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 106 Expose people or structures to substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
○ Rupture of a known active or potentially active earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; ○ Strong seismic ground shaking;
○ Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or ○ Landslides;
Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil; Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;
Be located on expansive soils (as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 1994 Uniform Building Code) or corrosive soils, which could cause substantial damage to building foundations, pavements, utilities, and/or other improvements;
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State; or
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
A criterion regarding septic tanks and alternative wastewater disposal systems is not included because the project would be served by municipal wastewater lines.
b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The most recent A-PEFZ maps indicate that the nearest active fault to the project site is the San Andreas Fault peninsula segment, located approximately 5.4 miles to the southwest. Based on CGS fault maps, no potentially active faults underlie the site. 46 The
proposed project would therefore not be affected by rupture of a known active or potentially active fault. The geotechnical investigation prepared for an earlier structure within the project site notes that subsurface materials at the site were either of high clay content and/or relatively fine-grained and stiff, and therefore had a relatively low risk of liquefaction. It is therefore unlikely that the project would result in geology, soils, or seismicity impacts related to fault rupture or liquefaction; these impacts are considered less than significant.
Potential impacts from loss of topsoil and soil erosion are discussed in Section IV.E, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this Subsequent EIR. The proposed project is within an area classified as MRZ-1, comprising “areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.” 47 The project would
therefore not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource of value locally or to the
46 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2010, op. cit. 47 California Division of Mines and Geology, 1987. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Minerals in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Special Report 146, Part II, Plate 2.43. (Updated 1996)
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
716
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 107 region or State. The project site is not identified in a planning document as being a locally-important mineral resource recovery site.
c. Significant Impacts. Seismic hazards result from the primary and secondary effects of an earthquake, with the primary effect being ground rupture. Secondary effects include seismic shaking and seismically-induced ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides. As noted above, ground rupture is not likely at the project site. Secondary effects are more widespread and may result in more damage and injury. Development of the proposed project could result in three significant impacts related to seismic hazards and soil stability, as discussed below.
Impact GEO-1: Project occupants would be subject to seismic shaking hazards. (S)
All structures in the Bay Area could be affected by ground shaking in the event of an earthquake on regional faults. The amount of ground shaking would depend on the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance from the epicenter, and the type of earth materials between the receptor and the epicenter.
The 2010 CBC provides for increasingly stringent construction requirements for projects in areas of high seismic risk. Violent ground shaking is expected at the project site during predicted earthquakes on the San Andreas and other regional active faults. This level of seismic shaking could cause consid- erable damage in buildings at the site and could result in injuries to building occupants.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which would ensure that buildings are constructed in accordance with applicable seismic structural standards, would reduce impacts to occupants as a result of seismic shaking to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Prior to the issuance of any site-specific grading or building permits, a design-level geotechnical investigation, in compliance with Foster City guidelines, shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Building Inspection Division for review and approval. The geotechnical investigation shall include a finding that the proposed development fully complies with the CBC, as amended by Foster City ordinances and Building Division requirements. The CBC and applicable Foster City ordinances were developed to ensure that compliant structures would be “earthquake-resistant,” not “earth- quake-proof.” The CBC is intended to protect people inside buildings by preventing collapse and allowing for safe evacuation. Structures built according to code should resist minor earthquakes undamaged, resist moderate earthquakes without significant structural damage, and resist severe earthquakes without collapse.
The report shall determine the proposed project’s geotechnical conditions and address potential seismic hazards. The report shall identify building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic damage. In addition, the following guidance for the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be addressed:
Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conform to the California Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented in the Guidelines for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California.48 Briefly, the guidelines recommend that the report include: a site
48 California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2008. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
717
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 108 screening evaluation; evaluation of on- and off-site geologic hazards; quantitative evalua- tion of hazard potential; detailed field investigation; estimation of ground-motion parame- ters; evaluation of landslide, liquefaction, lateral-spreading and ground-displacement hazards; and recommendations to reduce identified hazards. All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be implemented as a condition of project approval. (LTS)
Impact GEO-2: Damage to structures or property related to man-made fill, unstable soils, or unstable subsurface materials resulting in settlement or differential settlement could occur. (S)
The site is underlain by approximately 40 to 60 feet of Bay Mud overlying alluvial deposits. Settle- ment of Bay Mud due to consolidation under the weight of existing fill may be incomplete, and introduction of new loads, such as additional fill, foundations, and buildings, would be expected to result in additional settlement. Deep pile foundations, which would be incorporated into the project, would minimize the effects of unstable soils below structures. However, differential settlement may occur below exterior improvements across subsurface features such as buried sloughs, abandoned levees, and/or in areas underlain by non-engineered fill, engineered fill, and native soils over Bay Mud. If unstable soils are not properly addressed during grading and foundation preparation, structural damage, warping, and cracking of roads, driveways, parking areas and sidewalks, and rupture of utility lines may occur.
49 Implementation of the following mitigation measure, which would ensure that buildings are constructed to withstand unstable soils, would reduce impacts to structures or property related to settlement or differential settlement to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: The designers of the proposed project’s building foundations and improvements (including sidewalks, roads, driveways, parking areas, and utilities) shall consider the site to be underlain by Bay Mud and/or non-engineered fill. The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include measures to ensure that potential damage related to unstable soils, including compressible materials and non-uniformly compacted fill, is mini- mized. Substantial settlement is expected across the site during the life of the project.50 Future settlement from placement of new loads, as well as existing loads, shall be taken into account in the design of all structures and utilities. Mitigation options may range from removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected settlement. All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the site- specific design-level geotechnical report, and the City of Foster City Building Division standards, shall be followed to reduce impacts associated with problematic soils. (LTS)
Impact GEO-3: Damage to structures or property of the proposed project related to expansive (shrink-swell) and corrosive soils could occur. (S)
49 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
50 Lowney Associates, 2005, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
718
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 109 Expansive or corrosive soils could cause substantial damage to building foundations, piles, pave- ments, utilities, and/or other improvements. Structural damage, such as warping and cracking of roads, driveways, parking areas and sidewalks, and rupture of utility lines may occur if the potential expansive soils and the interface with imported fill are not considered during design and construction of improvements. The geotechnical investigation for the earlier project did not include testing of site soils for corrosivity; however, Bay Mud is known to have corrosive properties.51
Implementation of the following two-part mitigation measure, which would ensure that buildings are constructed to withstand expansive soils, would reduce impacts to structures or property related to expansive soils or corrosion to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure GEO-3a: The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include an evaluation of the potential for expansive soils on the site and shall include measures to ensure potential damage related to expansive soils is avoided. Mitigation options may range from removal of the problematic soils, and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles. All design criteria and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be implemented to reduce impacts associated with problematic soils.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3b: The design-level geotechnical investigation shall include an evaluation of the potential for corrosive soils on the site. If the results indicate corrosive soil conditions, appropriate measures to mitigate these conditions shall be incorporated into the design of project improvements that may come into contact with site soils. Wherever corrosive soils are found in sufficient concentrations, recommendations shall be made to protect steel and concrete (and any other material that may be placed in the subsurface) from long-term deteri- oration caused by contact with corrosive on-site soils. In general, these recommendations are expected to include, but not be limited to, the following provisions. Protect buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel, and dielectric coated steel or iron (including all buried metallic pressure piping) against corrosion from soil. Protect buried metal and cement structures in contact with earth surfaces from chloride ion concentrations.
Use sulfate-resistant concrete mix for all concrete in contact with the ground. Consult a corrosion expert during the project’s detailed design phase to design the most effective corrosion protection.
In addition, all recommendations of the geotechnical investigations shall be implemented. (LTS)
d. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project would not contribute considerably to any cumula- tive impacts related to geology. Development of the 2012 Master Plan in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development would increase the number of individuals that could be exposed to regional seismic risks in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. In addi-
51 Ibid.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
719
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
D. GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4d-Geo.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 110 tion, new structures could be built on areas of man-made fill, unstable soil, expansive soil and/or corrosive soil. However, these impacts are generally confined to specific development sites and are not expected to be significant once incorporation of required standard geotechnical mitigation measures have been implemented.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
720
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 111 E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section describes the existing hydrology setting for the project site, including runoff, drainage, and water quality characteristics, based on available information provided as part of the project application and published reports. Data gathered as part of a site reconnaissance conducted in July 2012 are also presented in this section. Impacts that could result from the proposed 2012 Master Plan, and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, are identified where appropriate.
1. Setting
The project site’s existing conditions related to hydrology and water quality are described below.
a. Climate. The climate of the Foster City area is characterized as dry-summer subtropical (often referred to as Mediterranean), with cool wet winters and relatively warmer dry summers. The approx- imate annualized average high temperature is 71º Fahrenheit (F); the average low is 47º F. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project site, for the period between 1906 and 2012, was approxi- mately 19 inches, the majority of which occurs from November through April.1 During the period of record, annual rainfall has varied from 8.0 inches (1976) to 43 inches (1983), with a one-day high of
4.9 inches of precipitation on October 13, 1962. Analysis of long-term precipitation records indicates that wetter and drier cycles lasting several years are common in the region. Severe, damaging rainstorms occur at a frequency of about once every 3 years. 2 b. Runoff and Drainage. The topography of the project site is relatively flat with an existing ground surface elevation of approximately 5 to 7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929 (NGVD).
3,4 The project site is currently developed and includes multi-story office and research/ development buildings with intervening driveways and parking lots. Small areas of lawns front most buildings. Isolated islands of landscaping (shrubs and trees) are scattered throughout the parking lots.
Storm drain inlets are located in the gutters of the streets and within the larger parking areas between buildings. There are three unpaved fields with compacted soils located in the northeast portion of the project site. Generally, the parking areas gently slope towards the drainage inlets; there is no predomi- nant regional gradient apparent at the site. One stormwater drainage inlet was observed in the south- west corner of the southernmost unpaved field; the remaining two fields appear to drain to drainage inlets in adjacent streets. Runoff from both the North and South Campuses is collected in underground stormwater drains and directed to the east across Marsh Drive and Foster City Boulevard to the
1 Western Regional Climate Center, General Climate Summary, Redwood City, CA. Website: www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7339.
2 Brown, William M. III, 1988. Historical Setting of the Storm: Perspectives on Population, Development, and Damaging Rainstorms in the San Francisco Bay Region. Landslides, Floods, and Marine Effects of the Storm of January 3- 5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. Stephen D. Ellen and Gerald F. Wieczorek, Eds., U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1434.
3 The NGVD 1929 is a vertical control datum established to measure vertical positions or elevations based on mean sea level measurements circa 1929. For most purposes, NGVD is equivalent to mean sea level. 4 The Foster City Datum is equal to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 plus 100 feet.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
721
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 112 Foster City Lagoon.5,6 One stormwater drain is connected to Vintage Lake, an artificial lake located within the project site, and acts as an overflow pipe which conveys excess water from the lake into the site storm drain system.7 The only runoff that enters Vintage Lake is from the adjacent footpaths.8
c. Flooding. Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the vicinity of the project site, the site is mapped as Zone X.9,10 The maps indicate that the properties within this flood zone designation are protected by levees from a 100-year flood. The revised FIRMs will become effective on October 16, 2012.11 The FIRMs were revised as a result of the March 15, 2012 FEMA certification of the City of San Mateo Bayfront Levees South of San Mateo Creek.12
The Foster City Lagoon is part of the Foster City stormwater management system and is used by the City as a retention basin and to buffer the flooding effects of large storms. The San Mateo Pumping Station at the northern end of the Marina Lagoon is capable of moving 600,000 gallons per minute of water out of the lagoon and into San Francisco Bay.13 At its closest, the Foster City Lagoon is approx- imately ½-mile east of the project site. Two diesel-powered pumps, each capable of moving approxi- mately 125,000 to 140,000 gallons per minute, depending on tidal conditions, lower the water level of the lagoon in anticipation of large storms, and/or the wet weather season. 14 The capacity of each
pump is sufficient to prevent flooding during a 100-year storm.15 Foster City maintains the lagoons with a surface elevation of minus 1 to 2 feet NGVD and routinely lowers the water level by an addi- tional 0.5 to 1 feet to provide reserve storage capacity in the event of a storm.16 This can provide in excess of 138 million gallons (423.5 acre feet) of storage before the lagoon bulkhead is crested. The minimum elevation of the lowest living floor level within Foster City is several feet higher than the levee bulkhead elevation.17
5 Foster City, City of, 2012. Foster City Storm Drain Plans – GIS Layer. Public Works. July 23. 6 Towne, Ray, 2012. Director of Public Works, Foster City. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. July 23.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012a. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), San Mateo County, California, Community Panel Number 060318 0158 E. Website: www.msc.fema.gov. October 16. 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012b. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), San Mateo County, California, Community Panel Number 060318 0159 E. Website: www.msc.fema.gov. October 16. 11 This effective date is established and no further technical analysis or approvals are required. These FIRMs will be effective prior to any redevelopment under the proposed project. 12 San Mateo, City of, 2012. Levee Project Update – June 2012. Website: www.cityofsanmateo.org/ index.aspx?NID=1796.
13 Foster City, City of, 1995. General Plan, Safety Element. 14 Towne, Ray, 2012, op. cit.
15 Ibid.
16 Foster City, City of, 2012. Lagoon Levels. Website: www.fostercity.org/Services/water/Lagoon-Levels.cfm. 17 Towne, Ray, 2012, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
722
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 113 Based on regional hazard mapping, the project site could be subject to inundation in the event of a catastrophic failure of the Lower Crystal Springs Dam (LCSD), approximately 5.1 miles west of the site.18 The LCSD is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, and has a capacity of 67,500 acre-feet. Overland and creek channel flows from the west (the direction of LCSD) would be inter- cepted by the Marina Lagoon in San Mateo at the western edge of Foster City. The Foster City Public Works Department estimates that a failure of LCSD would result in a maximum flood height of about 2 feet at the County Fair Grounds in the City of San Mateo, located approximately 1 mile west of the City of Foster City.19 This flood height is below the crest height (6 feet) of a levee along Marina Lagoon in Foster City. Therefore, it is improbable that Lower Crystal Springs Dam failure would cause an inundation of Foster City.20
d. Coastal Hazards. The location of the project site (near San Francisco Bay) and the elevation of the site (approximately 5 to 7 feet NGVD) may expose the site to coastal hazards, such as sea level rise, seiche, tsunami, or extreme high tides. The City of Foster City completed a Levee Improvement Program during 1993
21 and raised the City’s Bay-facing levees to a crest height of approximately 10.0 feet NGVD.22 In a letter dated July 23, 2007, FEMA notified the City of Foster City that it had certi- fied the Foster City Levee (identified as levee P771) as meeting the criteria outlined in Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations Section 65.10.23 As such, the area protected by the levee was classified as an area of minimal flood hazard, outside the 100-year special flood hazard zone (Zone X).
(1) Sea Level Rise. The earth has gone through several cycles of cooling and warming over recent geologic time, resulting in periods of glaciation with an associated sea level reduction, and warming with sea level rise. The most recent cycle of global climate change may be attributable to a warming trend of the earth’s atmosphere (an increase of approximately 1.8°F in the last 100 years) which has resulted in, and is expected to continue to cause, sea level rise. Based on long-term moni- toring of stationary tidal gauges around the world, it is estimated that the current background rate of sea level rise is 0.07 to 0.08 inches per year.
24 Rates of sea level rise may vary at specific locations, as local subsidence or uplift affects the relative change in sea level between land masses and the ocean.
In the San Francisco Bay area, the background rate of sea level rise has been estimated to be approxi- mately 0.076 inches per year from 1900 to 2008.
25 The exact contribution of human-induced effects
relative to the effect of natural cyclical background global climate change-related warming is still
18 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. Foster City Inundation Map. Website: www.abag.ca.gov. 19 Foster City, City of, 1995. General Plan, Safety Element. 20 Ibid.
21 Foster City, City of, 2005, op. cit.
22 Towne, Ray, 2012, op. cit.
23 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2007. Personal correspondence to Ray Townes, Director of Public Works, City of Foster City, CA. Letter of Levee Certification for Levee P771, FEMA. July 23. 24 Titus, James G., and Vijay Narayanan, 1995. The Probability of Sea Level Rise, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 186 pp. EPA 230-R95-008. October. 25 National Academy of Sciences, 2012a. Chapter 4, Sea-Level Variability and Change off the California, Oregon, and Washington Coasts. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.
Website: www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13389&page=R1.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
723
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 114 under debate.26,27 Refer to Section IV.K, Global Climate Change, for additional information about global climate change.
(2) Seiche. A seiche is the oscillation of a body of water. Seiches occur most frequently in enclosed or semi-enclosed basins such as lakes, bays, or harbors. They can be triggered in an other- wise still body of water by strong winds, changes in atmospheric pressure, earthquakes, tsunami or tides. Triggering forces that set off a seiche are most effective if they operate at specific frequencies relative to the size of an enclosed basin. Coastal measurements of sea level often show seiches with amplitudes of a few centimeters and periods (cycles) of a few minutes due to oscillations of the local harbor, estuary, or bay, superimposed on the normal tidal changes. Detailed tidal records for the Bay have been maintained for approximately 100 years, and during that time, a damaging seiche has not occurred. A seiche of approximately 4 inches occurred during the 1906 earthquake. It is unlikely that the Bay region will experience a larger earthquake than the 1906 event, and therefore a seiche larger than 4 inches is unlikely.
(3) Tsunami. Tsunamis are long period water waves caused by underwater seismic events, volcanic eruptions, or undersea landslides. Tsunamis affecting the San Francisco Bay region would most likely originate west of the Bay, in the Pacific Ocean. Areas that are highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be low-lying coastal areas, such as tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been artificially filled. Inundation or damage caused by a tsunami may disrupt highway traffic in those low-lying areas. The project site is located within a tsunami inundation area.
28 Tsunamis entering the San Francisco Bay through the relatively narrow Golden Gate would tend to dissipate as the energy of the wave spreads out as the Bay becomes wider and shallower.29 The predicted maximum credible tsunami amplitude at the Potrero District of San Francisco is estimated to be 5.9 feet.
30 The maximum amplitude at the project site would not exceed this height.
(4) Extreme High Tide. Extreme high tides in San Francisco Bay result from the combined effects of astronomical high tides (related to the lunar cycle) and other factors, including winds, barometric pressure, ocean temperatures, and freshwater runoff. In California, the highest astronomi- cal tides occur in the summer and winter, and therefore extreme high tides are most likely to occur during these times. Based on the 129-year record of daily high tides, the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers has developed an estimated 100-year high tide elevation (for an extreme high tide with a probability of occurrence every 100 years) for various locations around San Francisco Bay. The elevation of the estimated 100-year tide at Foster City is approximately 7.1 feet. 31 26 Titus, James G., and Charlie Richman, 2001. Maps of Lands Vulnerable to Sea Level Rise: Modeled Elevations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Climate Research, CR 18:205-228. 27 Thieler, E. Robert, and Erika S. Hammar-Klose, 2000. National Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise: Preliminary Results for the U.S. Pacific Coast. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-178. Website:
pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-178/.
28 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Emergency Planning Map for the San Francisco Bay Region. Website: www.abag.ca.gov.
29 Borrero, J., et al., 2006. Numerical Modeling of Tsunami Effects at Marine Oil Terminals in San Francisco Bay.
Report prepared for: Marine Facilities Division of the California State Lands Commission. June 8. 30 Ibid.
31 United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984. San Francisco Bay Tidal Stage vs. Frequency Study.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
724
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 115 e. Groundwater. The project site is within the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin in the San Mateo Plain sub-basin, which is bounded by San Francisco Bay to the east, the Westside basin to the north (also referred to as Merced Valley basin), the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west, and San Francisquito Creek to the south. The basin is composed of alluvial (i.e., deposited by flowing water) fan deposits formed by tributaries to San Francisco Bay. The water-bearing formations comprise two groups; the Santa Clara Formation of the older Plio-Pleistocene age and the Quaternary age alluvial deposits. The alluvial deposits overlie the Santa Clara Formation and have a maximum depth of about 1,250 feet. The alluvial deposits thin out in the upland areas rising into the Santa Cruz Mountains. A geotechnical investigation prepared for the southern portion the project site notes that groundwater was encountered at a depth of 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the borings conducted as part of the field exploration.
32 The groundwater depths may vary due to seasonal precipitation, infiltration rates, and tidal influences due to the proximity of San Francisco Bay.
f. Water Quality. The quality of surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of the project site is affected by past and current land uses at the site and the quality of San Francisco Bay in areas where groundwater is affected by tides. Water quality within the watershed is also affected by the composition of local geologic materials. Water quality in surface and groundwater bodies is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which is responsible for implementation of State and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations, and policies in the vicinity of the project site.
The RWQCB implements the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), 33 a master policy document
for managing water quality in the region. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. The San Mateo Plain groundwater sub-basin underlies the project site and is listed in the Basin Plan as providing the beneficial uses of municipal and domestic water supply, industrial process water supply, industrial service water supply, and agricul- tural water supply. At its closest, the Lower San Francisco Bay is located approximately 400 feet north of the project site and is listed as providing the beneficial uses of industrial service supply, commercial and sport fishing, shellfish harvesting, estuarine habitat, fish migration, preservation of rare and endangered species, fish spawning, wildlife habitat, water contact and noncontact recreation, and navigation. The Foster City Lagoon, which receives runoff from the project site, is located approximately ½-mile to the east, and is listed as providing the beneficial uses of estuarine habitat, wildlife habitat, and water contact and noncontact recreation.
(1) Stormwater Quality. The City is part of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City of Foster City are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, Order No. R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted October 14, 2009 (MRP). The MRP is overseen by the RWQCB. MRP
32 Lowney Associates, 2005. Geotechnical Investigation Gilead Sciences Research Expansion: NRB1, NRB2,and Annex Buildings, Foster City. Report No. 347-66A. November 8. 33 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan. Website:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/basin_planning.shtml. Appended through 2011.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
725
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 116 Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new develop- ment and redevelopment projects that add and/or replace 10,00034 square feet or more of impervious area. Provision C.3 requires the City to require incorporation of site design, source control, and stormwater treatment measures into development projects, to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharges, and to prevent increases in runoff flows (the City’s storm drain system is designed to accommodate 85 percent of runoff). The MRP requires that Low Impact Development (LID) methods be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls.
MRP Provision C.3.g pertains to hydromodification management. The MRP requires that stormwater discharges not cause an increase in the erosion potential of the receiving stream over the existing condition. Increases in runoff flow and volume must be managed so that the post-project runoff does not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations, where such increased flow and/or volume is likely to cause increased potential for erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other adverse impacts on beneficial uses due to increased erosive force. The project site is within an area explicitly exempted from the hydromodification management plan requirements due to its close proximity to the Bay and the predominance of engineered, hardened drainage conveyances (i.e., a highly urbanized drainage system).
35 In addition, projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction are required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002 (Construction General Permit).
To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, the project applicant must provide via electronic submittal a Notice of Intent, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other documents required by Attachment B of the Construction General Permit. Activities subject to the Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as grubbing or excavation. The permit also covers linear underground and overhead projects such as pipeline installations. Construction General Permit activities are regulated at a local level by the RWQCB.
The Construction General Permit uses a risk-based permitting approach and mandates certain require- ments based on the project risk level (i.e., Level 1, Level 2, or Level 3). The project risk level is based on the risk of sediment discharge and the receiving water risk. The sediment discharge risk depends on the project location and timing (i.e., wet season versus dry season activities). The receiving water risk depends on whether the project would discharge to a sediment-sensitive receiving water. The determination of the project’s risk level would be made by the project applicant when the Notice of Intent is filed.
The performance standard in the Construction General Permit dictates that dischargers minimize or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges through the use of controls, structures, and management practices that achieve Best Available Technology (BAT)
34 On December 1, 2012, the threshold for projects subject to Provision C.3 will be reduced to 2,500 square feet. 35 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2011. Hydromodification Management Plan.
Website: www.flowstobay.org/bs_new_development.php. December 5.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
726
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 117 for treatment of toxic and non-conventional pollutants and Best Conventional Technology (BCT) for treatment of conventional pollutants. A SWPPP must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer who meets the certification requirements in the Construction General Permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is to: 1) help identify the sources of sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and 2) describe and ensure the implementation of best management prac- tices (BMPs) to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater as well as non- stormwater discharges resulting from construction activity. Operation of BMPs must be overseen by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner who meets the requirements outlined in the permit.
The SWPPP must also include a construction site monitoring program. The monitoring program includes, depending on the project risk level, visual observations of site discharges, water quality monitoring of site discharges (pH (a measure of the acidity/alkalinity of a solution), turbidity, and non-visible pollutants, if applicable), and receiving water monitoring (pH, turbidity, suspended sediment concentration, and bioassessment).
(2) Groundwater Quality. Groundwater quality in the project area is characterized as slightly alkaline (mean pH of 7.3) with a hardness of 471 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), classifying it as “very hard.” In some areas, water quality may be impaired due to high concentrations of sodium caused by tidal influence. 36 g. Regulatory Considerations. Applicable regulations related to hydrology and water quality are described below.
(1) Foster City Standard Conditions of Approval. Foster City has adopted Standard Conditions of Approval (COAs) for large development and redevelopment projects. The following COA related to stormwater drainage and infrastructure would apply to the proposed project following the privatization of the stormwater drainage system by Gilead Sciences in late September 2012. 37 A
hydrology/hydraulic analysis would be completed on the existing storm drain system to verify it is adequately sized to handle the runoff from the project. The existing storm drains would also be cleaned as necessary.
(2) Foster City General Plan. The following goals, policies, and programs from the Foster City General Plan Safety Element related to hydrology and water quality pertain to the proposed project.
Safety Goals
S-B Protect From Flood Waters. Protect the community from unreasonable risk to life and property caused by flood hazards.
36 California Department of Water Resources, 2004. California’s Groundwater: Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin, San Mateo Subbasin, Bulletin 118. February 27.
37 Towne, Ray, 2012, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
727
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 118 Safety Policies
S-4 Flood Protection. The City will maintain the City’s levees and lagoon system for flood protection.
S-5 Flood Plain Regulations. The City will control development to minimize risks to persons and property within any special flood hazards area through flood plain regulations.
Safety Programs
S-G Maintain Levees and Lagoon for Flood Protection. The City (Public Works) will maintain the City’s levees and lagoon for flood protection pursuant to the “Operation and Maintenance Manual, Foster City Levees and Pump Station” and the “Lagoon Management Plan.” S-H Flood Plain Regulations. The City (Community Development Department) will evaluate any proposed development within special flood hazard areas for conformance with the City’s flood plain regulations as contained in Chapter 15.36 of the Foster City Municipal Code.
2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section analyzes the impacts related to hydrology and water quality that could result from implementation of the 2012 Master Plan. The section begins with criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for determining whether a project impact is significant. The latter part of this section presents the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Mitigation measures are provided as appropriate and feasible.
a. Significance Criteria. The project would have a significant effect on hydrology or water quality if it would:
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; Create or contribute a substantial amount of runoff that would be an additional source of water quality degradation;
Result in substantial erosion or sedimentation on- or off-site that would affect the quality of receiving water;
Create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm- water drainage systems and/or increase upstream or downstream flooding and require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map; Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;
Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of inundation by seiche, tsunami, extreme high tides, and/or sea level rise;
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
728
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 119 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a significant net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level;
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; or Otherwise substantially degrade water quality.
b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The project would increase impervious coverage on the site from approximately 69 percent of the site (50 acres) to approximately 72 percent of the site (52 acres), and would provide associated upgrades to drainage infrastructure and stormwater convey- ances. This increase in impervious cover could incrementally increase runoff rates and volumes (the magnitude of the increase would depend on the intensity of the storm and the types of drainage components included).
38 However due to the modest increase in impervious surfaces that would result from the project (approximately 2 acres), the project would not be expected to result in downstream flooding or require an extensive upgrade to stormwater infrastructure that would itself result in significant environmental effects. The City of Foster City requires that grading and drainage plans be reviewed for compliance with the requirements of the Public Works Department and/or Building Inspection Division and the City can require any improvements to the storm drainage system deemed necessary (including improvements to stormwater conveyance pipes and other off-site improvements) to be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. The project site is within an area explicitly exempted from the hydromodification management plan requirements due to close proximity to the Bay and the predominance of engineered, hardened drainage conveyances. 39 As a
result, the proposed project is unlikely to result in erosional or hydromodification effects. The proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area; the drainage pattern of the site with the proposed project would be similar to that under existing condi- tions, although with a slightly increased proportion of impervious surfaces. No natural streams or rivers are located in the vicinity of the project site. Thus the project would result in no changes that could generate substantial erosion or flooding either on- or off-site. The project would contain no unusual or unique features that would substantially degrade water quality; common construction and operational period water quality impacts related to the proposed development are discussed below under Impact HYD-1.
Residential structures would not be developed as part of the proposed project; as a result, the project would not place housing within a 100-year flood zone. There is a low potential for flooding of the site that would substantially threaten human safety or property. The project site is protected from a 100- year flood by levees. In addition, the project site is served by a gravity stormwater drainage system that flows to the Foster City Lagoon (managed by the Foster City Public Works Department) and
38 Ibid.
39 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, 2011, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
729
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 120 from there to San Francisco Bay via the City’s lagoon pump stations. The proposed on-site storm- water drainage system and stormwater management plan would be designed per Foster City Design Criteria and reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and/or Building Inspection Division to ensure that the stormwater conveyance system would perform in accordance with City requirements to protect the property from storm-related flooding. Adherence to existing requirements, including those governing design and placement of structures in flood zones, would reduce the potential flooding impact to a less-than-significant level.
The project site is located within a mapped dam failure inundation area for the Lower Crystal Springs Dam (LCSD), which is under the jurisdiction of State of California, Division of Safety of Dams. 40 Dam failure is a low probability event that can be caused by earthquakes or overflow. Potential failure of the LCSD was reduced by completion of a seismic retrofit in May 2012. The seismic retrofit project involved widening the spillway, raising the parapet wall, and replacing the stilling basin with a new, larger facility.41 Existing dams under State and federal jurisdiction are periodically inspected to ensure that they are adequately maintained and to direct the owner to correct any identified deficiencies. Regular inspections and required maintenance of the dams substantially reduce the potential for catastrophic failure. The hazard from flooding due to dam failure would be less than significant because: 1) recent seismic retrofits of the LCSD ensure that dam failure would be unlikely to occur; and 2) as described above, the estimated 2-foot inundation level near the project site would be contained by the levee along Marina Lagoon.
Between 2000 and 2050, sea level is predicted to rise at a greater rate than it has in the past. A mean sea level rise of 11.0 inches is projected in the San Francisco Bay area, though estimates range from
4.84 to 23.9 inches.
42 The 100-year extreme high tide at Foster City is estimated to be 7.1 feet.43 The extreme high tide combined with the highest potential sea level rise by 2050 (23.9 inches or about 2.0 feet) could crest at 9.1 feet (7.1 feet plus 2.0 feet) NGVD. The existing Foster City levees, recertified in 2007, with an elevation of approximately 10 feet NGVD or higher, would be expected to provide adequate protection from sea level rise, extreme high tides, seiches, and tsunamis, all of which tend to present hazards for sites at elevations lower than 10 feet NGVD.44 Coastal hazard threats to the project site are therefore considered less than significant. Vintage Lake, due to its size and volume, would not pose significant seiche hazards.
Development that would occur as part of the 2012 Master Plan would not use local groundwater supplies; therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not contribute to depletion of groundwater supplies or reduce the amount or quality of water available for public water supplies. In addition, the project would not interfere with groundwater recharge via water infiltration from
40 Association of Bay Area Governments, 2008. Foster City Inundation Map. Website: www.abag.ca.gov. 41 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 2012. Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements (WSIP). Website:
216.119.104.145/bids/projectDetail.aspx?prj_id=128.
42 National Academy of Sciences, 2012b. Chapter 5: Projections of Sea Level Change. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. Website: www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id= 13389&page=R1.
43 United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984, op. cit. 44 Titus, James G., and Vijay Narayanan, 1995, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
730
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 121 streams or creeks and the relatively minor increase in impervious area would not substantially reduce groundwater recharge (by preventing the percolation of precipitation).
No streams or rivers cross the project site. Therefore, no streams or rivers would be modified as part of the proposed 2012 Master Plan.
c. Significant Impacts. Development of the 2012 Master Plan could result in one significant impact related to water quality, as described below.
Impact HYD-1: Construction period and operation period project activities could result in degradation of water quality in Vintage Lake, Foster City Lagoon, and the San Francisco Bay by reducing the quality of stormwater runoff. (S)
The significant effects of the project during the construction period and operation period are discussed below:
(1) Construction-Period Impacts. Demolition, excavation, grading and construction on the project site would require temporary disturbance of surface soils and removal of existing pavement and buildings. During the construction period, excavation and grading activities would result in exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Soil stockpiles and excavations on the project site would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in water courses outside of the project site. The accumulation of sediment could result in blockage of flows, potentially resulting in increased localized ponding or flooding.
The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to nearby surface waterways and/or groundwater in stormwater runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters.
(2) Operation-Period Impacts. New construction and intensified land uses at the project site would result in increased personnel on the site, with attendant vehicle use and the potential discharge of associated pollutants. Leaks of fuel or lubricants, tire wear, brake dust, and fallout from exhaust contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters. Runoff from the proposed landscaped areas may contain residual pesticides and nutrients. Long-term degradation of runoff water quality from the site could adversely affect water quality in the receiving waters.
Implementation of the following three-part mitigation measure would reduce construction- and operation-period impacts to water quality to a less-than-significant level:
Mitigation Measure HYD-1a: Consistent with the requirements of the Statewide Construction General Permit, the project applicant shall prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential adverse impacts to surface water quality through the project construction period. The SWPPP, which shall be prepared for the entire project site, shall be designed to address the following objectives: 1) all pollutants and their sources, including sources of sediment associated with construction, construction site erosion,
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
731
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 122 and all other activities associated with construction activity are controlled; 2) where not otherwise required to be under a RWQCB permit, all non-stormwater discharges are identified and either eliminated, controlled, or treated; 3) site Best Management Practices (BMPs) are effective and result in the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stormwater discharges; and 4) authorized non-stormwater discharges from construction activity adhere to the Best Available Technology and Best Conventional Technology (BAT/BCT) standard; 5) calcula- tions and design details as well as BMP controls for site run-on are complete and correct; and 6) stabilization BMPs installed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction are completed.
The SWPPP shall be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP shall include the minimum BMPs required for the identified Risk Level. BMP implementation shall be con- sistent with the BMP requirements in the most recent version of the California Stormwater Quality Association Stormwater Best Management Handbook - Construction or the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbook Construction Site BMPs Manual.
The SWPPP shall include a construction site monitoring program that identifies requirements for dry weather visual observations of pollutants at all discharge locations and, as appropriate depending on the project Risk Level, sampling of the site effluent and receiving waters (receiving water monitoring is only required for some Risk Level 3 dischargers). A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) shall be responsible for implementing the BMPs at the site. The QSP shall also be responsible for performing all required monitoring and BMP inspection, maintenance and repair activities. If the project is Risk Level 2 or 3, the project applicant shall also prepare a Rain Event Action Plan as part of the SWPPP.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1b: The project sponsor shall fully comply with the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, which maintains compliance with the NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, design- ing BMPs into project features and operations to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality associated with operation of specific development projects undertaken as part of the 2012 Master Plan. These features shall be included in the drainage plan and final development drawings for individual projects. Specifically, the final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development.
Applicable requirements of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, as outlined in the December 2011 C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance manual (or updated version) shall be incorporated into project designs, unless the City is specifically exempted from such requirements. Rainwater harvesting and reuse, and passive, low-maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred in all areas. Higher-maintenance BMPs may only be used if the development of at-grade treatment systems is not possible, or would not adequately treat runoff. Funding for long-term maintenance of all BMPs must be specified (as the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for these features). The project sponsor shall establish a self-perpetuating drainage system maintenance program for the life of the project that includes annual inspections of any stormwater detention devices and drainage inlets. Any accumulation of sediment or other debris shall be promptly removed. In addition, an
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
732
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 123 annual report documenting the inspection and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and/or Building Inspection Division for review and approval.
The SWPPP and drainage system maintenance plan must be approved by the City prior to approval of the grading plan.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1c: The project sponsor shall comply with all requirements of the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval (COA). At a minimum, in accordance with the COAs, a hydrology/hydraulic analysis shall be completed on the existing storm drain system to verify that it is adequately sized to accommodate the runoff from the project. Modifications to the system shall be funded by the project sponsor, as needed. In addition, the existing storm drains shall be cleaned as necessary. (LTS)
d. Cumulative Impacts. Construction of the 2012 Master Plan, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects, could increase stormwater runoff volume and the amount of contaminants carried in the runoff, adversely affecting the waters of the lagoons in Foster City and San Francisco Bay. Project-specific mitigation measures required for each of the projects would be incorporated into their design and operation so as to reduce impacts to flooding and water quality to a less-than-significant level. Grading and drainage features are required to be designed in accordance with City of Foster City Design Criteria. Project proponents are required to prepare SWPPPs to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of the project. In addition, the City ensures that project designs include operational Best Management Practices to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality associated with operation of projects. No significant unavoidable impacts related to hydrology and water quality would result from construction or operation of the proposed project, and the project would not make a significant adverse contribution to any cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
733
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
E. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4e-Hydro.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 124 This page intentionally left blank.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
734
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 125 F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section evaluates the effects of the proposed 2012 Master Plan in relation to exposure to hazards and hazardous materials1 during construction and operation of the project. The evaluation was based on a review of project materials, previous environmental assessment for the southern portion of the project site,2 environmental database reports,3 a site reconnaissance conducted in July 2012, and other published materials. Potential public health and safety impacts that would result from the proposed project are described, and mitigation measures are recommended where appropriate.
1. Setting
This section summarizes the regulatory framework for hazardous materials and hazardous waste; lead, asbestos, and other hazardous building materials; and applicable worker health and safety requirements. Findings of recent studies regarding potential health effects from exposure to electro- magnetic fields (EMFs) are also described. EMFs are a potential concern on the site due to the location of transmission lines running approximately northwest-southeast through the center of the site. This section also describes the current use and storage of hazardous materials at the project site.
a. Regulatory Framework. The following section provides the federal, State, and local regula- tory framework for hazardous materials and hazardous waste, hazardous building materials that could be encountered during building demolition activities and general worker health and safety.
(1) Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste. The use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, including management of contaminated soils and groundwater, is regulated by numerous local, State, and federal laws and regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the federal agency that administers hazardous materials and hazardous waste regula- tions. State agencies include the California EPA (Cal/EPA), which includes the California Depart- ment of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and other agencies. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division (SMCEHD) have jurisdiction on a regional or local level.
A description of each federal, State, and regional/local agency’s jurisdiction and involvement in the management of hazardous materials and wastes is provided below.
1 The California Health and Safety Code defines a hazardous material as “any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or to the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, radioactive materials, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” (California Health and Safety Code Section 25501). 2 Green Environment, Inc., 2003. Executive Summary, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Vintage Park, Foster City, California. May 15.
3 Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2008. The EDR Radius Map Report with Geocheck for Gilead, 335 Lakeside Drive [and vicinity], Inquiry Number: 23023196. August 25.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
735
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 126 Federal. The U.S. EPA is the federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The federal regulations are primarily codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). The legis- lation that resulted in these regulations includes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986 (SARA), and the Compre- hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The U.S.
EPA provides oversight for site investigation and remediation projects, and has developed protocols for sampling, testing, and evaluation of solid wastes.4
State. Three State agencies, described below, regulate hazardous materials and waste that may occur on or around the project site.
Department of Toxic Substances Control. In California, DTSC is authorized by the U.S. EPA to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. California regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are equal to or exceed the federal regulation requirements. Most State hazardous materials regulations are contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). DTSC generally acts as the lead agency for soil and groundwater cleanup projects that affect public health, and establishes cleanup levels for subsurface contamination that are equal to, or more restrictive than, federal levels. DTSC has also developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards for hazardous waste disposal in California.
State Water Resources Control Board. The State Water Board enforces regulations on how to implement underground storage tank (UST) programs. USTs are a common source of hazardous materials (and associated contamination) in urban and rural areas. The State Water Board also allo- cates funding to eligible parties who request reimbursement of funds to clean up soil and groundwater pollution from UST leaks. In addition, the State Water Board enforces the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act through its nine regional boards, including the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, described below.
California Air Resources Board. ARB is responsible for coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California, including implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988. ARB has developed State air quality standards, and is responsible for monitor- ing air quality in conjunction with the local air districts. Refer to Section IV.I, Air Quality, for a discussion of ARB’s role in overseeing air quality regulations in California
Regional and Local Agencies. The following regional and local agencies have regulatory authority over the proposed project’s management of hazardous materials and waste.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. The nine RWQCBs, including the San Francisco Bay RWQCB, provide for protection of State waters in accordance with the Porter- Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969. The RWQCB can act as lead agency to provide oversight of sites where the quality of groundwater or surface waters is threatened, and has the authority to require investigations and remedial actions. The RWQCB has also developed Environmental Screening
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846. Website: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/test/main.htm.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
736
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 127 Levels (ESLs) to help expedite the preparation of environmental risk assessments at sites where contaminated soil and groundwater have been identified. Data collected at a site can be directly compared to ESLs and the need for additional work evaluated.5
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. BAAQMD is responsible for preparing attainment plans for criteria air pollutants, control of stationary air pollutant sources, and the issuance of permits for activities including asbestos demolition and renovation activities (District Regulation 11, Rule 2).
San Mateo County Health Department, Environmental Health Division. The SMCEHD is the primary agency responsible for local enforcement of State and federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials management. In Foster City, SMCEHD is a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), responsible for coordination of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program, local hazardous waste generator program, UST management, investigation of leaking USTs, oversight of remediation of contaminated sites, and the California Accidental Release Program for highly toxic, flammable, or explosive materials. SMCEHD also administers a County Household Hazardous Waste Program to educate the public about the dangers of toxic household wastes and to provide for proper disposal of household hazardous wastes.
(2) Lead, Asbestos, and Other Hazardous Building Materials. Prior to 1978, lead compounds were commonly used in exterior and interior paints. Lead is a suspected human carcino- gen (i.e., may cause cancer), a known teratogen (i.e., causes birth defects), and a reproductive toxin (i.e., can cause sterility). Prior to the 1980s, building materials often contained asbestos fibers, also a known human carcinogen. Asbestos, used to provide strength and fire resistance, was frequently incorporated into insulation, roofing, and siding, textured paint, and patching compounds used on wall and ceiling joints, vinyl floor tiles and adhesives, and water and steam pipes.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have been used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capaci- tors, heating/cooling equipment, and other electrical equipment. PCBs have not been manufactured in the United States since 1977, but may still be found in older electrical equipment and other building materials, like light ballasts. PCBs have been associated with acne-like skin conditions in adults and changes in the nervous and immune system in children. PCBs are also known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are probable human carcinogens.
6 PCB or PCB-contaminated items require
proper off-site transport and disposal at a facility that can accept such wastes.
Fluorescent lighting tubes and ballasts, computer displays, and several other common items contain- ing hazardous materials (including mercury, a heavy metal) are regulated as “universal wastes” by the State of California. Universal waste regulations allow common, low-hazard wastes to be managed under less stringent requirements than other hazardous wastes. Management of other hazardous wastes is governed by DTSC hazardous waste rules.
5 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2007. Screening for Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, Interim Final - November (revised May 2008). 6 Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2001. Toxic FAQs for Polychlorinated Biphenyls. Website:
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts17.pdf. February.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
737
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 128 (3) Worker Health and Safety. Worker health and safety are regulated at the federal level by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 authorizes states (including California) to estab- lish their own safety and health programs with OSHA approval. Worker health and safety protections in California are regulated by the California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). The DIR includes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH), which acts to protect workers from safety hazards through its California OSHA (Cal/OSHA) program, and provides consultant assistance to employers. California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in CCR Title 8 and include practices for all industries (General Industrial Safety Orders), and specific practices for construction and other industries. Workers at hazardous waste sites (or workers who may be exposed to hazardous wastes that might be encountered during excavation of contaminated soils) must receive specialized training and medical supervision according to the Hazardous Waste Opera- tions and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) regulations.
7 Additional regulations have been devel-
oped for construction workers potentially exposed to lead8 and asbestos.9 Cal/OSHA enforcement units conduct on-site evaluations and issue notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.
(4) Electrical Transmission Lines/Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs). High-voltage electrical transmission lines, suspended by transmission towers, cross the project site near Reef Drive and run southeast across the campus over Vintage Lake. Power lines in Foster City are contained in easements that preclude the development of permanent structures beneath them. 10 Occupants of properties adjacent to the high-voltage electrical transmission lines are exposed to EMFs generated by these power lines, in addition to EMFs from electrical distribution lines, building wiring, appliances, and natural phenomena, including lightning and static electricity. The overall strength of EMFs dissipates quickly with distance from the source. In addition, there is a low, but measurable “background” level of EMFs in the environment that is not related to any particular human-made source. Typically, EMFs are measured at “background” levels about 3 to 4 feet away from an electrical appliance, 60 to 200 feet from an electrical distribution line, and about 300 to 1,000 feet from a transmission line.
11 There has been public concern about the potential health effects associated with EMFs from human- made sources, such as transmission lines. Human cells have their own electric fields, and some labor- atory studies have shown that these internal fields can be disrupted by exposure to even low-energy EMFs. However, determining what effects, if any, EMFs may have on living tissue over long periods of time has proved to be a difficult scientific challenge.
A 1999 review of the EMF research literature, prepared by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS), concluded that “the NIEHS believes that there is weak evidence for possible
7 Title 8, CCR Section 5192.
8 Title 8, CCR Section 1532.1.
9 Title 8, CCR Section 1529.
10 Foster City, City of, 1993. General Plan, Chapter 7: Safety Element, adopted May 1995. 11 California Department of Public Health, 1999. Short Fact Sheet on EMF, California EMF Program.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
738
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 129 health effects from EMF exposures, and until stronger evidence changes this opinion, inexpensive and safe reductions in exposure should be encouraged.”12 The California EMF Program, developed by the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC), California Department of Health Services (DHS), and the Public Health Institute, completed a risk evaluation of EMFs in June 2002. Three DHS scientists evaluated existing EMF study data, in coordination with DHS toxicologists, physicians, and epide- miologists. Due to the lack of clear association between EMFs and health risks in the available data, the California EMF Program did not identify any specific policy measures to address potential risk of EMFs, and DHS made no policy recommendations. However, PUC advocates “no and low cost” EMF avoidance measures; this means minimizing EMF exposure when it is easy and inexpensive to do so.
13 As no specific health effects of EMFs have been conclusively demonstrated, there are no health-based or regulatory risk standards for EMF exposure. The assessment of effects of EMFs in this Subsequent EIR is therefore limited to the qualitative discussion in this subsection, and no impacts related to EMFs are identified.
(5) Biotechnology Research and Development and Wastes. Wastes generated during the course of biotechnology research and development may include radioactive materials/waste and bio- hazardous waste. At the federal level, the Food and Drug Administration, U.S. EPA, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture regulate biotechnology research and product development, including genetically modified organisms that could affect the environment upon release. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has adopted a waste classification system for low-level radioactive wastes (LLRW) that could be generated during biotechnology research and development uses, and requirements for disposal of such wastes. The classification of LLRW is found in Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61.55. There are also specific requirements for transport of radioactive wastes. The California Department of Public Health tracks LLRW under the California Health and Safety Code, Section 115000.1.
(6) Medical Waste Management. Medical wastes are generated or produced as a result of diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of humans, and/or the production or testing of biological materials, and are either considered biohazardous waste or sharps waste (e.g., used syringes).
Cultures, blood and blood products, tissues, and body parts are considered medical wastes. The transportation and disposal of medical wastes at the project site are closely regulated under the California Department of Public Health Medical Waste Management Program (CMWMP), with regulatory oversight by the SMCEHD.
14 The CMWMP includes requirements for facilities that
12 National Institute of Environmental Health Science, 1999. Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, Prepared in response to the 1992 Energy Policy Act. NIH Publication No. 99-4493. 13 California Department of Public Health, 2002. An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric and Magnetic Fields from Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances, Final Report, California EMF Program.
Website: www.ehib.org/emf/RiskEvaluation/riskeval.html. June. 14 State of California Health and Welfare Agency, 2012. Medical Waste Management Program, Local Enforcement Agency Contacts. California Department of Public Health. Website: www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/medicalwaste/Documents/ MedicalWaste/L%20E%20A.pdf. May 11.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
739
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 130 generate large quantities of medical waste, waste haulers, containment and storage of medical waste, and enforcement.15
Pharmaceutical wastes may be classified as medical waste, hazardous waste, or solid waste, and it is the responsibility of the generator to classify waste properly and dispose of it in accordance with applicable regulations. Generators of pharmaceutical medical waste must develop and implement a plan and procedure for properly managing and disposing of medical waste pharmaceuticals. This plan must be included as part of the facility’s Medical Waste Management Plan. The plan is required to be used as a tool to assist the facility in communicating, with the medical waste enforcement agency, the status of the facility’s compliance with the CMWMP.
(7) Medical, Research, and Development Laboratory Construction Requirements.
Design and construction requirements for laboratory environments, including hazardous or flammable materials use and storage, and hazardous or flammable fumes and exhaust systems, are specifically addressed by the California Building Code and the National Fire Code. Foster City has adopted the following codes, which are enforced by either the Building Division or the Fire Marshall:
National Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Uniform Fire Code (UFC), International Fire Code Institute (IFCI) California Fire Code (CFC) Title 24 Part 9, California Building Standards Commission California Code of Regulations Title 19, California Building Standards Commission Uniform Building Code (UBC), International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, California Building Standards Commission
The CFC requires that hazardous materials exhaust systems incorporate fire suppression systems and incorporate use restrictions on the ducting of incompatible chemicals through a single system. A haz- ardous exhaust system is required wherever the handling of hazardous materials has the potential to create a vapor, gas, fume, mist or dust resulting in exposure to a material classified as a severe health hazard (life-threatening from a single short exposure), or exposure to materials classified as slight, moderate, or serious hazards in concentrations exceeding 1 percent of the median lethal concentration of the substance for acute inhalation toxicity.
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations addresses occupational health and safety, and specifi- cally addresses laboratory environments in Article 107 of Group 16 regulations, section 5139-5155, Control of Hazardous Substances. Subsection 5154.1 discusses requirements for the ventilation of laboratory fumes, including hood design and operation, air volume movement, and exhaust stack design. In addition, circumstances under which air dilution or air cleaning is required (such as scrub- bing or air incineration) are described, and decontamination procedures are identified. 16 15 California Department of Public Health, 2012. The Medical Waste Management Act (California Health and Safety Code, Sections 117600 – 118360). Website: www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/medicalwaste/Pages/default.aspx. 16 California Code of Regulations, 2012. Occupational Health and Safety Codes. Website: www.dir.ca.gov. July 24.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
740
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 131 b. Hazardous Materials on the Project Site. A combined Phase I Environmental Site Assess- ment and Environmental Health and Safety Assessment (Phase I ESA/EHSA)17 was completed in 2003 for the southern 33 acres of the 73-acre project site, including the areas proposed for demolition and construction activities under the 2012 Master Plan. Potential hazardous materials issues in the remainder of the project site were also evaluated in the Phase I ESA/EHSA, although at a lesser level of detail than the 33-acre portion of the South Campus. A review of regulatory databases and a site reconnaissance were also performed for the entire project site as part of this Subsequent EIR. The information about the project site contained in the Phase I ESA/EHSA, along with the data developed through the regulatory database review and site reconnaissance are sufficient to evaluate hazardous materials impacts that would result from future development activities throughout the project site.
The Phase I ESA/EHSA was prepared to identify recognized environmental conditions 18 for the 33-
acre property, current tenant operations or activities that may pose a significant risk to human health and/or the environment, and any tenant activities that may be in non-compliance with applicable environmental health and safety statutes and regulations. The Phase I ESA/EHSA included a review of historical and current information sources, interviews with persons and agencies knowledgeable about the project site, a regulatory agency records review, City directory review, review of prior environmental site assessments, and a site reconnaissance. The Phase I ESA/EHSA did not include soil or water testing.
(1) Historical Land Uses and Potential for Hazardous Materials. The Phase I ESA/ EHSA describes the project site as having been occupied by tidal marshlands with meandering sloughs, until the area was diked and drained for agriculture around 1900. In 1963, the sloughs and ditches of the site were cleared and backfilled with compacted native soils to match the surrounding grade. In 1976, other low-lying areas were filled and compacted. From 1977 to 1979, several addi- tional feet of fill were imported and compacted across the site, in preparation for eventual develop- ment. The project site remained undeveloped until 1986, when the first structure was erected.
Construction of the remainder of the buildings was completed by 1991.19
No historical land uses related to hazardous materials were identified in the Phase I ESA/EHSA, but the presence of fill from unknown sources was described as a potential concern. The Phase I ESA/ EHSA notes that the sources of the historical fill materials at the project site are undocumented, but may be dredge material from San Francisco Bay.
20 The most recent fill materials came from local
mountain quarries, and dredged sand from San Francisco Bay; the chemical composition of the fill
17 Green Environment, Inc., 2003, op. cit.
18 “Recognized environmental conditions,” under the guidance document governing Phase I environmental site assessments (ASTM E1527-05), address the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substance or petroleum product on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum product in structures on the property, or into the ground, groundwater or surface water of the property. Recognized environmental conditions do not include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of the appropriate governmental agencies. 19 Green Environment, Inc., 2003, op. cit.
20 Foster City, City of, 2012. Community Info, History of Foster City, Creating the Land. Website:
www.fostercity.org/community_info/Creating-the-Land.cfm.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
741
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 132 materials was not reported.21 If the fill contained contaminants, those contaminants could potentially pose a risk to future workers, particularly construction workers who may come into direct contact with soils during development of the project. The Phase I ESA/EHSA described potential contami- nants in the fill as a recognized environmental condition for the project site, although this condition was described as a “low to moderate” risk.22
(2) Existing Land Uses Associated With Hazardous Materials. The project site is currently occupied by office and laboratory uses (including research and development uses), as it was at the time of the 2003 Phase I ESA/EHSA. To the north of the site is an office building used by Electronics for Imaging (EFI), which is located at 303 Velocity Way, and a golf course and open space along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. To the northeast and east are office and light indus- trial uses similar to the existing uses at the project site. To the south are Home Depot, the Hilton Garden Inn, and Bridgepointe Shopping Center. To the west of the site is a residential neighborhood and open space.
Since it was developed, the project site has included offices and research and development facilities.
In 2003, much of the southern portion of the project site was in use by Gilead; however, other tenants were also present. The Phase I ESA/EHSA includes an inventory of these occupants and the types of business that were present. Several of the tenants were listed as small quantity hazardous waste generators, authorized to generate and dispose of up to 1,000 kilograms per month of hazardous waste, and Gilead was listed as a large quantity generator, allowing for generation and disposal of greater than 1,000 kilograms per month. Wastes generated at the project site included used solvents, methylene chloride, oil, and laboratory chemicals.
23 Gilead maintains Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) for each of the eleven buildings at the project site that contain chemical storage facilities and/or fuel storage facilities (diesel for emergency generators). The HMBPs for each of the eleven buildings contain a description of business activities and a spill prevention plan, emergency response plan, training plan, closure plan, and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (HMIS). The plans are updated annually, as needed, and copies of the plans are filed with SMCEHD, the Foster City Fire Department, and the Estero Municipal Improve- ment District. According to the HMBPs, all business activities involving hazardous materials are conducted inside buildings. No storage of raw materials occurs outdoors. There are no underground hazardous materials or waste storage tanks. Three above-ground waste storage tanks are in operation; each above-ground storage tank is indoors and within a secondary containment structure. None of the three above-ground storage tanks is within a building proposed for demolition. Emergency response and evacuation plans for the buildings are detailed, and incorporate prior arrangements for assistance with police, fire, and hospital personnel. Gilead Sciences has an on-site Emergency Response Team that has been trained in the handling of hazardous waste (RCRA and non-RCRA California hazardous waste) including emergency communications and inspections, and responses to fires, spills, explosions and shutdown of operations.
24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34
21 Green Environment, Inc., 2003, op. cit.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Gilead, Inc., 2006a. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 310 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. June 21.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
742
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 133 In addition, no building has above-ground petroleum (fuel) storage tanks exceeding a combined 1,320 gallons of capacity, which would require implementation of a Spill Prevention Control and Counter- measure (SPCC) plan. Two buildings, located at 310 and 322 Lakeside Drive, do not generate any hazardous waste, but do maintain HMBPs in support of diesel tanks for generators and/or battery back-up electrical systems and fire suppression chemicals.
A review of the 2008 government database search confirmed that Gilead Sciences and other businesses in the southern portion of the project site continued to use, store, and dispose of similar volumes and classes of hazardous materials as those described in the Phase I ESA/EHSA and HMBPs. For the northern portion of the project site, the report indicates that EFI, at 301 Velocity Way, was listed as a SMCEHD hazardous materials storage facility.
35 Precise types and amounts of hazardous materials at
this facility were not reported, but the SMCEHD record indicates that hazardous materials storage was less than 3,499 gallons, 27.999 pounds, or 13,999 cubic feet in volume. No active hazardous material release sites, where hazardous materials may be present in soils or groundwater, were reported at or adjacent to the project site. 303 Velocity Way, immediately to the north of the project site, is listed as containing an above-ground storage tank that is subject to Spill Prevention Control and Counter- measure regulations, which indicates that one or more tanks at the site contain at least 1,320 gallons of petroleum. The records indicate that in 2008 both 301 and 303 Velocity Way were occupied by EFI, a research and development digital technology company.
(3) Reported and Potential Hazardous Materials Releases. The Phase I ESA/EHSA included a review of reported spill incidents and notes that within the project site, 15 documented hazardous materials releases were reported from 1988 to 2002. Six of the 15 events occurred outdoors either before or during site development, and consisted of spills of solvents or paint. In addition, two releases were related to hydraulic oil spills from elevator lifts discovered in 1994. Finally, seven spills occurred inside Gilead lab facilities, and consisted of a liter or less of materials each. According to the Phase I ESA/EHSA, the lab spills were cleaned up immediately and clean-up materials were properly disposed. The seven interior spills involved small quantities of hazardous materials, were immedi- ately cleaned up, and did not result in contamination of soil or groundwater. The six outdoor spills were cleaned up when discovered, with contaminated soils removed and properly disposed, and confirmation samples were collected from the bottom of each of the excavations. Laboratory analyses
25 Gilead, Inc., 2006b. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 320 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. November 22. 26 Gilead, Inc., 2006c. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 322 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. June 21. 27 Gilead, Inc., 2006d. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 324 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. June 1. 28 Gilead, Inc., 2006e. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 335 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. April 1. 29 Gilead, Inc., 2006f. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 342 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. April 1. 30 Gilead, Inc., 2006g. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 344 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. April 1. 31 Gilead, Inc., 2006h. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 346 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. April 1. 32 Gilead, Inc., 2006i. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 353 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. April 1. 33 Gilead, Inc., 2006j. Hazardous Materials Business Plan, 357 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. April 1. 34 Gilead, Inc., 2007. Hazardous Materials Business Plan (revised), 362 Lakeside Drive, Foster City, CA. July 16. 35 Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2008, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
743
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 134 of the confirmation samples indicate removal of contaminated materials. The Phase I ESA/EHSA concluded that known and potential releases of hydraulic oil from elevator equipment were recog- nized environmental concerns at the project site. The Phase I ESA/EHSA recommended additional investigation and sampling to confirm that the cleanup of the elevator hydraulic lifts was complete.
Other potential hazardous materials release risks noted in the Phase I ESA/EHSA included the potential discharge of laboratory chemicals to the wastewater system, minor petroleum leaks from emergency generators, and oil and grease related to food preparation.
Gilead Sciences undertook remediation of all soil and groundwater contamination identified in the Phase I ESA/EHSA, including the hydraulic oil spills, and completed remediation in early 2006 under the oversight of the SMCEHD; a letter of closure was issued by San Mateo County in late 2006. 36 Gilead Sciences also implemented new policies, procedures and systems, including drum storage facilities, to ensure that hazardous materials are not introduced to the wastewater system. Gilead Sciences maintains a Wastewater Discharge Permit, issued by the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and performs sampling and self-monitoring to ensure compliance. The subsequent 2008 government database search reviewed for this analysis indicates that no incidents regarding hazardous material releases were reported related to these users and no investigative oversight by regulatory agencies is underway or has occurred.
37 The Phase I ESA/EHSA determined that there is a low
potential for off-site chemical releases to affect the groundwater or soils on the project site. No active hazardous materials releases cases, where contamination has been identified but remediation is not complete, were identified within 1/8 mile of the project site.38
(4) Biohazardous Substances Use and Disposal. Biohazardous materials currently used by Gilead Sciences at the project site include specimen and microbiological cultures, stocks of infectious agents, live and attenuated vaccines, blood and body fluids, sharps, and/or isolation waste. Staff is trained during new hire orientation regarding waste segregation procedures, and must complete annual refresher courses. Technicians are trained in both chemical and waste disposal procedures. 39 Commercial autoclave equipment is used to sterilize laboratory equipment suitable for reuse; and separate labeled containers for sharps, infectious materials, and medical waste are maintained. A certified medical waste disposal service under contract with Gilead Corporation provides medical waste disposal service.40 No animal testing is conducted or proposed at Gilead Science’s facilities in Foster City.41
36 Lang, Jeff, 2008. Director Facilities and Operations, Gilead Corp. Request for Gilead Information/EIR – Existing Environmental Document. Written communication. July 25. 37 Environmental Data Resources, Inc., 2008, op. cit.
38 Ibid.
39 Green Environment, Inc., 2003, op. cit.
40 McHugh, Laura D., P.E., 2008. Director, Environmental Health and Safety, Gilead Corp. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting. July 14.
41 Edwards, Michael, 2008. Pacific BioFacilities. Personal communication with Baseline Environmental Consulting.
August 11.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
744
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 135 (5) Radioactive Substances Use and Disposal. The Phase I ESA/EHSA notes that one of the former tenants at 320 Lakeside Drive used low-level radioactive isotopes under a radioactive materials use license. The Phase I ESA/EHSA indicates that this use was decommissioned and that SMCEHD records show the permit was terminated in 2001. The Phase I ESA/EHSA also reports that a follow-up radiation survey conducted in 2003 indicates that no radiation was found in areas with the potential for contamination. Although the Phase I ESA/EHSA identified a concern that the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) ducts are not specifically mentioned as having been investi- gated, the safety of the HVAC ducts was addressed in final closure reports that were completed by the former tenant, approved by the State of California, and filed with San Mateo County in 2003 and 2004.42
c. Foster City General Plan. The 1993 Safety Element of the Foster City General Plan 43 contains
the following safety goals, policies, and programs related to hazardous materials, fire and emergency preparedness, and EMFs:
Safety Goals
S-C Protect from Fire and Dangerous Conditions. Protect the community from unreasonable risk to life and property caused by fires and dangerous conditions. S-D Prepare to Respond to Emergencies. Minimize potential damage to life, environment and property through timely, well-prepared and well-coordinated emergency preparedness, response plans, and programs.
Safety Policies
S-6 Minimize Loss of Life, Injuries, and Property Damage Due to Fires. The City will minimize loss of life, injuries, and property damage due to fires through review of development proposals, public education, and maintenance of well-trained fire suppression personnel. S-7 Hazardous Materials. The City will protect the community from unreasonable risks associated with hazardous materials.
S-8 Electromagnetic Fields. The City will monitor available information regarding possible health hazards of electromagnetic fields.
S-9 Emergency Response. The City will prepare to respond to emergencies through the City’s Emergency Plan, training, and other measures.
Programs
S-i Use of Uniform Codes. The City will adopt and enforce the most current uniform codes with additional local requirements as necessary tailored to Foster City (Responsible Agency, Building Division and Fire Department).
S-j Development Review for Fire Safety. The City will review proposals for new and modified buildings to ensure that fire safety provisions are included as required by the most current uniform codes and local regulations (Responsible Agency, Fire Department, Building Department).
42 Ibid.
43 Foster City, City of, 1993, General Plan, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
745
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 136 S-l Annual Inspections for Fire Safety and Hazardous Materials. The City will conduct annual inspections of businesses and multi-family dwellings in order to ensure compliance with fire safety and hazardous materials requirements (Responsible Agency, Fire Department). S-o Electromagnetic Fields. The City will monitor available information regarding possible health hazards of electromagnetic fields (Responsible Agency, Community Development Department). S-p Emergency Response. The City will prepare to respond to emergencies through the use of established procedures, programs of on-going training, periodic exercises of the City’s Emergency Plan, and mutual aid agreements (Responsible Agency, All Departments). S-q Emergency Plan. The City will maintain the City’s Emergency Plan indicating responsibilities and procedures for responding to an emergency (Response Agency, Fire Department).
d. Emergency Evacuation Plans. The City Council adopted the City Multi-Hazard Functional Plan (MFP) as the City’s Emergency Plan. The MFP uses the Emergency Management System, which provides a framework for standardizing emergency response procedures in California. The MFP identifies emergency functions and responsibilities of different departments and evacuation routes for the orderly relocation of people during various types of emergency situations. In the event of a local emergency confined to Foster City, in accordance with the Community Evacuation Plan, the following steps would be taken to safely and expeditiously evacuate vehicles and pedestrians. Mutual aid would be requested from the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Caltrans, and neighboring agencies to stop all incoming traffic and provide assistance with traffic and crowd control;
All arterial streets would be restricted to egress only, with all lanes traveling in the same direction (to effectively double the normal capacity of these streets):
1) East Hillsdale Boulevard (westbound);
2) Foster City Boulevard (northbound;
3) Shell Boulevard (northbound);
4) Edgewater Boulevard, north of Pitcairn Drive (northbound); and 5) Edgewater Boulevard, south of Pitcairn Drive (southbound); Beach Park Boulevard would circulate in a clockwise direction in an effort to avoid cross traffic conflicts;
Foster City Boulevard traffic would be directed to either Third Avenue west or SR 92 west; Shell Boulevard traffic would be directed via Metro Center east to SR 92 East, or west on East Hillsdale Boulevard to north on Edgewater Boulevard; Northbound Edgewater Boulevard traffic would be directed to East Hillsdale Boulevard westbound, SR 92 East, or Third Avenue;
Southbound Edgewater Boulevard traffic (south of Pitcairn Drive) would be directed to Baffin Court and across the Belmont Slough fire road to Belmont/Redwood Shores; and Traffic from the business areas north of SR 92 would be directed to either Third Avenue west or Fashion Island Boulevard west.
As available, equipment (such as portable barricades, vehicles and other traffic diversionary devices) would be used to help direct traffic in the manner specified above. In addition, traffic signals may be controlled to facilitate the smooth movement of traffic. Under the MFP, consideration would also be
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
746
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 137 given to normalizing traffic patterns once vehicles are outside the City limits and are operated on roadways controlled by other agencies.
The MFP also anticipates and plans for emergency evacuation on a regional scale. To that effect, Foster City participates in the San Mateo County Smart Corridors Project.44 The Smart Corridors Project allows State, local, and regional agencies to work collaboratively to promote safe and effective transportation management and operations on local arterials and highways within San Mateo County during major traffic incidents. The Smart Corridor Project is funded by State grants.
The expected benefits of the Smart Corridor Project for involved agencies include the ability to: 1) quickly identify the location of major traffic incidents in the County; 2) share real-time traveler information among agencies; 3) share cross-jurisdictional signal timing and operations data to better manage major traffic incidents on El Camino Real and local streets; 4) promote the safe and orderly flow of traffic through intelligent transportation systems; 5) coordinate traffic management plans among emergency service providers, cities, the County, and State agencies; and 6) safely direct the public and emergency responders on local streets and highways during major traffic incidents. The Smart Corridor Project is currently underway and scheduled for completion by the end of 2013.45
2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section analyzes the impacts related to hazardous materials and public health and safety that could result from the proposed project. Criteria of significance are defined, which establish the thresholds for determining whether a project impact is significant. Potential hazardous materials and public health and safety impacts from the proposed project are then presented, with mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level.
a. Criteria of Significance. A significant hazardous materials or public health and safety impact would occur if the project would:
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environ- ment.
Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through exposure to hazardous materials present in soils, surface water, ground water, and/or building materials as a result of historical land uses in the project vicinity.
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within ¼-mile of an existing or proposed school.
44 Foster City, City of, 2008. City Council Resolution No. 2008-99. 45 San Mateo County Smart Corridors, 2012. Project Description. Website: www.menlopark.org/departments/trn/ Smartcorridors.html. July 18.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
747
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 138 Be located on or adjacent to a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5 and, as a result, would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area. Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Result in an increased risk of exposure to wildland or urban fire hazards. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport.
Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The following discussion examines potential less-than- significant impacts of the proposed project.
(1) Routine Transport, Storage, Use, and Disposal of Hazardous Materials. Following construction of specific projects under the 2012 Master Plan, hazardous materials would be used, stored, transported, and disposed of for research and development activities. In addition, equipment installed at the project site, such as hydraulic elevator systems and backup generators, may involve the storage of significant quantities of hydraulic fluid, fuels, and other hazardous materials. All future uses would be subject to existing regulatory programs for hazardous materials. The Fire Department and Building Inspection Division of the Community Development Department coordinate the review of building permits to ensure that hazardous materials requirements are met prior to construction, including required separation between hazardous materials and sensitive land uses, and proper haz- ardous materials storage facilities. The transport, generation, use, and/or disposal of hazardous materials within the project site would also be subject to existing hazardous materials regulations, such as those implemented by SMCEHD (see Regulatory Framework, above) and hazardous materi- als permits from the Fire Department.
46 The Fire Department also conducts annual inspections for fire safety and hazardous materials management of businesses and multi-family dwellings, in accordance with the General Plan.47 These measures would ensure that the proposed project would not result in significant impacts to health and safety from the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials following construction.
(2) Release of Hazardous Materials into the Environment. Releases of hazardous materials into the environment could occur during demolition of existing buildings at the project site, if hazardous materials in the buildings are not removed prior to demolition. Closure of buildings that store, use, or dispose of hazardous materials would be managed in compliance with the closure plan element of the approved HMBP for the particular structure. The following actions would be required as part of building closures:
46 These permits apply to biotechnology and high technology companies, and commercial or light industrial businesses.
47 Foster City, City of, 1993, General Plan, op. cit.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
748
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 139 The SMCEHD would be notified at least 30 days prior to closure; All hazardous materials and waste would be packaged and disposed of in accordance with applicable local, State, and federal regulations;
Areas where hazardous materials and/or wastes were stored and/or used would be cleaned, evaluated visually for residual materials, and tested as required by the SMCEHD; and All equipment for hazardous materials processing and/or hazardous waste storage would either be cleaned to acceptable standards and removed from the site, or disposed of as hazardous waste.
Lead and asbestos which could be present in building materials is also a potential concern. As described in the setting section, prior to 1978, lead compounds were commonly used in exterior and interior paints. Prior to the early 1980s, building materials often contained asbestos fibers. PCBs have been used as coolants and lubricants in transformers, capacitors, heating/cooling equipment, and other electrical equipment. PCBs have not been manufactured in the United States since 1977, but may still be found in older electrical equipment and other building materials like light ballasts. The project site was originally developed with structures starting in 1986, with development completed in 1991. 48 Due to the relatively recent date of construction, it is unlikely that lead, asbestos, or equipment containing PCBs were used during the original development of the project site. The risks associated with release of hazardous materials into the environment due to demolition as a result of the proposed project are therefore considered a less-than-significant impact.
(3) Emit Acutely Hazardous Materials Within ¼-Mile of a School. Local school district mapping does not indicate an existing or planned school within ¼-mile of the project site.49 Gilead Sciences operates a day-care and preschool program at 301 Velocity Way.50 The preschool is located in an office building without hazardous materials and Gilead Sciences’ compliance with existing regulations and with the mitigation measures described below would prevent hazardous emissions and prevent a significant risk of sensitive receptor exposure to acutely hazardous materials, sub- stances, or waste. Therefore, the risks associated with emissions of acutely hazardous materials within ¼-mile of a school are considered a less-than-significant impact.
(4) Hazardous Materials Release Sites. Reviews of regulatory agency databases performed for this analysis included lists of sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. These reviews have not identified any active investigations of hazardous materials releases within the project site or within 1/8-mile of the site. Potential safety hazards from hazardous materials release sites within and adjacent to the project site are therefore considered less than significant.
(5) Emergency Evacuation Plan. The proposed project would not be expected to impair implementation of or interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed project involves development of previously-developed parcels in an urban-
48 Green Environment, Inc., 2003, op. cit.
49 Foster City-San Mateo School District, 2012. District Maps. Website: www.smfc.k12.ca.us/district_maps. 50 Bright Horizons, 2012. Bright Horizons at Gilead. Website: child-care-preschool.brighthorizons.com/CA/ Fostercity/fostercity/Our-Center.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
749
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 140 ized area. The project would not interfere with the MFP, which the City has established as the basis for all emergency response actions for City departments.51 The MFP and Community Evacuation Plan identify arterial streets in the vicinity of the project site that would be used for egress only, with all lanes traveling in the same direction (effectively doubling evacuation capacity), including northbound Foster City Boulevard and westbound East Hillsdale Boulevard. In addition, Foster City Boulevard traffic would be directed to either East Third Avenue westbound or SR 92 westbound. The privati- zation of Lakeside Drive, which is integrated into the 2012 Master Plan (but was independently approved in 2010), would not substantially interfere with emergency evacuation. Lakeside Drive is not critical for emergency evacuation but would be available for evacuation, if necessary (as emer- gency vehicles would be able to drive on the segment of Lakeside Drive that would be converted into a pedestrian walkway). In addition, the project would not interfere with evacuation plans for individ- ual buildings prepared by the project sponsor. Potential impacts to emergency evacuation routes or emergency response plans from the proposed project are therefore considered less than significant.
(6) Wildland Fires. The project site, which is surrounded by urbanized uses (and open space with a low potential for wildland fires to the north), has not been identified as having a significant potential for wildland fires.
52 The proposed project would be required to conform to the California Fire Code and Uniform Building Code, and requirements of the Foster City Fire Department to reduce the potential for structural fires. Compliance with City requirements and building codes would reduce potential impacts from fire hazards, including wildland fires, to a less-than-significant level.
(7) Aviation Hazards. The proposed project is located approximately 4 miles north of the San Carlos Airport (SLQ) and approximately 5 miles south of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and is located within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) of both airports. The project site is not located near any private use airstrips.53
The project site is located within Area A of the AIA Boundary for SLQ. 54 The proposed project is not
located within Area B, and structures at the project site would not be considered a potential obstruc- tion hazard for aircraft using SLQ.
The northern portion of the project site is located within the approach surface to SFO, and the entire project site is designated as part of SFO Area B.
55 The highest obstruction permitted within the
project site is 210 feet.56 The maximum building heights for the proposed project would be well below this maximum permitted height, would not be expected to interfere with aircraft, and would therefore not be expected to pose a hazard to persons occupying the structures. Further, the proposed
51 Foster City, City of, 1993, General Plan, op. cit.
52 Ibid.
53 Skyvector, 2012. Website: www.skyvector.com. July.
54 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2012. Revised Airport Influence Area Boundary for San Carlos Airport – Area B, approved by CCAG Board, October 14, 2004. Website: www.ccag.ca.gov/ plans_reports.html.
55 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. July. 56 Ibid.
7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)
750
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
DECEMBER 2012
GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
F. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4f-Hazards.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 141 project is not expected to include any land uses that would cause a hazard to air navigation within the vicinity of SFO.57 Impacts from the proposed project on aviation are therefore considered less than significant.
c. Significant Impacts. Two potentially significant impacts have been identified and are discussed below.
Impact HAZ-1: Upset and accidents involving hazardous materials releases and transport and use during construction activities could result in adverse effects to public health or the envi- ronment. (S)
Hazardous materials (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, and adhesives) would be transported and used on- site for proposed construction and redevelopment activities. In addition, construction vehicles would be used on-site that could accidentally release hazardous materials, such as oils, grease, or fuels. It is likely that the construction contractor(s) would store these hazardous materials and vehicles on-site during the duration of construction activities. Accidental releases of hazardous materials could affect soil and/or groundwater quality, or could result in adverse health effects to construction workers, the public, and the environment. The following two-part mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.