Foster City City Council
January 17, 2023

Mitigation Measure 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 accordance 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. Second- ary containment shall be used to catch leaks or spills any time that vehicle or equipment fluids are dispensed, changed, or poured.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b: Emergency preparedness and response procedures shall be devel- oped 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 personal protective equipment, as appropriate, in responding to the emergency. The contractor(s) shall submit these procedures to the City for approval prior to demolition or development activities.

57 Ibid. Land uses that could cause a hazard to air navigation within SFO Area B include uses with: 1) sources of glare; 2) distracting lights that could be mistaken for airport identification lighting; 3) sources of dust, smoke, or water vapor; 4) sources of electrical interference; 5) sources of significant thermal plumes; and 6) features that would attract large concentrations of wildlife, particularly flocks of birds.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

751

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 142 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. (LTS)

Impact 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)

The 2003 Phase I ESA/EHSA, which evaluated hazardous materials risks throughout the project site (but focused on hazardous materials issues in the southern portion of the site), identified three “recognized environmental conditions” related to the presence of hazardous materials contamination (other than hazardous building materials, described separately, below). “Recognized environmental conditions” is a term-of-art for Phase I ESAs. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-1527 defines recognized environmental conditions as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petro- leum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.” Gilead Sciences has taken measures to remediate soil and water contamination resulting from two of these recognized environmental conditions related to hydraulic oil spills at two elevator locations. The third noted condition, of undocumented fill at the site, has not been subject to further site-wide investigation.

New fill materials may be brought onto the project site following demolition of existing structures, paved areas, and landscaping. Existing fill materials at the project site that are geotechnically unsuita- ble for reuse would be excavated, transported off-site, and replaced with properly compacted engi- neered fill. The source of any engineered fill to be brought on-site has not been identified. Imported fill containing hazardous materials could result in adverse health effects to construction workers and future users, depending on the type and identity of contamination, and the duration of exposure.

Significant quantities of other wastes (construction debris, soil, and pavement) would also be gener- ated and would be transported off-site for disposal/recycling in accordance with Foster City Ordinance 523. All hazardous materials (e.g., containers, cylinders, and emergency generators with above-ground tanks) would be transported off-site prior to demolition activities in accordance with SMCEHD’s business closure requirements.

Despite the remediation actions noted above, previously unknown contaminated soil and/or ground- water or other hazards (e.g., tanks and drums) could be encountered during grading, excavating, or soil disturbance activities at the project site or at off-site locations, resulting in adverse health effects to construction workers. The severity of the health effects would depend on the contaminant(s), concentration, and duration of exposure.

The following three-part mitigation measure would reduce this potential impact to a less-than- signifi- cant level.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

752

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 143 Mitigation Measure 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 stain- ing, 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 analytical 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.

Mitigation Measure 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 ground- water (e.g., RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs)58). 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,
59 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.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2c: The contractor shall prepare 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 contaminated materials, stockpiling of soils, and storage of dewatered groundwater. 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. (LTS)

58 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2007, op. cit. 59 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008, op. cit.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

753

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 144 d. Cumulative Impacts. Hazardous materials impacts are generally limited to the immediate vicinity of the locations of use, storage, disposal, or release of the hazardous materials. Although the development of other projects in the site vicinity could result in similar hazardous materials impacts (e.g., those related to the release of hazardous construction materials or exposure to previously unknown soil contamination), those impacts would not intensify the impacts of the proposed project, and the proposed project would not intensify hazardous materials impacts at other locations in the project vicinity. Therefore, no cumulative impact related to hazards would be anticipated.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

754

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 145 G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section describes the existing transportation and circulation system in the vicinity of the 2012 Master Plan area, including roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, and provides an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project on this transportation system. This analysis is based on the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)1 prepared for the proposed project, which is included in Appendix B of this Subsequent EIR.

The TIA uses as a primary background source the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis,2 which evaluated the cumulative transportation impacts of four large-scale development projects proposed in Foster City. One of the four projects was the 2010 Gilead Sciences Master Plan, which was a precur- sor to the 2012 Master Plan evaluated in this Subsequent EIR. However, the transportation system and traffic conditions in the City have changed since the Multi-Project Traffic Analysis was finalized in 2010, requiring independent data collection and analysis to evaluate the effects of the 2012 Master Plan. That independent analysis is contained in the TIA and summarized in this section of the Subse- quent EIR.

1. Setting
This section describes the methods used to conduct the transportation analysis, the existing trans- portation system in the vicinity of the project site, and applicable transportation-related policies.

Existing roadway operations are also summarized.

a. Study Locations. This analysis evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on key roadway facilities within a 2-mile radius of the project site, including 24 intersections and seven freeway segments. The study area was selected based on local traffic patterns and engineering judgment and is consistent with previous studies conducted for Gilead Sciences and TIAs for other similarly-sized projects in Foster City. The study area is comprehensive; the impacts of the proposed project are well- contained within it and no measurable impacts are anticipated beyond these borders. The study locations are listed below and shown on Figure IV.G-1. All study intersections are controlled by a traffic signal unless noted below. Intersections marked with an asterisk (*) are located in the City of San Mateo.

Study Intersections
A. Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue*
B. Mariners Island Boulevard and East Third Avenue
C. Lakeside Drive and East Third Avenue
D. Marsh Drive and East Third Avenue
E. Foster City Boulevard and East Third Avenue

1 Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2012. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. October.
2 Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2008. Final Report, Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis.

December.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

755

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 146 F. Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive/Chess Drive G. Baker Way/State Route 92 (SR 92) Westbound Ramps and Fashion Island Boulevard/ Bridgepointe Parkway*
H. Vintage Park Drive and Chess Drive
I. SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive
J. Foster City Boulevard and Chess Drive
K. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Edgewater Boulevard/Mariners Island Boulevard L. Edgewater Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard
M. Vintage Park Drive and Metro Center Boulevard
N. Shell Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard
O. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Metro Center Boulevard
P. Foster City Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard/Triton Drive Q. Norfolk Street and East Hillsdale Boulevard*
R. Altair Avenue and East Hillsdale Boulevard
S. Edgewater Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard
T. Shell Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard
U. Foster City Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard
V. Mariners Island Boulevard and Fashion Island Boulevard* W. Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive (side-street stop controlled)* X. Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue (all-way stop controlled)

Freeway Segments
A. US Highway 101 (US 101), north of East Third Avenue
B. US 101, between East Third Avenue and SR 92
C. US 101, between SR 92 and East Hillsdale Boulevard
D. US 101, south of East Hillsdale Boulevard
E. SR 92, between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard F. SR 92, Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard and Foster City Boulevard G. SR 92, east of Foster City Boulevard

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

756

Edgewater Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Marlin Ave
Gull Ave
Crane A
ve
Beach P
ark Blvd
Metro Center Blvd
Triton Dr
Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
Ave
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
Norfolk St
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr
san francisco bay
FOSTER
CITY

SAN MATEO
ntaggggeParkDr
LaL kek side Dr
DDr

HAYWARD PARK

CALTRAIN

SAN MATEO

CALTRAIN

HILLSDALE

CALTRAIN
101
92CALIFORNIA
82CALIFORNIA
101
92CALIFORNIA

PROJECT
SITE
Legend
Study Intersection
Study Freeway Segment
#
B
1 2
23 22
11 12
13 14
15 16
21 20
24 19
18 17
3 4 5
6 10
9 8
7 A
B
C
E
F
G
D
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-1
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG1.ai (11/1/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Study Intersections and Freeway Segments

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)  
 
757

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 148 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

758

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 149 b. Analysis Scenarios. The operations of the intersections and the freeway segments were evaluated during the time periods when traffic volumes are highest, during the morning and evening commute periods (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. (AM peak hour) and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. (PM peak hour)). The operations of these facilities were evaluated for the following scenarios:3  Existing: Existing traffic volumes obtained from counts collected in March 2012 and existing roadway/intersection configurations. Under the Existing scenario, the South Campus (as defined under the 2012 Master Plan) has 295,717 square feet of office space and 468,018 square feet of laboratory space. The North Campus (as defined under the 2012 Master Plan) has 163,000 square feet of office space located in the 301 Velocity Way Building.
 Existing Plus Project: Existing traffic volumes plus new traffic from the project.  Cumulative: Projected conditions in 2030, including traffic estimates for approved and probable future development projects, including Gilead Science’s existing entitled land uses per the 2010 Gilead Sciences Master Plan and buildout of the North Campus per the 1997 EFI General Development Plan. The Cumulative condition includes selected roadway system improvements. Under the Cumulative scenario, the South Campus would be redeveloped to replace the existing land uses with a maximum of 755,048 square feet of office space and a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory space. These land uses were approved as part of the 2010 Master Plan. The North Campus would be redeveloped to replace the existing land uses with 705,000 square feet of office space. This office space was approved as a part of the 1997 EFI General Development Plan. Although these entitlements are set to expire in April 2013, they could be reapproved in the future should the proposed 2012 Master Plan not be implemented, and thus represent a reasonably foreseeable future project.
 Cumulative Plus Project: Cumulative volumes plus new traffic from the project.

Table IV.G-1 shows the existing, entitled, and foreseeable (future probable) land uses at the project site assumed to be in place for the “No Project” scenarios for the Existing and Cumulative conditions.

The land use assumptions for the project site under No Project and Plus Project scenarios are illustrated in Figure IV.G-2 for Existing and Cumulative Conditions.

3 A “Background” scenario was also evaluated in the TIA but is not included in this section of the Subsequent EIR.

The Background scenario includes existing traffic volumes plus traffic generated by occupancy of vacant buildings and approved but not yet completed development projects. Such projects would include the 2010 Master Plan. Please refer to the TIA for additional detail.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

759

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 150 Table IV.G-1: Land Use Assumptions for Project Site under Existing and Cumulative No Project Conditions
Scenario
Location Land Use Type
Existing Land Uses a
(square feet)
Cumulative
(Approved and Future
Probable Land Uses)
(square feet)
General Office 295,717 755,048
South Campus Laboratory 468,018 445,432
Total 763,735 1,200,480
General Office 163,000 b 705,000 c
North Campus Laboratory – –
Total 163,000 705,000
General Office 458,717 1,358,369
Total Laboratory 468,018 547,111
Total 926,735 1,905,480
Notes:
a There are the land uses allowed under the 2010 Gilead Master Plan. b This existing office space on the G ilead North Campus is 301 Velocity Way. c This includes the 1,000,000 that is entitled for the former EFI site minus the existing 295,000-square-foot 303 Velocity Way building.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

c. Analysis Methods. Evaluation of traffic conditions on local streets involves analysis of intersection operations, as intersections represent the locations where the roadway capacity is most constrained. Intersection and freeway mainline segment operations were evaluated with level of service calculations. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative description of operations ranging from Level A, when the roadway facility has excess capacity and vehicles experience little or no delay, to Level F, where the volume of vehicles exceeds the capacity, resulting in long queues and excessive delays. Typically, LOS E represents “at-capacity” conditions and LOS F represents “over-capacity” conditions. At signalized intersections operating at LOS F, for example, drivers may have to wait through multiple signal cycles to proceed.

All of the study intersections were evaluated using the Traffix software package, which incorporates the methods from Chapters 16 (Signalized Intersections) and 17 (Unsignalized Intersections) of the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The Traffix method can evaluate the operations of intersections that function independently. The intersections in the SR 92/Foster City Boulevard interchange complex – namely the intersections on Chess Drive and on Metro Center Boulevard with Foster City Boulevard and the SR 92 eastbound and westbound ramps – interact with each other as vehicle queues often extend between intersections. These four intersections were evaluated using a VISSIM micro- simulation software package to account for those interactions. Freeway analysis was conducted according to the methodology adopted by the San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG).

Each method is briefly described below.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

760

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1,000 Square Feet
Proposed Project
Existing
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1,000 Square Feet
Existing

NO PROJECT

LAND USES

PLUS PROJECT

LAND USES
Cumulative Existing
Site Entitlements
Proposed Project
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-2
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Comparison of No Project and Plus Project Land UsesSOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG2.ai (11/2/12)

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

761

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 152 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

762

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 153 (1) Signalized Intersections – 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The method from Chapter 16 of the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) bases signalized intersection operations on the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through it. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. This method uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay. Table IV.G-2 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections according to the 2000 HCM method.

(2) Signalized Intersections – Simulations. The Chapter 16 HCM method is appropriate only when intersection operations are not influenced by upstream or downstream intersections. When intersections are congested or when their operations are otherwise influenced by adjacent intersec- tions, the analysis tool recommended by the HCM is simulation. With simulation, detailed models are prepared to evaluate the effects of individual vehicles moving on the roadway system. Average delay values are obtained from the model output and correlated to LOS based on the thresholds presented in Table IV.G-2. A VISSIM simulation model was used for the following four study intersections located within the Foster City Boulevard and SR 92 interchange area:

INT #9. SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive
INT #10. Foster City Boulevard and Chess Drive
INT #15. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Metro Center Boulevard INT #16. Foster City Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard/Triton Drive

Table IV.G-2: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length.
≤ 10
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths.
> 10 and ≤ 20
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20 and ≤ 35
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios.

Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35 and ≤ 55
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55 and ≤ 80
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80
Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209.

(3) Unsignalized Intersections. Traffic conditions at the unsignalized study intersections (stop sign-controlled intersections) were evaluated using the method from Chapter 17 of the 2000 HCM. With this method, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled movement or movement that must yield the right-of-way. At four-

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

763

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 154 way stop-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays and corresponding LOS for the entire intersection are reported. At two- way stop-controlled intersections the movement with the highest delay and corresponding LOS is reported. Table IV.G-3 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. Generally, the delay ranges for each LOS are lower than for signalized intersections because drivers expect to have less delay at unsignalized intersections.

Table IV.G-3: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description
Average Control
Delay Per Vehicle
(Seconds)
A Little or no traffic delays ≤ 10
B Short traffic delays > 10 and ≤ 15
C Average traffic delays > 15 and ≤ 25
D Long traffic delays > 25 and ≤ 35
E Very long traffic delays > 35 and ≤ 50
F Extreme traffic delays with in tersection capacity exceeded > 50 Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual – Special Report 209.

(4) Freeway Mainline Operations. Freeway mainline operations were evaluated using the 2000 HCM volume-to-capacity ratio method, per C/CAG guidelines. The level of service description and the maximum volume-to-capacity ratio for each LOS designation are presented in Table IV.G-4.

Table IV.G-4: Freeway Segment LOS Criteria
Level of
Service a Description
Maximum
Volume-to-Capacity
Ratio
A Free flow operations with average operating speeds at, or above, the speed limit. Vehicles are unimpeded in their ability to maneuver.

0.30 B
Free flow operations with average operating speeds at the speed limit.

Ability to maneuver is slightly restricted. Minor incidents cause some local deterioration in operations.

0.50 C
Stable operations with average operating speeds near the speed limit.

Freedom to maneuver is noticeably restricted. Minor incidents cause substantial local deterioration in service.

0.71 D Speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows. Freedom to maneuver is more noticeably restricted. Minor incidents create queuing.

0.89 E
Operations at capacity. Vehicle spacing causes little room to maneuver but speeds exceed 50 miles per hour (mph). Any disruption to the traffic stream can cause a wave of delay that propagates throughout the upstream traffic flow. Minor incidents cause serious breakdown of service with extensive queuing. Maneuverability is extremely limited.

1.00 F Operations with breakdowns in vehicle flow. Volumes exceed capacity causing bottlenecks and queue formation.

N/A
a Freeway mainline LOS based on a 65 mph free-flow speed.

Source: Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

764

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 155 d. Existing Conditions. This section describes the existing transportation system in the study area encompassing the project site. First, the major components of the transportation system are described.

Then the existing AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes and lane configurations for the study intersections are presented, followed by the operational analysis results (LOS calculations and VISSIM model results). Existing freeway volumes and operations are also presented.

(1) Transit System. Transit service within Foster City is provided by various agencies. San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) provide bus service, while the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) operates shuttle routes connecting to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Caltrain. Figure IV.G-3 illustrates the transit routes in the vicinity of the project site. Descriptions of these routes, the hours of operation, and their service headways (time between arrivals) are described below and summarized in Table IV.G-5.

SamTrans. SamTrans operates Routes 251 and 359 near the project site. Route 251 provides a connection between the Hillsdale Shopping Center and Hillsdale Caltrain station in San Mateo to the Bridgepointe Shopping Center. The nearest Route 251 stop to the project site is located on Bridge- pointe Circle, approximately ¼-mile south of the site. Route 359 provides service from the east Foster City area to BART and Caltrain connections at the Millbrae Intermodal Station (serving BART and Caltrain) during weekday commute hours.

Table IV.G-5: Existing Transit Service
Service Provider Name/Descriptio n Hours of Operation/Headway SamTrans
251 – Caltrain Connection 5:41 a.m. – 8:19 p.m. Weekdays (60 minutes) 8:10 a.m. – 7:14 p.m. Saturdays (60 minutes)
359 – BART/Caltrain Connection 5:28 a.m. – 8:36 a.m. Weekdays (30 minutes) 4:57 p.m. – 8:17 p.m. Weekdays (30 minutes)
AC Transit M – Transbay Service 5:30 a.m. – 8:17 p.m. Weekdays (30 minutes) BART/Caltrain Shuttle North Foster City Shuttle 6:35 a.m. – 8:57 a.m. Weekday (60 minutes) 4:05 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Weekday (50 minutes)
Caltrain Shuttle
Lincoln Centre Shuttle 6:55 a.m. – 9:32 a.m. Weekday (40 minutes) 3:10 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. Weekday (40 minutes)
Mariners Island Area
(PCA) Shuttle
6:56 a.m. – 10:17 a.m. Weekday (45 minutes)
3:08 p.m. – 6:33 p.m. Weekday (45 minutes)
Source: 511 SF Bay at 511.org, and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance at www.commute.org.

AC Transit. AC Transit provides transbay service between Hayward and San Mateo. Line M operates across the San Mateo Bridge (SR 92) and travels on Foster City Boulevard, Chess Drive, Vintage Park Drive, Metro Center Boulevard, and East Hillsdale Boulevard in Foster City. Line M stops closest to the project site are located on Vintage Park Drive, approximately 0.2 mile north and south of Lakeside Drive.

BART/Caltrain Shuttle. The North Foster City Shuttle, which is operated by the Alliance, provides service between the Millbrae Intermodal Station and businesses and office buildings in the north Foster City area during commute hours, Monday through Friday. It stops at two locations along Lakeside Drive within the project site.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

765

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 156 Caltrain Shuttles. The Alliance operates two other shuttle buses during weekday commute hours: Lincoln Centre Shuttle and Mariners Island (PCA) Area Shuttle. The Lincoln Centre Shuttle runs between the Hillsdale Caltrain Station and businesses in the Lincoln Centre area in north Foster City, whereas the Mariners’ Island Area Shuttle provides service between the Hillsdale Caltrain Station and businesses in the San Mateo and Foster City border areas. The Lincoln Centre Area Shuttle stops at two locations along Lakeside Drive and Velocity Way within the project site. The Mariners Island Area Shuttle stops at one location on Vintage Park Drive within the project site.

(2) Bicycle System. Bicycle facilities include Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes. Class I bike paths are paved pathways that are separated from roadways by space or a physical barrier. Class II bike lanes are lanes on the outside edge of roadways that are intended for the exclusive use of bicycles and are designated with special signing and pavement markings. Class III bike routes are roadways designated for bicycle use with only a bike route sign.

The bicycle facilities in Foster City are shown on Figure IV.G-4. Class III bicycle routes are located on Lakeside Drive through the project site and on Vintage Park Drive adjacent to the project site. A Class I bicycle path is provided near and along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, north of the project site. Class II on-street striped bike lanes run along Mariners Island Boulevard, along the western boundary of the project site. Bicycle access to the project site from the San Mateo Caltrain station is provided via the Class I bicycle path along the San Francisco Bay shoreline and from the Hayward Park Caltrain station via the Class II bike lanes along Fashion Island Boulevard.

(3) Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities comprise sidewalks, marked and enhanced crosswalks (at midblock and intersections), curb ramps, median refuges, and pedestrian-scale lighting.

Marked crosswalks and curb ramps are provided along Lakeside Drive within the project site.

Sidewalks are provided along both sides of all streets within the immediate vicinity of the project site, except for East Third Avenue, which only has sidewalks on the south side of the street. Curb ramps are provided at all crosswalks within the immediate vicinity of the project site. Pedestrian signals with pedestrian-activated push buttons are provided at all signalized intersections.

Signalized pedestrian crossings are provided along East Third Avenue to the north of the site at Mariners Island Boulevard and Lakeside Drive. Marked crosswalks are provided on the east and south legs only at both intersections. Medians are present but median curb cuts are not provided for pedestrian refuge.

Marked crosswalks are provided at the unsignalized intersection of Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive, to the east of the site. Medians are present but median curb cuts are not provided for pedestrian refuge. Traffic along Vintage Park Drive is uncontrolled at this location. Marked crosswalks are also provided at the unsignalized intersection of Reef Drive and Lakeside Drive. Traffic along Lakeside Drive is uncontrolled at this location.

No marked crosswalks exist for pedestrians wishing to cross Mariners Island Boulevard at Reef Drive, to the west of the project site. Traffic along Mariners Island Boulevard is uncontrolled at this location.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

766

E
Gull Ave
Crane Ave
Metro Center Blvd
T riton Dr
Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
Ave
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Vintage Park DrMarsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr
san francisco bay

PROJECT
SITE
92CALIFORNIA
FOSTER
CITY
san francisco bay
Legend
Transit Stop
Lincoln Centre Station
North Foster City Caltrain/BART
Mariners Island Caltrain
AC Transit M Line
SamTrans 251
SamTrans 359

EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES
FIGURE 2-1
Not to Scale
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-3
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG3.ai (10/28/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing Transit Routes

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)  
 
767

101

HAYWARD PARK

CALTRAIN

SAN MATEO

CALTRAIN

HILLSDALE

CALTRAIN

PROJECT
SITE
Edgewater Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Marlin Ave
Gull AveCrane Ave
Beach Park Blvd
Metro Center Blvd
T riton Dr Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
A
ve
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
Norfolk St
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr
FOSTER
CITY
san francisco bay

SAN MATEO
101
92CALIFORNIA
82CALIFORNIA
101
92CALIFORNIA
Legend
Class I Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane
Class III Bike Route

EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
FIGURE 2-2
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-4
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG4.ai (10/28/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing Bicycle Facilities

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)  
 
768

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 159 (1) Roadway Network. Regional auto access to the study area is provided by SR 92 and US 101. City streets in the study area are East Third Avenue, Mariners Island Boulevard (City of San Mateo), Vintage Park Drive, Lakeside Drive, Reef Drive, Foster City Boulevard, Chess Drive, Metro Center Boulevard, East Hillsdale Boulevard, Edgewater Boulevard, and Shell Boulevard (Foster City). Speed limits on study roadways in the study area range from 30 miles per hour (mph) on Lakeside Drive to 35 or 45 mph on all other roadways. The speed limit is 55 mph on SR 92 and 65 mph on US 101. On-street parking is not allowed within the study area except where noted.

SR 92 is a freeway that runs in an east-west direction from Half Moon Bay, near the coast, to Hayward on the east side of San Francisco Bay via the San Mateo Bridge. SR 92 has partial interchanges (hook ramps) with Fashion Island Boulevard, Edgewater Boulevard, Metro Center Boulevard, and Chess Drive. It is generally three travel lanes in each direction east of US 101 and two travel lanes in each direction west of US 101, with auxiliary lanes between interchanges. Average daily volumes on SR 92 through the study area range from 139,000 vehicles between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard to 86,000 vehicles at the San Mateo Bridge.

US 101 is a freeway that provides regional north-south access. In the vicinity of Foster City, US 101 generally has four travel lanes in each direction with one or two auxiliary lanes between interchanges.

An auxiliary lane in both directions was recently completed on this freeway segment north of East Third Avenue since the completion of the 2010 Master Plan EIR. Although US 101 does not run directly through Foster City, it provides the primary north-south regional access to the study area via interchanges at SR 92, East Hillsdale Boulevard, and East Third Avenue in the City of San Mateo.

Average daily traffic volumes on US 101 through the study area range from 225,000 vehicles at East Hillsdale Avenue to 250,000 vehicles north of SR 92.

East Third Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway that runs in an east-west direction along the northern San Francisco Bay shoreline north of SR 92. It has a full access interchange with US 101 in the City of San Mateo.

Mariners Island Boulevard (City of San Mateo) is a four-lane divided roadway that extends from East Third Avenue in the north to SR 92, where it becomes Edgewater Boulevard. Access to east- bound SR 92 is provided at the intersection of the Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard/ SR 92 ramps. On-street parking is provided along Mariners Island Boulevard adjacent to the project site.

Vintage Park Drive extends from Foster City Boulevard in the north to Metro Center Boulevard just past SR 92 in the south. It is a four-lane divided roadway.

Lakeside Drive is a primarily three-lane roadway with a center two-way left-turn lane along most of the roadway length that runs generally in a north-south direction through the center of the project site.

It runs southeast from East Third Avenue and ends at Vintage Park Drive. Lakeside Drive between Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive is privately owned.

Reef Drive is a two-lane roadway that runs east-west and connects Lakeside Drive to Mariners Island Boulevard. This roadway provides access to the project site via a side-street stop controlled intersec- tion with Mariners Island Boulevard. Reef Drive between Mariners Island Boulevard to Lakeside Drive is privately owned.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

769

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 160 Foster City Boulevard is a four- to six-lane arterial that extends from East Third Avenue, across SR 92, to Beach Park Boulevard. It is a major north-south arterial in Foster City. On-street parking is allowed along northbound Foster City Boulevard between Bounty Drive and approximately 450 feet south of East Hillsdale Boulevard.

Chess Drive extends eastward from Bridgepointe Parkway past Foster City Boulevard and then curves around to the north and west to intersect with Foster City Boulevard at Vintage Park Drive.

Access to westbound SR 92 is provided via hook ramps just west of Foster City Boulevard. Chess Drive is four lanes wide west of Foster City Boulevard and two lanes wide to the east. On-street parking is allowed along Chess Drive to the east of Hatch Drive.

Bridgepointe Parkway is a four-lane, east-west roadway that extends from Chess Drive to Mariners Island Boulevard, where it becomes Fashion Island Boulevard in the City of San Mateo. Access to westbound SR 92 is provided via hook ramps just west of Bridgepointe Parkway. Fashion Island Boulevard has a full access interchange with US 101.

Metro Center Boulevard is a four-lane, east-west roadway that runs parallel to SR 92 to the south and extends between Edgewater Boulevard and Foster City Boulevard where it becomes Triton Drive.

Access to eastbound SR 92 is provided by hook ramps just west of Foster City Boulevard.

East Hillsdale Boulevard is a four- to six-lane divided arterial that runs in an east-west direction to the south of SR 92. It has a full access interchange with US 101 in the City of San Mateo.

Edgewater Boulevard is the continuation of Mariners Island Boulevard south of SR 92. It is four lanes wide with on-street parking south of East Hillsdale Boulevard.

Shell Boulevard is a four-lane roadway that runs generally in a north-south direction. It extends southward from Metro Center Boulevard, providing parallel access to Foster City Boulevard and Edgewater Boulevard. On-street parking is allowed on southbound Shell Boulevard between Bounty Drive and Civic Center Drive.

(2) Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations. Intersection turning move- ment counts were conducted at the study intersections during the morning and evening peak periods (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) in March 2012. These counts are shown in Appendix B of the TIA. The counts were conducted on non-holiday weekdays, when local area schools were in normal session. The count results were compared to the results of counts used for the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis conducted in April 2008. Generally, the 2012 counts were similar to the 2008 counts.

At the SR 92/Foster City Boulevard interchange, the AM and PM peak-hour counts were up to 16 percent lower in 2012, presumably as a result of sluggish economic conditions. Other causes for the lower volumes could be changes in travel behavior caused by increased pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mode shares due to personal preference and increased use of transportation demand management programs being put in place by large employers such as Gilead Sciences.

For analysis purposes, some minor adjustments were made at the Foster City Boulevard/SR 92 interchange volumes such that peak-hour volumes balance between study intersections. This resulted in turning movement volumes that were either the same as the counts or slightly higher. For example, 23 vehicles were added to the eastbound through movement at the SR 92 Westbound Ramps and

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

770

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 161 Chess Drive intersection during the PM peak hour. This balanced the eastbound traffic volumes along Chess Drive between the SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Foster City Boulevard. Therefore, the result- ing intersection volumes used in the analysis are slightly more conservative than the actual roadway counts. Intersection lane configurations and traffic control devices (traffic signals or stop signs) were observed during field visits. The AM and PM peak-hour intersection turning movement volumes, lane configurations, and traffic control devices are presented on Figure IV.G-5.

(3) Intersection Operations. The intersection LOS analysis results are presented in Table IV.G-6. The LOS analysis results for the four intersections near the SR 92/Foster City Boulevard interchange are based on simulation results from the VISSIM microsimulation model (Intersections 9, 10, 15, and 16). VISSIM captures the effect of vehicles queuing between intersections and the effect the queue spillback has on upstream intersections. Therefore, the VISSIM results for these four intersections are more accurate than the HCM method for isolated intersections, and also tend to be more cautious (i.e., congestion levels would tend to be over-estimated rather than under-estimated).

The remaining study intersections were analyzed as isolated intersections based on the HCM method using the Traffix analysis software.

Table IV.G-6: Existing Intersection LOS Results

AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Intersection Control Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

1. Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue b Signal 30 C 27 C

2. Mariners Island Boulevard and East Third Avenue Signal 10 B 13 B

3. Lakeside Drive and East Third Avenue Signal 4 A 11 B

4. Marsh Drive and East Third Avenue Signal 1 A 7 A

5. Foster City Boulevard and East Third Avenue Signal 5 A 7 A

6. Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive/
Chess Drive Signal 10 B 16 B

7. Baker Way/SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Fashion Island
Boulevard/Bridgepointe Parkway b Signal 17 B 20 C

8. Vintage Park Drive and Chess Drive Signal 25 C 38 D

9. SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive c Signal 11 B 21 C

10. Foster City Boulevard and Chess Drive c Signal 17 B 18 B

11. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Edgewater Boulevard/
Mariners Island Boulevard Signal 16 B 18 B

12. Edgewater Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 16 B 17 B

13. Vintage Park Drive and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 20 B 21 C

14. Shell Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 17 B 23 C

15. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Metro Center Boulevardc Signal 15 B 19 B

16. Foster City Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard/
Triton Drive
c Signal 22 C 18 B

17. Norfolk Street and East Hillsdale Boulevard b Signal 25 C 30 C

18. Altair Avenue and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 17 B 9 A

19. Edgewater Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 26 C 31 C

20. Shell Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 20 C 22 C

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

771

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 162 Table IV.G-6: Existing Intersection LOS Results

AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Intersection Control Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

21. Foster City Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 26 C 22 C

22. Mariners Island Boulevard and Fashion Island Boulevard b Signal 28 C 32 C

23. Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive b SSS d 13 B 11 B

24. Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue AWS e 23 C 13 B a For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weighted average for all movements in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst-operating approach delay.
b Intersection in San Mateo
c Intersection analyzed using the VISSIM microsimulation model. d SSS = Side-street stop
e AWS = All-way stop
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

The LOS results presented in Table IV.G-6 show that all of the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS D or better (based on the locally accepted significance criteria, as shown in Table IV.G-7). These LOS results are better than those presented in the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis due to the recent changes in traffic volumes discussed previously. The LOS calcula- tions for the isolated intersection analysis are included in Appendix C of the TIA. The LOS calcula- tions for the VISSIM simulation model are included in Appendix D of the TIA.

Table IV.G-7: Locally Acceptable LOS Criteria
Jurisdiction Facility Type Worst Acceptable LOS
Maximum Acceptable
Average Vehicular Delay
or V/C Ratio
City of Foster City Signalized Intersections LOS D a 55 seconds/vehicle b City of Foster City Unsignalized Intersections LOS D 35 seconds/vehicle b City of San Mateo Signalized Intersections Mid-Range LOS D 45 seconds/vehicle b San Mateo C/CAG Freeway Segments LOS E c V/C = 1.00
a The Foster City General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policy LUC-50 states that it will be necessary to accept LOS E or F at the following intersections: Chess Drive/SR 92 Ramps, Foster City Boulevard/Triton Boulevard/Metro Center Boulevard, and East Hillsdale Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard. b Based on 2000 Highway Ca pacity Manual (HCM).
c LOS F is considered acceptable on US 101 north of SR 92 to Peninsula Avenue due to existing congestion levels.

Sources: City of Foster City, 1993. General Plan; City of San Mateo, 2010. General Plan.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

772

1 7
629 (465)
151 (112)
66 (55)
TZW223 (314)
801 (425)
384 (660)
THHW

NORFOLK ST
EAST 3RD AVE
122 (98)
155 (103)
88 (95)
ZW
98 (74)960 (847)70 (83)THHU
2 3
377 (304)
59 (21)
2 (47)
6 (9)
47 ((7
753 (417)7 (2)4((
4 8
1 (1)
4 (39)
3 (16),
20 (13)173 (237)788 (983)4:5
5 334 (58)
3 (3)
584 (247)
T:7
84 (311)
169 (883)
:77
9 SR 92 WB RAMPS

CHESS DR
58 (311)
317 (532)
2 (8)TH(7
13 (19)
9 (6)
18 (201)
14 (16)
247 (578)
67 (34)
TH(W
188 (36)
975 (260)
20 (10)
4(5
4(7
22 (33)7 (14) 3 (21)45
4 (10)57 (141)57 (90)45

FOSTER CITY BL VD

CHESS DR

VINTAGE PARK DR
6 866 (781)
905 (288)
233 (125)
44(5
230 (52)
40 (25)
401 (497)
4:7
10 FOSTER CITY BL VD

CHESS DR
683 (456)
2 (3)
836 (658)
4:77
14 (6)
6 (0)
7 (6)
:763 (195)
291 (481)
3 (7)
4((7
79 (230)707 (844)7 (21)4((7
11 SR 92 EB RAMPS

EDGEWATER BL VD
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
EAST 3RD AVE
19 20 21 22 23
312 (334)
1 (16)
15 (17)
TZW4 (18)
599 (293)
257 (183)
THHW

MARINERS ISL BL VD
EAST 3RD AVE
0 (11)
0 (11)
0 (11)
Z5
3 (5) 701 (581)6 (21)THU
11 (140)
1 (0)
6 (23)
ZW2 (5)
447 (283)
166 (24)
THHW

LAKESIDE DR

MARSH DR
EAST 3RD AVE
3 (4)
0 (1)
4 (5)
,
6 (1)880 (443)23 (5)THU
91 (17)
303 (277)
794 (330)
257 (32)
447
((7
9 (116)44 (260)4((
EAST 3RD AVE

FOSTER CITY BL VD
269 (132)
36 (9)
30 (41)
ZU27 (43)
518 (625)
423 (568)
THUW
BAKER WAY SR 92 WB RAMPS

BRIDGEPOINTE PKWY
17 (28)
44 (157)
12 (11)
4(5
1 (0)222 (408)143 (589)TTHU
106 (246)
281 (106)
149 (722)
4((731 (9)
103 (296)
72 (172)
THU

VINTAGE PARK DR

CHESS DR
16 (68)
39 (132)
11 (184)
4(5
97 (11) 219 (219)196 (31)THU
3 (126)
411 (580)
690 (47)
TTH(7
6 (194)
663 (948)
293 (20)
THHHW24 (269)
10 (16)
9 (305)
ZW
88 (1)1 (11)91 (6)Z7

EDGEWATER BL VD

METRO CTR BL VD
16 (29)
67 (323)
11 (93)
THU137 (200)
268 (325)
116 (56)
THU

VINTAGE PARK DR

METRO CTR BL VD
90 (122)
140 (85)
70 (137)
4(W
334 (550)187 (183)142 (59)THHW
280 (286)
3 (48)
97 (210)
THW2 (16)
99 (396)
50 (207)
THU

SHELL BL VD

METRO CTR BL VD
2 (76)
6 (47)
3 (60)
4U
14 (123)507 (140)287 (268)TTHHW
10 (17)
6 (8)
18 (29)
:W79 (377)
153 (333)
23 (19)
44(5
SF 92 EB RAMPS

METRO CTR BL VD
598 (448)
67 (35)
1,116 (959)
4:77
156 (513)237 (141)43 (37)4HHW
145 (122)
1,033 (545)
53 (70)
THHU438 (335)
258 (321)
591 (665)
TTHWW

FOSTER CITY BL VD
TRITON

METRO CTR BL VD
234 (467)
423 (524)
118 (128)
TH(HW
533 (314) 57 (102)47 (72)TUW
467 (436)
74 (101)
58 (113)
445330 (394)
1,148 (1,686)
242 (509)
44((57

NORFOLK ST

E HILLSDALE BL VD
284 (253)
74 (91)
49 (69)
T5W
82 (96)1,826 (1,380)66 (152)4((5
443 (178)
10 (2)
159 (39)
TL17 (42)
1,290 (1,657)
74 (267)
THHU

ALTAIR AVE

E HILLSDALE BL VD
8 (18)
0 (3)
22 (4)
:W
53 (12)1,207 (1,450)54 (54)4((5
450 (351)
622 (312)
110 (409)
44(5553 (341)
740 (865)
162 (394)
44(((7

EDGEWATER BL VD

E HILLSDALE BL VD
105 (279)
251 (762)
138 (176)
4T((W
179 (124)759 (887)119 (239)THHHW
350 (329)
255 (175)
175 (135)
44(7121 (87)
548 (665)
144 (369)
TH(7

SHELL BL VD

E HILLSDALE BL VD
45 (91)
103 (328)
37 (75)
4((W
66 (55)785 (549)58 (121)THHW
367 (150)
718 (390)
68 (30)
44((5257 (198)
290 (327)
240 (336)
4((7

FOSTER CITY BL VD

E HILLSDALE BL VD
187 (203)
405 (741)
218 (339)
44((W
178 (100)446 (208)65 (75)THHW
4 (7)
257 (234)
166 (13)
TH(78 (2)
1 (2)
9 (3)
,

MARINERS ISL BL VD

REEF DR
2 (3)
253 (199)
97 (8)
4((W
22 (135) 0 (1)15 (96)T5
24 42 (27)
321 (84)
14 (10)
THU111 (100)
97 (93)
25 (30)
TU

FOSTER CITY BL VD

MARLIN AVE
73 (84)
115 (176)
175 (299)
4(U
305 (136) 80 (57)13 (8)L
282 (252)
486 (226)
632 (720)
4(5782 (94)
251 (418)
154 (338)
TH(7

MARINERS ISL BL VD

FASHION ISL BL VD
139 (125)
73 (129)
49 (70)
4(5
16 (22)364 (338)118 (196)T4HU

EXISTING INTERSECTION PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES,

LANE CONFIGURATIONS, AND TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
FIGURE 2-3
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux
LEGEND AM (PM)XX (YY): Signalized Intersection
Legend XX (YY): AM (PM) Signalized Intersection FIGURE IV.G-5
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG5.ai (12/11/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing Intersection Peak-Hour Volumes,
Lane Configurations, and Traffic Control Devices

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)  
 
773

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 164 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

774

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 165 (4) Freeway Volumes and Operations. Manual freeway counts were conducted at five freeway segments (Segments A, B, C, D, and G as shown in Figure IV.G-1) during the morning and evening peak periods in March and May 2012. Volumes on the other segments (Segments E and F) were developed by adding the on-ramp volumes and subtracting the off-ramp volumes. The resulting volumes were converted to Passenger Car Equivalents, based on California Department of Transpor- tation (Caltrans) data showing that 3.5 percent of the traffic on US 101 and 4.5 percent of the traffic on SR 92 consist of trucks and other heavy vehicles. The resulting traffic volumes and freeway analysis results are presented in Table IV.G-8. The freeway operations vary depending on the peak hour, direction, and segment, ranging from LOS B to LOS E. No segments on SR 92 or US 101 currently exceed their Congestion Management Program (CMP) LOS threshold.

Existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) volumes for the study freeway segments were also collected from the 2010 Traffic Volumes on the California State Highway System and are shown in Table E-1 in Appendix E of the TIA.

Table IV.G-8: Existing Freeway Segment LOS Results
Intersection

CMP LOS
Standard
Peak
Hour Direction Volume a LOS
A. US 101, north of East Third Avenue b F
AM Northbound 9,454 E
Southbound 8,403 D
PM Northbound 8,845 D
Southbound 8,391 D
B. US 101, between East Third Avenue and
SR 92 F
AM Northbound 9,049 D
Southbound 8,608 D
PM Northbound 9,258 E
Southbound 8,604 D
C. US 101, north of East Hillsdale Boulevard E
AM Northbound 8,166 D
Southbound 7,344 C
PM Northbound 8,182 D
Southbound 7,487 D
D. US 101, south of East Hillsdale Boulevard E
AM Northbound 7,592 D
Southbound 9,013 D
PM Northbound 8,951 D
Southbound 8,759 D
E. SR 92, between US 101 and Mariners
Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 5,634 D
Westbound 5,930 D
PM Eastbound 6,400 E
Westbound 5,658 C
F. SR 92, Mariners Island Boulevard/
Edgewater Boulevard and Foster City
Boulevard
E
AM Eastbound 4,199 C
Westbound 5,643 C
PM Eastbound 5,676 C
Westbound 4,475 C
G. SR 92, east of Foster City Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 2,590 B
Westbound 5,601 D
PM Eastbound 5,108 D
Westbound 2,806 B
a Volumes presented are passenger-car equivalents.
b An auxiliary lane in both directions has been complete d on this freeway segment since the 2010 Gilead Sciences Master Plan EIR.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

775

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 166 e. Regulatory Context. Applicable State and local laws, regulations, and orders that pertain to project-related transportation issues are presented below.

(1) California Department of Transportation. Caltrans is responsible for the maintenance and operation of State routes and highways. In Foster City, Caltrans’ facilities include SR 92 and US 101. Caltrans maintains a volume monitoring program and reviews local agency planning documents (such as EIRs) to assist in its forecasting of future volumes and congestion points. The Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impacts Studies (December 2002) published by Caltrans is intended to provide a consistent basis for evaluating traffic impacts to State facilities. The City recognizes that “Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target LOS at the transition between LOS ‘C’ and LOS ‘D’ on State highway facilities”; however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. In addition, Caltrans states that for existing State highway facilities operating at less than the target LOS, the existing LOS should be maintained.

(2) Metropolitan Transportation Commission.The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the transportation planning, coordinating, and financing agency for the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area (Bay Area). It is responsible for developing the regional transporta- tion plan and prioritizing regional transportation projects for State and federal funding.

(3) City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County.The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County is the County’s Congestion Management Agency (CMA). It prepares a CMP, which identifies improvements and strategies to relieve conges- tion on regional transportation facilities, and sets funding priorities. The CMP is required to be consistent with the MTC planning process and projects for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). C/CAG also provides guidelines for the analysis of land use projects and their impacts to the designated CMP roadway system.

The San Mateo County CMP roadway system comprises 53 roadway segments and 16 intersections.

The CMP facilities in Foster City include US 101 and SR 92. The LOS Standards for these facilities vary by roadway segment:
 SR 92 from US 101 to Alameda County Line: LOS E
 US 101 from Peninsula Avenue to SR 92: LOS F
 US 101 from SR 92 to Whipple Road: LOS E

(4) San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) was formed in 1988. The TA administers the proceeds from Measure A, the voter approved half-cent sales tax, to fund a variety of transportation-related projects and programs. TA projects in the vicinity of Foster City include auxiliary lanes on US 101.

(5) City of Foster City General Plan. The Foster City General Plan currently in place was adopted in 1993. The applicable circulation goals, policies, and programs related to transportation impacts are:

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

776

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 167 Goals

LUC-F Provide Adequate Services and Facilities. Ensure that new and existing developments can be ade- quately served by municipal services and facilities.

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.

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 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.

LUC-K Provide Adequate Parking. Ensure that adequate off-street parking is incorporated into modified projects and designed for safe and effective circulation.

Policies

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 "F" at the Chess Drive/SR 92 Ramps, the Foster City Boulevard/Metro Center Boule- vard/Triton Drive, and the East Hillsdale Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard intersections, through the following means:
a. Traffic Systems Management (TSM).
b. Street maintenance.
c. Capital Improvement Program and 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.

LUC-51 Improvements to Existing Streets. The City will maintain and improve the existing system of major and collector streets, including:
a. East Hillsdale Boulevard, Edgewater Boulevard, Foster City Boulevard, Beach Park Boulevard, East Third Avenue (within the City limits), Metro Center Boulevard, Shell Boulevard, Chess Drive, and Vintage Park shall be maintained as arterial (major) streets. b. Collector streets, currently shown on Map GP-5, Street Network Map, shall be maintained as such.

LUC-52 Traffic Systems Management (TSM). The City will participate in an ongoing joint effort with several neighboring cities to adopt and enforce a Traffic Systems Management (TSM) program. The program shall require the participation of all future and existing commercial and industrial employers.

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.

LUC-54 Coordination with SamTrans. The City shall work with SamTrans in defining new routes and improving the public transit and transportation system.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

777

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 168 LUC-55 Access to New Commercial and Industrial Projects. New commercial and industrial developments shall be designed so that, wherever necessary and possible, entrance to the projects can be gained by way of left-or right-turn only lanes. Only the minimum number of entrance or exit points shall be allowed as are needed to ensure safe and efficient internal traffic flow and to reduce through traffic delays on public roads serving the project.

LUC 56 Private Streets and Public Loop or Cul-de-Sac Streets. The City will enforce design standards for private streets and public loop or cul-de-sac streets to ensure that they meet minimum requirements for two-way traffic, parking, and emergency access. Private streets and public loop or cul-de-sac streets may be approved with narrower than standard widths, provided that emergency access and parking can be safely accommodated.

They are not intended to provide curb-side parking, and the roads are designed to serve only those residences on that street or within that development.

LUC-58 Off-Street Parking Requirements. The City shall maintain off-street parking requirements based on use permits of record, the historical parking patterns of residential and non-residential projects, and related information developed by the Urban Land Institute, Institute of Transportation Engineers, or other reliable sources.

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 with bicycle parking spaces provided, per Chapter 17.62 of the Municipal Code.

LUC-60 Parking and Internal Circulation in Project Design. The City shall continue to incorporate parking and internal circulation design into its overall review of project design. The review shall include compliance with City off-street parking design standards and ratios.

LUC-61 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City will continue to maintain a five-year Capital Improve- ment Program (CIP), which supports policies in the General Plan to maintain, improve, or expand City-wide facilities and infrastructure.

LUC-65 Adequacy of Public Infrastructure and Services. New projects that require construction or expansion of public improvements shall pay their pro rata fair share of the costs necessary to improve or expand infrastruc- ture necessary to serve them, including streets and street improvements, parks, water storage tanks, sewer and water service, and other public services. The City has established several assessment districts to pay for needed municipal improvements. Facilities benefiting a specific development must be provided by the developer of that project.

Circulation Programs

LUC-n Implementation of Traffic Management Programs. The City has recently adopted a Traffic Systems Management (TSM) Ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is to assure that all existing and future employers participate in mitigating traffic problems. The objective of the ordinance is to achieve, within 4 years, a mini- mum TSM objective of 25% employee participation rate in alternatives to single occupant vehicles commuting during peak traffic hours. The ordinance requires participation at several different levels, depending on the number of employees:
a. Every employer must submit annually to the TSM Administrator an Annual Transportation Survey providing employee commute information.
b. Employers with 25 or more employees are required to prepare and implement a TSM information program describing commuting options available to their employees.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

778

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 169 c. Every employer with 100 or more employees must prepare and implement a TSM Program which designates a workplace TSM Coordinator and includes strategies to increase employee participation in commute alternatives.

LUC-o Periodically Monitor Traffic Conditions. The City will periodically monitor traffic conditions on arterial and selected collector streets to determine levels of service and safety conditions. Traffic counts will be updated regularly at all major street intersections to determine levels of service, safety conditions, and if additional traffic control measures are warranted or if changes in the sequence of traffic signal cycles are necessary.

LUC-p Bicycle Route and Pedestrian Path Master Plan and Improvement Program. The City shall implement the Foster City Bikeway System Report and improve pedestrian circulation. Major streets with sufficient width that are part of the system will have separate bicycle lanes. Streets that are part of the system but are not wide enough for separate bicycle lanes will have posted “bicycle route” signs at regular intervals. The purpose of the bicycle route system is to connect major work, shopping, school, civic, and recreational destinations throughout the City, while avoiding as many of the most heavily used street segments as possible.

LUC-q Designation of New Bus Routes. The City will designate new bus routes in consultation with SamTrans, provide curbside space for bus stops, and require major commercial/industrial developments along bus routes to accommodate buses in their circulation plans. Bus turnouts or shelters will also be required with new develop- ment.

LUC-t Updating of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City will update the five-year CIP at least every year in conjunction with the Annual Report on the General Plan to identify street improvements and maintenance that will be necessary to achieve goals for traffic levels of service and other needs. The plan shall identify funding sources, including property taxes, special taxes, City share of gasoline and sales taxes, state funds, federal funds, developer fees, assessment districts, and private maintenance agreements. Additionally, the five-year CIP will budget for traffic improvements identified in the General Plan.

(6) City of San Mateo 2030 General Plan.The City of San Mateo completed the 2030 General Plan Update in 2010. The applicable circulation goals and policies related to transportation impacts are:

Goals

Goal 2 Maintain a street and highway system which accommodates future growth while maintaining acceptable levels of service.

Policies

C 2.1 Acceptable Levels of Service. Maintain a Level of Service no worse than mid LOS D, average delay of

45.0 seconds, as the acceptable Level of Service for all intersections within the City.

C 2.7 Exceeding the Acceptable Level of Service. In addition to paying the transportation impact fee, a development project may be required to fund off-site circulation improvements which are needed as a result of project generated traffic, if:
a. The level of service at the intersection drops below mid-level LOS D (average delay of more than 45 seconds) when the project traffic is added, and
b. An intersection that operates below its level of service standard under the base year conditions experiences an increase in delay of four or more seconds, and c. The needed improvement of the intersection(s) is not funded in the applicable five-year City Capital Improvement Program from the date of application approval.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

779

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 170 (7) Applicable LOS Criteria. Based on the State and local laws, regulations, and ordinances presented above, acceptable LOS thresholds were determined for the purpose of this study. As shown in Table IV.G-7, in Foster City, acceptable intersection operations are defined as LOS D or better. In San Mateo, acceptable operations are defined as mid-range LOS D (defined as an average of 45 seconds of delay per vehicle) or better. C/CAG developed thresholds for acceptable freeway oper- ations as part of its CMP. The CMP threshold for most of the freeway segments in the study area is LOS E. The threshold for US 101 north of SR 92 to Peninsula Avenue is LOS F due to pre-existing congestion levels.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section evaluates the transportation-related impacts of the proposed project. Traffic impacts are evaluated under existing and cumulative conditions.

a. Trip Generation Estimates. Trip estimates for the proposed project were developed by applying site-specific trip generation rates, as calculated by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., based on surveys. Fehr & Peers reviewed these rates and found them to be similar to surveyed rates from Genentech’s South San Francisco campus and likely more reflective of the development since the conventional trip generation resource, the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Genera- tion, does not have rates for a directly comparable use. Table IV.G-9 compares the trip rates presented in ITE Trip Generation to the site-specific rates collected at Genentech and the project site. The closest ITE Category, Land Use 760 – Research and Development Center, is used as a proxy for purposes of this comparison.

Table IV.G-9: Trip Generation Rate Comparison
ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use Code In Out Total In Out Total
ITE Rates
General Office 710 1.36 0.19 1.55 0.25 1.24 1.49
R&D Center a,b 760 1.01 0.21 1.22 0.16 0.91 1.07
Genentech Site-Specific Rates
General Office -- 0.83 0.12 0.95 0.12 0.60 0.72
R&D Center -- 0.49 0.10 0.59 0.07 0.38 0.45
Manufacturing/Warehousing -- 0.42 0.06 0.48 0.05 0.40 0.45 Gilead Sciences Site-Specific Rates
General Office -- 1.13 0.16 1.28 0.18 1.11 1.29
Laboratory -- 0.24 0.09 0.33 0.13 0.34 0.47
Notes:
a R&D = Research and Development
b There is no laboratory land use in the ITE Trip Generation manual.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

Vehicle trip generation estimate summaries for the proposed project are shown in Table IV.G-10. The proposed project at buildout is anticipated to generate 24,615 daily trips, including 2,293 AM peak- hour trips, and 2,425 PM peak-hour trips. These totals take account of existing uses on the site that are already generating trips. The new vehicle trips generated by the proposed project were calculated for each of the Plus Project scenarios as follows:

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

780

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 171  Existing Plus Project: Traffic generated by existing uses on the site were subtracted from traffic generated by proposed uses. The new trips shown in Table IV.G-10 are those that would be added to the roadway network as a result of the proposed project in addition to the trips generated by existing uses on the project site.  Cumulative Plus Project: Traffic generated by existing entitled land uses at the South Campus and North Campus was subtracted from traffic generated by proposed uses. The resulting new project trips shown in Table IV.G-10 would be added to the roadway network as a result of the proposed project in addition to the trips generated by the approved and future probable development included under Cumulative Conditions.

Under Existing Conditions, the proposed project is expected to add 15,768 new daily trips, including 1,548 AM peak-hour trips, and 1,614 PM peak-hour trips to the existing traffic on surrounding roadways. Under Cumulative Conditions, the proposed project is expected to add 5,222 new daily trips, 360 AM peak-hour trips, and 415 PM peak-hour trips. The detailed calculation of these trip estimates is presented in Appendix F of the TIA.

Table IV.G-10: Trip Generation Summary – Proposed Project Land Use Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Scenario Type Amount a Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed
Project
General Office 1,524,000 16,779 1,722 244 1,966 274 1,692 1,966 Laboratory 953,000 7,729 229 86 315 124 324 448
MSB b/
Warehouse
23,600 107 10 2 12 3 8 11
Proposed
Sub-Total
2,500,600 24,615 1,961 332 2,293 401 2,024 2,425
Existing No
Project
General Office 458,717 5,051 518 73 591 82 509 591
Laboratory 468,018 3,796 112 42 154 61 159 220
No Project
Sub-Total
926,735 -8,847 -630 -115 -745 -143 -668 -811
New Trips - Existing Plus Project Conditions 15,768 1,331 217 1,548 258 1,356 1,614 Cumulative
No Project
General Office 1,358,369 14,956 1,535 218 1,753 245 1,508 1,753 Laboratory 547,111 4,437 131 49 180 71 186 257
No Project
Sub-Total
1,905,480 -19,393 -1,666 -267 -1,933 -316 -1,694 -2,010 New Trips - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 5,222 295 65 360 85 330 415 a Amount of space expressed in square feet.
b MSB = Material Storage Building. Note also that these traffic forecasts do not include trips generated by 303 Velocity Way, which is not part of the project.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

b. Trip Distribution. Trip distribution refers to the directions the trips generated by the project would use to approach and depart the site and the percentage of traffic using each direction. The trip distribution pattern for office and laboratory space in the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis was used for this study. The geographic distribution and trip percentages are presented on Figure IV.G-6.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

781

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 172 c. Trip Assignment. The proposed project was evaluated with the assumption that Lakeside Drive would be closed south of Reef Drive under all “with Project” scenarios. This represents the base case roadway scenario for the traffic analysis and is consistent with the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis and 2010 Master Plan EIR.

The Lakeside Drive closure would cause traffic destined for the northerly parking garage within the project site to access the site from East Third Avenue and traffic destined for the southerly garage to access the site from Vintage Park Drive. It would also prohibit traffic from using Lakeside Drive as a cut-through route between Vintage Park Drive and East Third Avenue. Observations and counts show that the actual volume of traffic using Lakeside Drive as a cut-through route is relatively minor; thus, the closure of Lakeside Drive would have a negligible effect on background traffic circulation. The general effect of the Lakeside Drive closure would be to direct more project-related traffic to the uncongested intersections north of the project site, instead of the congested intersections to the south and east. Please refer to the TIA for an analysis of the effects of the project on traffic levels assuming that Lakeside Drive were to remain open.

Trips generated by the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the trip distribution patterns shown on Figure IV.G-6. The trip assignments used in the evaluation of Existing Plus Project Conditions are presented on Figure IV.G-7. The trip assignments used in the evaluation of Cumulative Plus Project Conditions for the proposed project are presented on Figure A-19 in the appendix of the TIA.

d. Criteria of Significance. The criteria for evaluating the significance of a project’s environ- mental impacts are based on the CEQA Guidelines and applicable standards recognized by Foster City, San Mateo, and C/CAG. For this analysis, transportation impacts are considered significant if the proposed project would:
 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effective- ness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit;  Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards estab- lished by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;  Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;  Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);  Result in inadequate emergency access; or
 Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

782

HAYWARD PARK

CALTRAIN

SAN MATEO

CALTRAIN

HILLSDALE

CALTRAIN
101
92CALIFORNIA
82CALIFORNIA
101
92CALIFORNIA
Edgewater Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Marlin Ave
Gull Ave
Crane Ave
Beach Park Blvd
Metro Center Blvd
T riton Dr Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
Ave
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
Norfolk St
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr
Legend
Project Trip Distribution
%
12 %
2% 2%
4%
7%
20%
20%
3%15%
3%
3%
2%
0% 0%
5%
2%
san francisco bay
FOSTER
CITY

SAN MATEO PROJECT
SITE

TRIP DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 3-1
Not to Scale
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-6
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG6.ai (10/28/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Trip Distribution

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)  
 
783

6 :
8 8<7
6 5 ;
5 9
7 7
(65)
(274)
(101)
16 46
15 56 (13)
14 (56)
25 (9)
(25)8
15 (11)
(74)
(13)
(101)
) 3 7(
1 8 ( 1 2 6 )
56 63
341
::::
8888
<
6 ; 66 5 6 5 6 5 5
9999
77777
(151) 22
9 5 ( 1 6 ) 4 7 ( 2 8 4 ) 7 5 ( 4 7 1 ) 7 8 ( 4 9 5 )
1 9 ( 3 ) 1 1 6 ( 2 0 ) 1 1 ( 7 5 ) 6 ( 4 0 )
(8)
(17)
(19)
8 (57)
(19)
22 (151)2 6 6 ( 4 4 ) 6 3 ( 1 2 )
1 4 ( 9 4 ) 2 7 6 ( 5 6 ) 4 6 5 ( 8 8 ) 4 8 9 ( 9 2 )
39 17
68 8
39 10
77 ( 5 7 )
(115)
(288)
279 (77)
(64)
(12)
(262)
114
109
114
6 :
8 < 7 7<
; ;5
5 9
(208)
(39)
(100)
(39) 172
18 (126)
172
15 31
120 (143)
11 (61)
63 (11)
(26) 15 (100)
102
56 160
(17)
(13)
6 6
:: ::
8 7 8 < 8 7
6 6;
5 55
99 99
7 7
(138)
20 10
(4)
(87)
(187) 29
(8)
(14)
(138)
(69)
1 1 ( 6 7 ) 1 1 ( 6 7 )
51 90
20 96 0 ( 1 2 )
17 113 (22)
66 (13)
9 06 ( 2 2 )
) 1 1 3(
(10)8 (34)
9 (54)
66 (13)
(14)
(4)
(12)
3 (11)
228 (52)
9 70
53 6666
:
8 7< 7 8 < 7 < 7 <8 <
; 5 ; 5 ;;;
5 5
9 (67)
(94)
(54)
(3)
(23)
(75)
(12) 63
(54)
(27)
(35)
(100)
4 26 (5)
5 9
9 11
15 (13)
1 10 (64)
2 13
(83)12
15 3
23 (4)
11 (6)
66 (13)
(18)
(126)
(12)
(14)) 2 4(
53 102
18 92
53 (10)
35 (6)
(17)
(10)
77 84
W
H
T[H
T[[[W
H[W
T[H
T[[[W
H[W
T[H
H[W
T[H
T[[[W T
W
T
H[W
H
T[[[W T[H
H[W
T[H
H[W
T[[[W
H
H
H
H
H
H[W
T H
H
H
T[H
W
H[W
T[H[W T[H
H[W
H[W
T[H
T[[[W T
W
H
T[H[W T
W
H
H
T
T H
H
H[W
T[H
T[[[W
T[[[W
T[H
H
W
T[[[W T
H[W
W
W
T[H[
1 7

NORFOLK ST
EVA DR3 TSAE
2 3 4
8 5
9 WB RAMPSSR 92
RD S
SEH
C

FOSTER CITY BLVD

RD SSEHC
RD
KRAP
EG
ATNI
V
6 10

FOSTER CITY BLVD
RD S
SEH
C
11 SR 92 EB RAMPS
DVL
B RE
TA
WEGD
E
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
EVA DR3 TSAE
19 20 21 22 23

VD MARINERS ISL BL
EVA DR3 TSAE

LAKESIDE DR

MARSH DR
EVA DR3 TSAE
EVA DR3 TSAE

FOSTER CITY BLVD

BAKER WAY
WB RAMPSSR 92
Y
WKP
ETNIO
PEGDI
RB

ARK DRGE PAVINT
RD
SSE
HC

VD TER BLAEDGEW
DVLB
RTC OR
TEM

VINTAGE PARK DR
DVLB R
TC OR
TEM

VD SHELL BL
DVLB
RTC OR
TEM
SF 92 EB RAMPS
DVLB R
TC OR
TEM

FOSTER CITY BLVD
NOTIR
T
DV
LB R
TC OR
TEM

NORFOLK ST
DVLB

ELADSLLIH E

AIR T ALAVE
DVL
B ELAD

SLLIH E

EDGEWATER BLVD
DVLB
ELAD

SLLIH E

SHELL BLVD

DVLB ELA
DSL
LI
H E

FOSTER CITY BLVD

DVLB EL

ADSLLIH E

VD MARINERS ISL BL
RD F
EER
24 FOSTER CITY BLVD
EVA NI
LRAM

VD MARINERS ISL BL
DV
LB
LSI N
OI
HSAF
JECTTRIP ASSIGNMENT – PROPOSED PRO
FIGURE 3-2
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux
LEGEND AM (PM)XX (YY):

AM (PM)Legend XX (YY):

FIGURE IV.G-7
OBER 2012.SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCT
1/2/12)I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG7.ai (1
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Trip Assignment - Proposed Project

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
784

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 175 To evaluate project-level and cumulative impacts at study intersections and freeway segments, the following specific thresholds were used. The proposed project would create a significant traffic impact if, as a result of the addition of project traffic, the project would:
 Cause an intersection operating acceptably without the project to exceed the applicable LOS threshold;
 Increase the average intersection delay by 4 seconds per vehicle or more at an intersection exceeding its LOS threshold without the project (similar to C/CAG requirements);  Cause a freeway segment to exceed its CMP LOS standard; or  Increase the volume of a freeway segment that exceeds the CMP LOS standard without the project by 1 percent or more of the freeway segment’s capacity.

Transit impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
 Disrupt existing transit services or facilities. This includes disruptions caused by proposed driveways on streets used by transit, impacts to transit stops/shelters, and impacts to transit operations from traffic improvements proposed or resulting from the project;  Interfere with planned transit services or facilities;  Create demand for public transit services above the level provided or planned; or  Conflict or create inconsistencies with adopted transit system plans, guidelines, policies, or standards.

Bicycle and pedestrian impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
 Disrupt existing or planned bicycle or pedestrian facilities; or  Create inconsistencies with adopted bicycle or pedestrian system plans, guidelines, or policy standards.

A site access or internal circulation impact would be considered significant if the proposed project would result in any of the following:
 Designs for on-site circulation, access, and parking areas that fail to meet industry standard design guidelines;
 Hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incom- patible uses; or
 Inadequate emergency access.

e. Existing Plus Project Conditions. This chapter presents the results of the intersection and freeway level of service analysis for Existing Plus Project Conditions. Existing conditions form the baseline against which project-related impacts are evaluated.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

785

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 176 (1) Intersection Operations. Existing intersection volumes plus new vehicle trips due to the proposed project are shown on Figure IV.G-8. The LOS results presented in Table IV.G-11 show that all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better with the proposed project. The addition of new vehicle trips due to the project is expected to increase vehicle delay at study intersections directly adjacent to the project site and on roadways such as East Third Avenue or Chess Drive that serve as key connections to US 101 and SR 92. However, these increases in delay would not be considered significant because they would not cause the study intersections to exceed acceptable LOS thresholds.

(2) Freeway Operations. Existing freeway volumes plus new vehicle trips due to the proposed project are shown in Table IV.G-12. Existing daily traffic volumes plus new vehicle trips due to the project on the study freeway segments are shown in Table E-2 of Appendix E of the TIA.

The freeway traffic volumes and analysis results with the proposed project are presented in Table IV.G-12. The freeway operation LOS would vary depending on the peak hour, direction, and segment, ranging from LOS B to LOS E. No segments on SR 92 or US 101 would exceed their CMP LOS threshold with the proposed project.

f. Cumulative Conditions. Cumulative Conditions represent projected conditions in 2030, including traffic estimates for probable future developments and selected roadway system improve- ments. The cumulative traffic volumes also include traffic due to occupancy of vacant buildings and approved but not yet constructed developments. The probable future developments included under Cumulative Conditions are shown in Table IV.G-13. The locations of these developments are shown on Figure IV.G-9.

(1) Cumulative Traffic Volumes. Cumulative Conditions intersection volumes were developed by adding traffic generated by the probable future developments to traffic associated with occupancy of vacant buildings, approved but not yet constructed development, and Existing Condi- tions. Traffic volumes for study freeway segments are based on forecasts from the C/CAG travel demand model and include the traffic projections for approved and pending development projects plus regional growth. This approach is described in further depth in the following sections.

Trip Generation. Trip generation estimates were developed by applying trip generation rates and equations presented in the ITE Trip Generation (8th Edition) to the developments shown in Table IV.G-13. The site-specific trip generation rates for Gilead Sciences were used for the land uses proposed under the 2010 Master Plan (South Campus) and for the 705,000 square feet of office space included in the former EFI entitlements (North Campus). Trips generated by existing uses were subtracted to determine the new trips added to the surrounding roadway system. Trip generation estimates for each development incorporated in the analysis are presented in Tables F-2 and F-3 in the TIA appendix.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

786

666 6
::::::
888888
8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7
6 ; 5 6 5 6 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5
555 5
999999
777777
(98)
(103)
(95)
(11)
(11)
(11)
14 269
(4)
(1)
(5)
0 4
) 1 6(
0 0
0 ) 5 3(
3 122
155
88 98 (74)
(16)
(729)
(34)
8 4 8 ( 4 3 3 ) 9 2 7 ( 7 2 7 ) 7 7 6 ( 1 , 0 5 2 ) 1 , 0 3 8 ( 1 , 3 4 2 ) 67 22 (33)
3 ( 2 1 ) 4 4 ( 2 6 0 ) 2 6 ( 5 ) 1 3 9 ( 2 5 ) 1 7 ( 9 6 ) 7 6 ( 1 2 3 ) 7 ( 1 4 ) 9 ( 1 1 6 )
223 (314)
(465)
(112)
(63)
) 8 1 4( 13 (19)
(53)
(279)
(10)9 ( 6 )
26 (66)
(349)
(32)91 (17)
325 (428)4 3 2 ( 6 8 ) 3 2 0 ( 1 9 5 ) 3 8 4 ( 6 6 0 )
3 9 1 ( 3 9 8 ) 7 2 3 ( 3 3 9 ) 1 , 0 6 4 ( 3 8 1 ) 1 , 2 9 0 ( 5 1 7 ) 50 1
23 70
14 629
151
105
322
1 92
( 2 5 8 )
(0)
(138)
(335)
338 (98)
(398)
(16)
(29)
) 5 2(
(402)
908
257
297
1,089
20 666
:::
888
8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7
6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5
55 999
777
(1)
(39)
(16)
(157)
(11)
(133)
(406)
(285)
) 0 1(
32 85
(28)
20 (13)
26 153 (24)
1 4
3 219 (219)
196 (31)
17 44
12 788 (983)1 5 7 ( 6 4 5 )
173 (237)2 4 7 ( 4 1 7 )
1 0 3 ( 2 9 6 ) ( 6 5 0 )
27 5 2 6
184
(3)
(258)
(246)
(180)
(722)
(71)84 (311)
(984)
(43)
(132)
(9)
(41)
38 (12)
7 2 ( 1 7 2 ) 4 4 1 ( 6 9 4 )
390
3 647
269
36 30
106
622
148
666
:::
888
8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7
6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5
555
999
777
(311)
(740)
(8)
(456)
(3)
(697)
(20)
(1,048)
(233) 862
106 (431)
2 1,008
79 (230)
3 426
58 348
2 ) 0 1 4(
683
1 ( 1 6 ) 8 2 7 ( 9 8 7 ) 5 7 ( 1 4 1 )
1 0 2 ( 3 3 0 ) 7 ( 2 1 ) 5 7 ( 9 0 )
293 (63)
(781)
(314)
(125)
63 (195)
9 ( 1 ) 3 ( 7 ) 4 0 1 ( 4 9 7 )
1 0 ( 1 1 ) 3 0 6 ( 5 8 1 ) 4 0 ( 2 5 )
6 765
349
866
1,065
233
14 6
7 (597)
(139)
(6)
(0)
(6)24 (6)
(47)
666666
::::::
888888
8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7
6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5
555555
999999
777777
(651)
254
433
(145)
(224)
(76)
(47)
(60) 3
(309)
(85)
119
(18)
(3)
(4)
(128)
(253)
(91)
(69)
118
533 (314)
284
(456)
(35)
(973)
(605)
(593)
1 , 2 1 8 ( 1 , 5 1 7 ) 1 , 8 3 7 ( 1 , 4 4 7 ) 5 7 ( 1 0 2 ) 22 53 (12)
1 8 7
74 49
82 (96)
8 0(152)
14 (123)
649
67 1,206
176
2 4 65 6 7 ( 1 5 2 )
54 (54)6 64 7 ( 7 2 ) 4 3 ( 3 7 ) ( 2 6 8 ) 287
140
87 447 (572)
2 6
(183)
142 (59)
1 , 2 1 4 ( 1 , 6 9 9 ) ( 3 2 1 )
85 (399)
(17)
(8)
(29)
528
2 5 81 5 6 ( 3 4 4 )
23 (93)
) 6 1 2(
(296)
(48)
(210)107 (430)
59 (261) 74
(2)
(39)2 6 8 ( 3 2 5 )
(436)
(101)
(113)
17 (42)
(178)1,356 (1,670)
(267)
(349)
(126)
(557)
(70)
330 (394)
16 67
11 2 4 2 ( 5 0 9 ) 5 9 4 ( 6 7 6 ) ( 1 9 )
365 (252)
(29)
(323)
116 (56)
443
10 159
154
1,103
53 467
74 58
333
3 97
10 6
18 666666
::::::
888888
8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7 8 < 7
6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5 6 ; 5
555555
999999
777777
(346)
(856)
(176)
(91)
(382)
(75)
(139)
(57)
(93)
(3)
(274)
(20) 160
(203)
(795)
(366)
(160)
(229)
222
204 (105)
144
112
37 66 (55)
187
414
116
266
138
179 (124)
45 (84)
(176)
(312)
3 6 54 4 6 ( 2 0 8 ) 7 8 5 ( 5 4 9 ) 7 5 9 ( 8 8 7 )
32 (199)
73 115
177
318
8 00 ( 1 )
1 3 ( 8 ) ( 1 7 9 ) 6 5 ( 7 5 ) 5 8 ( 1 2 1 ) 1 1 9 ( 2 3 9 ) 27 88 52
39 (26)
2 264
(344)
118 (196)
619 (354)
(351)
(330)
(109)
121 (87) 111 (100)
(27)
(84)
(10)97 (93)
25 (846)
) 2 8(
(7)
(246)
(27)) 2 1(
) 3 9( 2 4 0 ( 3 3 6 ) 1 4 4 ( 3 6 9 ) 1 6 2 ( 3 9 4 )
2 5 5 ( 4 2 0 ) 2 9 0 ( 3 2 7 ) 5 4 8 ( 6 6 5 ) 7 4 0 ( 8 6 5 ) 367
771
68 282
588
650
450
714
110
350
308
175
(30)
(400)
(30)
117 (100)
(252)
(243)
154 (338)
(329)
(185)
(135)
257 (198)
(150)
4 334
250
42 321
14 T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H
T[[[W T[[[W
H[W
H[W
H[W
T[H[
1 7

NORFOLK ST
EAST 3RD AVE
2 3 4
8 5
9 WB RAMPSSR 92

CHESS DR

VDFOSTER CITY BL

CHESS DR

VINTAGE PARK DR
6 10

VDFOSTER CITY BL

CHESS DR
11 SR 92 EB RAMPS

EDGEWATER BLVD
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
EAST 3RD AVE
19 20 21 22 23

VD MARINERS ISL BL
EAST 3RD AVE

LAKESIDE DR

MARSH DR
EAST 3RD AVE
EAST 3RD AVE

VDFOSTER CITY BL

YABAKER W
WB RAMPSSR 92

BRIDGEPOINTE PKWY

ARK DRGE PAVINT

CHESS DR

VD TER BLAEDGEW

BLMETRO CTR VD

ARK DRGE PAVINT

BLMETRO CTR VD

VD SHELL BL

BLMETRO CTR VD
SF 92 EB RAMPS

BLMETRO CTR VD

VDFOSTER CITY BL
TRITON

BLMETRO CTR VD

NORFOLK ST

E HILLSDALE BLVD

VEAIR AT AL

E HILLSDALE BLVD

VD TER BLAEDGEW

E HILLSDALE BLVD

VD SHELL BL

E HILLSDALE BLVD

VDFOSTER CITY BL

E HILLSDALE BLVD

VD MARINERS ISL BL

REEF DR
24 VDFOSTER CITY BL

MARLIN AVE

VD MARINERS ISL BL

FASHION ISL BLVD

JECTUS PROEXISTING PL
JECTUMES – PROPOSED PROOLINTERSECTION PEAK HOUR V
FIGURE 4-1
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux
LEGEND AM (PM)XX (YY):

AM (PM)Legend XX (YY):

FIGURE IV.G-8
OBER 2012.SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCT
1/2/12)I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG8.ai (1
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Existing Plus Project
Intersection Peak Hour Volumes

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
787

Edgewater Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Marlin Ave
Gull Ave
Crane Ave
Beach Park Blvd
Met
ro Center Blvd
T riton Dr Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
A
ve
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
Norfolk St
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr
san francisco bay
101
92CALIFORNIA
82CALIFORNIA
101
92CALIFORNIA
FOSTER
CITY

SAN MATEO
Legend
Study Intersection
Study Freeway Segment
Cumulative Projects
#
B
#
#
1 2
23 22
11 12
13 14
15 16
21 20
24 19
18 17
3 4 5
6 10
9 8
7 A
B
C
E
F
G
D
ntaggeParkDr
LaL kek side Dr
r
3 3 4 ng
r
DD
2 3
3 4 ngggg
r
DD
3 3 4

PROJECT
SITE 8
11 9
10 13
12 7

HAYWARD PARK

CALTRAIN

SAN MATEO

CALTRAIN

HILLSDALE

CALTRAIN

PROBABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 6-1
Not to Scale
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-9
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG9.ai (11/1/12)
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Probable Future Development Locations

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
788

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 179 Table IV.G-11: Existing Plus Pr oject Intersection LOS Results Existing Existing Plus Proposed Project

AM PM AM PM
Intersection Control Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

1. Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue b Signal 30 C 27 C 36 D 31 C

2. Mariners Island Boulevard and East Third Avenue Signal 10 B d 13 B < 10 A d 14 B

3. Lakeside Drive and East Third Avenue Signal < 10 A 11 B < 10 A 16 B

4. Marsh Drive and East Third Avenue Signal < 10 A < 10 A < 10 A 24 C

5. Foster City Boulevard and East Third Avenue Signal < 10 A < 10 A < 10 A < 10 A

6. Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive/Chess Drive Signal 10 B 16 B 11 B 17 B

7. Baker Way/SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Fashion Island
Boulevard/Bridgepointe Parkway b Signal 17 B 20 C 17 B 22 C

8. Vintage Park Drive and Chess Drive Signal 25 C 38 D 26 C 44 D

9. SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive c Signal 11 B 21 C 18 B 25 C

10. Foster City Boulevard and Chess Drive c Signal 17 B 18 B 18 B 21 C

11. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Edgewater Boulevard/Mariners Island Boulevard Signal 16 B 18 B 18 B 19 B

12. Edgewater Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 16 B 17 B 17 B 21 C

13. Vintage Park Drive and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 20 B 21 C 20 B 22 C

14. Shell Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 17 B 23 C 18 B 24 C

15. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Metro Center Boulevard c Signal 15 B 19 B 19 B 22 C

16. Foster City Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard/
Triton Drive c Signal 22 C 18 B 23 C 19 B

17. Norfolk Street and East Hillsdale Boulevard b Signal 25 C 30 C 25 C 30 C

18. Altair Avenue and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 17 B < 10 A 17 B < 10 A

19. Edgewater Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 26 C 31 C 28 C 34 C

20. Shell Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 20 C 22 C 21 C 23 C

21. Foster City Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 26 C 22 C 27 C 22 C

22. Mariners Island Boulevard and Fashion Island Boulevard b Signal 28 C 32 C 29 C 33 C

23. Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive b SSS 13 B 11 B 18 C 13 B

24. Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue AWS 23 C 13 B 25 C 14 B a For signalized and all-way stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weighted average for all movements in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst-operating approach delay. Changes in delay to intersections operating at LOS A are imperceptible to drivers and therefore are shown to be less than 10 seconds of delay.
b Intersection in San Mateo.
c Intersection analyzed using the VISSIM microsimulation model. d As shown in Appendix C, the calculated vehicle delay under Ex isting Conditions is 10.2 seconds, which corresponds to LOS B (greater than 10 seconds), and the calculated delay under Existing Plus Project Conditions is 9.6 seconds of delay, which corresponds to LOS A (less than 10 seconds). This slight decrease in delay is due to the large number of project trips added to the east and westbound through movements on East Third Avenue. These movements operate with lower delay than the intersection average and therefore cause the average vehicle delay to decrease. In other words, the relatively large number of trips that would be added to movements with lower delays under Existing Plus Project Conditions would reduce the average vehicle delay compared to Existing Conditions at the intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard and East Third Avenue.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
789

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 180 Table IV.G-12: Existing Plus Pr oject Freeway Segment LOS Results

CMP
LOS Existing
Existing Plus
Proposed Project
Segment Standard Peak Hour Direction Volume a LOS Volume a LOS A. US 101, north of East Third Avenue b F
AM Northbound 9,454 E 9,487 E
Southbound 8,403 D 8,607 D
PM Northbound 8,845 D 9,053 D
Southbound 8,391 D 8,430 D
B. US 101, between East Third Avenue and SR 92 F
AM Northbound 9,049 D 9,310 E
Southbound 8,608 D 8,648 D
PM Northbound 9,258 E 9,307 E
Southbound 8,604 D 8,867 D
C. US 101, north of East Hillsdale Boulevard E
AM Northbound 8,166 D 8,438 D
Southbound 7,344 C 7,389 D
PM Northbound 8,182 D 8,234 D
Southbound 7,487 D 7,765 D
D. US 101, south of East Hillsdale Boulevard E
AM Northbound 7,592 D 7,864 D
Southbound 9,013 D 9,057 D
PM Northbound 8,951 D 9,003 D
Southbound 8,759 D 9,037 D
E. SR 92, between US 101 and Mariners Island
Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 5,634 D 5,961 D
Westbound 5,930 D 5,979 D
PM Eastbound 6,400 E 6,463 E
Westbound 5,658 C 5,953 D
F. SR 92, Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard and Foster City Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 4,199 C 4,346 C
Westbound 5,643 C 5,659 C
PM Eastbound 5,676 C 5,699 C
Westbound 4,475 C 4,580 C
G. SR 92, east of Foster City Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 2,590 B 2,617 B
Westbound 5,601 D 5,726 D
PM Eastbound 5,108 D 5,275 D
Westbound 2,806 B 2,831 B
a Volumes presented are passenger-car equivalents.
b An auxiliary lane in both directions has been comple ted on this freeway segment since the 2010 Gilead EIR.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
790

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 181 Table IV.G-13: Future Probable Developments
Category
Project
Number Project Name Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses Background Developments
Existing
Unoccupied
Space
1 Parkside Towers 7,861 s.f. retail 17,400 s.f. retail
2 303 Velocity Way R&D/Office
595 employees Office, 850 employees
Approved
but not yet
Constructed/
Occupied
Projects
3 Pilgrim-Triton
Master Plan
256,000 s.f.
industrial park,
38,300 s.f. office
266,000 s.f. office, 30,000 s.f.
retail; 730 residential units
(including 64 live-work units)
4 2010 Gilead
Sciences Master
Plan (Gilead South
Campus)
763,735 s.f. bio-
pharmaceutical
campus (office &
lab)
755,048 s.f. max office, 445,432
s.f. min lab for a max total
1,200,480 s.f. biopharmaceutical
campus
a
5 400 Mariners
Island Blvd b – 76 residential units
6 1521 Lago Street b 28 apartments 24 condos
Probable Future Developments
Currently
Proposed
Projects
7 Chess Hotel
9,385 s.f.
unoccupied
restaurant
76,980 s.f., 5-story, 135-room
hotel
8 Chess Drive 190,000 s.f.
office/warehouse 800,000 s.f. office
9 15 acres –
200 multi-unit for sale senior
apartments, 122 assisted/inde-
pendent living apartments, 16-bed
memory care facility, 66 one-
bedroom senior apartments,
30,000 s.f. retail
Cumulative
Conditions
Projects
10 Gilead North
Campus (formerly
EFI)
c
163,000 s.f. of office
(301 Velocity Way)
705,000 s.f. office (includes
1,000,000 s.f. of the former EFI
entitlements minus 295,000 s.f. at
303 Velocity Way)
11 Bayside Towers III – 92,900 s.f. office
12 Visa V – 8,000 s.f. office
13 Marina – 300 berths
a These land uses will be replaced by the Proposed Project or Project Alternatives under Plus Project Conditions. b These developments are located in the City of San Mateo. c The Gilead North Campus EFI entitlements are included under Cumulative No Project Conditions. These land uses would be replaced by the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

Table IV.G-14 summarizes the trip generation estimates for the probable future developments, including cumulative development, included in this study. Overall, the probable future developments would add 17,458 daily trips, including 1,861 AM peak-hour trips, and 2,023 PM peak-hour trips to the surrounding roadway system. These trips would be added to those generated by approved developments (background developments), as indicated in Table IV.G-14.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

791

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 182 Table IV.G-14: Cumulative Conditions Trip Generation Estimate Summary Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Scenario Total In Out Total In Out Total
Background Developments 12,392 784 330 1,114 384 805 1,190 Future Probable Developments 17,458 1,557 304 1,861 463 1,561 2,023 Total New Trips – Cumulative Conditions 29,850 2,341 634 2,975 847 2,366 3,213 Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

The total new trips generated under Cumulative Conditions include the traffic volumes generated by buildout of the North Campus according to the former EFI entitlements and buildout of the South Campus per the 2010 Master Plan. This development on the North Campus and South Campus would be replaced by the proposed project under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

The AM and PM peak-hour trips were assigned to the freeway segments, roadway segments, and intersection turning movements based on the directions of approach and departure. The trip distribu- tion pattern is shown on Figure IV.G-10.

Intersection Volumes. The traffic projections for the probable future developments at the study intersections are presented on Figures A-17 and A-18 in the TIA appendix. Cumulative Conditions intersection turning movement volumes are shown on Figure IV.G-11.

Freeway Volumes. In addition to traffic associated with the approved and probable future developments presented in Table IV.G-14, the Cumulative Conditions freeway analysis accounts for regional increases in traffic. Regional traffic increases on US 101 and SR 92 through the cities of San Mateo and Foster City were developed from freeway forecasts using the C/CAG travel demand forecasting model and are not associated with specific developments in Foster City. The following growth factors were applied to existing volumes in order to account for regional growth and produce year 2030 forecasts:
 US 101 Northbound – 0.7 percent annually in the AM peak hour and 0.3 percent annually in the PM peak hour
 US 101 Southbound – 0.3 percent annually in the AM peak hour and 0.8 percent annually in the PM peak hour
 SR 92 Eastbound – 1.7 percent annually in the AM peak hour and 2.4 percent annually in the PM peak hour
 SR 92 Westbound – 1.4 percent annually in the AM peak hour and 1.1 percent annually in the PM peak hour

Traffic estimates for the approved and probable future developments were then added to create Cumulative Conditions freeway volumes.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

792

Edgewater Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Marlin Ave
Gull Ave
Crane
Ave
Beach Park Blvd
Met
ro Center Blvd
T riton Dr Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
A
ve
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
Marsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
Norfolk St
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr
Legend
Office
Residential
Retail
% % %
15%25%
0% 3%
3%
0%
20%
10%
0%3%0%7%
3%
3%
13%
2%
4%
8%
0%4%4%
12%5%
0%
2%1%7%
2%
1%
7%
2%1%7%
4%4%17%
0%
4%
8%
7%10%22%
20%20%
0%
5%
5%
0%
san francisco bay
FOSTER
CITY

SAN MATEO PROJECT
SITE

HAYWARD PARK

CALTRAIN

SAN MATEO

CALTRAIN

HILLSDALE

CALTRAIN
101
92CALIFORNIA
82CALIFORNIA
101
92CALIFORNIA

BACKGROUND AND CUMULATIVE TRIP DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 5-2
Not to Scale
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-10
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG10.ai (11/1/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Cumulative Project Trip Distribution

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
793

925
330
267
1,172
20 44
1 22
54 12
629
151
137
358
1 89
( 2 4 2 ) 4 0 7 ( 6 2 ) 3 7 4 ( 2 3 7 ) 3 8 4 ( 6 6 0 ) 6 1 8 ( 4 4 4 ) 8 7 5 ( 3 6 2 ) 1 , 1 9 4 ( 3 9 8 ) 1 , 4 4 2 ( 5 5 5 ) 13 (19)
(49)
(367)
(10)9 ( 6 )
24 (50)
(481)
(47)174 (33)
467 (441)
(0)
(140)
(251)
262 (78)
(473)
(16)
(30)
2( 5 )
(376)
223 (314)
(465)
(112)
(83)
4( 1 8 )
3 ( 2 1 ) 5 4 ( 3 3 1 ) 2 1 ( 4 ) 1 4 3 ( 2 4 ) 1 6 ( 9 4 ) 8 5 ( 1 5 8 ) 7 ( 1 4 ) 2 0 ( 1 9 7 ) 8 8 1 ( 6 4 6 ) 9 4 1 ( 8 5 8 ) 7 8 4 ( 1 , 1 6 0 ) 1 , 0 7 1 ( 1 , 4 7 2 ) 130
29 (92)
0 0
0 3( 5 )
3 122
155
88 98 (74)
(16)
(804)
(44)
14 358
(4)
(1)
(5)
0 4
6( 1 )
(98)
(103)
(95)
(11)
(11)
(11)
383
3 762
269
37 30
148
536
235
1 8 09 1 ( 1 9 9 ) 4 5 5 ( 6 7 0 )
(3)
(283)
(289)
(152)
(736)
(74)173 (329)
(958)
(43)
(132)
(14)
(41)
37 (10)
1 0 5 ( 3 0 3 ) ( 6 8 6 )
27 5 4 4
896 (1,255)1 7 0 ( 6 7 3 )
187 (321)2 7 4 ( 4 4 7 )
20 (13)
21 138 (19)
1 4
3 235 (260)
202 (82)
17 44
12 (1)
(39)
(16)
(157)
(11)
(110)
(331)
(257)
1( 0 )
24 69
(28)
6 792
417
948
1,088
579
14 6
7 9 ( 1 ) 3 ( 7 ) 4 1 8 ( 5 1 1 )
1 0 ( 1 1 ) 3 8 1 ( 6 6 8 ) 2 0 5 ( 5 1 )
(644)
(217)
(6)
(0)
(6) 24 (6)
(47)
314 (66)
(828)
(326)
(180)
68 (197)
1 7 5 ( 3 9 2 ) 7 ( 2 1 ) 8 2 ( 2 8 5 )
1 ( 1 6 ) 8 7 5 ( 1 , 0 6 1 ) 9 2 ( 4 2 0 )
2 1,021
79 (230)
3 452
62 357
75 13 (78)
685
(20)
(1,102)
(286) 924
128 (458)
(341)
(756)
(20)
(467)
(3)
(717)
443
10 159
156
1,244
72 467
74 58
332
3 122
10 6
18 16
67 11
7 42 4 2 ( 5 0 9 ) 5 9 6 ( 6 7 7 ) ( 1 9 )
(2)
(39)3 4 3 ( 4 3 5 )
(436)
(101)
(113)
17 (42)
(178)1,445 (1,732)
(267)
(387)
(129)
(580)
(90)
330 (394)
1 , 3 0 3 ( 1 , 7 6 1 ) ( 5 2 7 )
88 (398)
(17)
(8)
(29)
753
4 0 02 5 2 ( 4 8 5 )
23 (93)
2 (16)
(308)
(48)
(247)181 (531)
64 (265)
419 (273)
(29)
(323)
116 (56)
54 (54)6 66 1 ( 9 1 ) 4 3 ( 3 7 ) ( 3 0 2 )
1 , 2 8 4 ( 1 , 5 9 3 ) 1 , 9 0 3 ( 1 , 5 2 3 ) 1 9 0 ( 2 1 5 ) 22 53 (12)
2 8 0
74 49
82 (96)
8 0(152)
14 (123)
635
67 1,480
197
3 7 16 4 9 ( 2 3 1 )
316
140
95 435 (580)
2 6
(270)
142 (59)
(18)
(3)
(4)
(145)
(253)
(91)
(69)
144
617 (367)
284
(454)
(35)
(1,078)
(683)
(724)
(731)
264
450
(259)
(225)
(76)
(47)
(60) 3
(311)
(85)
121
4 349
254
42 321
14 376
809
68 303
598
670
450
761
136
379
331
204
(30)2 4 5 ( 3 5 4 ) 1 7 2 ( 4 2 0 ) 1 6 2 ( 3 9 4 )
2 5 6 ( 4 2 0 ) 2 9 4 ( 3 3 7 ) 6 3 8 ( 7 0 3 ) 8 0 6 ( 8 9 2 ) 111 (100)
(27)
(84)
(10)97 (93)
25 (852)
8( 2 )
(7)
(286)
(27)1( 2 )
9( 3 )
(421)
(30)
117 (100)
(306)
(268)
194 (379)
(373)
(221)
(147)
366 (221)
(164)
642 (388)
(351)
(374)
(120)
133 (115)
1 5 ( 1 2 ) ( 1 8 2 ) 6 5 ( 7 5 ) 6 5 ( 1 5 3 ) 1 2 4 ( 2 6 7 ) 3 6 64 5 1 ( 2 1 8 ) 8 0 8 ( 6 4 1 ) 7 8 4 ( 9 4 8 )
35 (227)
73 115
190
352
8 00 ( 1 )
27 101
64 39 (26)
2 300
(343)
145 (226)
132
38 68 (58)
205
426
157
299
163
204 (170)
64 (84)
(176)
(359)
(169)
(57)
(98)
(3)
(305)
(30) 208
(303)
(833)
(378)
(159)
(247)
224
218 (109)
144
(360)
(906)
(228)
(114)
(415)
(79)
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H[W T[H[W
T[H[W
T[H
T[[[W T[[[W
H[W
H[W
H[W
T[H[
1 7

NORFOLK ST
EAST 3RD AVE
2 3 4
8 5
9 SR 92 WB RAMPS

CHESS DR

FOSTER CITY BL VD

CHESS DR

VINTAGE PARK DR
6 10

FOSTER CITY BL VD

CHESS DR
11 SR 92 EB RAMPS

EDGEWATER BL VD
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
EAST 3RD AVE
19 20 21 22 23

MARINERS ISL BL VD
EAST 3RD AVE

LAKESIDE DR

MARSH DR
EAST 3RD AVE
EAST 3RD AVE

FOSTER CITY BL VD

BAKER WAY
SR 92 WB RAMPS

BRIDGEPOINTE PKWY

VINTAGE PARK DR

CHESS DR

EDGEWATER BL VD

METRO CTR BL VD

VINTAGE PARK DR

METRO CTR BL VD

SHELL BL VD

METRO CTR BL VD
SF 92 EB RAMPS

METRO CTR BL VD

FOSTER CITY BL VD
TRITON

METRO CTR BL VD

NORFOLK ST

E HILLSDALE BL VD

AL TAIR AVE

E HILLSDALE BL VD

EDGEWATER BL VD

E HILLSDALE BL VD

SHELL BL VD

E HILLSDALE BL VD

FOSTER CITY BL VD

E HILLSDALE BL VD

MARINERS ISL BL VD

REEF DR
24 FOSTER CITY BL VD

MARLIN AVE

MARINERS ISL BL VD

FASHION ISL BL VD

CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS

INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
FIGURE 6-2
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux
LEGEND AM (PM)XX (YY):

Legend XX (YY): AM (PM)
FIGURE IV.G-11
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG11.ai (11/2/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Cumulative Conditions
Intersection Peak Hour Volumes

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
794

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 185 (2) Cumulative Roadway Improvements. The Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis recommended a series of roadway improvements to accommodate future proposed development at Gilead Sciences (South Campus), Chess Drive Offices, Mirabella (current 15-acre site adjacent to City Hall), and Pilgrim/Triton. Each development was assigned funding responsibility based on the number of added trips. Funding for the roadway improvements has been collected from the Pilgrim-Triton and Gilead Sciences (South Campus) projects based on the terms of their Development Agreements.

Additional funding will be provided by the developers of the Chess Drive Offices and 15-acre site in conjunction with their approvals, based on the contribution of their projects to traffic impacts, as identified in the Multi Project Traffic Analysis. The Triton Drive widening project has been funded by the developer of Phase A of the Pilgrim-Triton development. The schedule for the other roadway improvements is dependent on the progress of the developments. The improvements presented in the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis are shown in Table IV.G-15. The City has elected to proceed with seven of the eleven improvements noted in Table IV.G-15 and shown on Figure IV.G-12.

These roadway improvements are included under all Cumulative Conditions analysis scenarios.

Table IV.G-15: Cumulative Roadway System Improvements
Improvement
Assigned
Responsibility
Included in
Cumulative
Conditions

1. Reconstruct on-ramp to Westbound SR 92 to provide two lanes merging onto SR 92 All a,b No c

2. Install signal interlock at Foster City Boulevard/Chess Drive and SR 92 Westbound Ramps/Chess Drive All Yes

3. Lengthen northbound left-turn lane on Foster City Boulevard at Chess Drive to 650 feet All Yes

4. Lengthen westbound left-turn lane on Chess Drive at Foster City Boulevard to 300 feet Chess Offices Yes

5. Widen Triton Drive and modify signal at Foster City Boulevard/Metro Center Boulevard/Triton Drive Pilgrim/Triton Yes

6. Add eastbound lane on Metro Center Boulevard between SR 92 and Foster City Boulevard, and install signal interlock (Foster City Boulevard/Metro Center Boulevard and SR 92 Eastbound Ramps/Metro Center Boulevard)
All Yes

7. Construct northbound right-turn lane from Foster City Boulevard at Chess Drive Chess Offices Yes

8. Construct 2nd westbound through lane on Chess Drive at Foster City Boulevard Chess Offices Yes

9. Install traffic signal at Foster City Boulevard/Marlin Avenue None b No

10. Close driveway on north side of Chess Drive/Westbound SR 92 Ramps intersection None b No
11: Provide 2 right turn lanes from Westbound SR 92 off-ramp onto eastbound Chess Drive All b No
a “All” refers to the following projects included in the Fost er City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis: Chess Drive Offices, Gilead Sciences, Pilgrim-Triton, and Mirabella (current 15-acre site). b Foster City elected not to pursue th ese projects and therefore they are not included under Cumulative Conditions. c Improvement was not approved by Caltrans and thus is not included under Cumulative Conditions.

Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

795

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 186 Other potential roadway improvements not incorporated in this study include Caltrans’ proposal for ramp metering at all freeway on-ramps to US 101 and SR 92 in the study area. The status of these improvements is uncertain and a separate ramp metering study would need to be completed to determine their feasibility.

(3) Cumulative Plus Project Conditions. The proposed project would add 595,120 square feet of office and laboratory space to the North and South Campuses compared to the proposed uses for the project site as a part of the 2010 Master Plan (South Campus) and former EFI Entitlements (North Campus). Table IV.G-16 shows the land uses proposed as part of the project compared to the approved and future probable developments for the project site. The proposed new land uses and the associated traffic generated for the proposed project are discussed in more detail below.

Table IV.G-16: Net Change in Land Uses for Project Site under Cumulative Conditions Lane Use Type
Proposed Project
(square feet)
Proposed Land Uses
General Office 1,524,000
Laboratory 953,000
MSB a/Warehouse 23,600
Total 2,500,600
Approved and Future
Probable Land Uses
General Office 1,358,369
Laboratory 547,111
MSB a/Warehouse –
Total 1,905,480
Net Change
General Office 165,631
Laboratory 405,889
MSB a/Warehouse 23,600
Total 595,120
a MSB = Material Storage Building
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

As shown in Table IV.G-16, the proposed project would add 165,631 square feet of office space, 405,889 square feet of laboratory space, and 23,600 square feet of material storage space to the approved and future probable land uses at the project site. The new trips due to the proposed project were added to the Cumulative traffic volumes to create Cumulative Plus Project traffic volumes. The net new trips include the traffic generated by the proposed project minus traffic generated by existing entitled land uses at the North and South Campuses and traffic generated by existing uses on the site.

As shown in Table IV.G-10, the proposed project would add 5,222 daily trips, 360 AM peak-hour trips, and 415 PM peak-hour trips to Cumulative traffic volumes.

The new AM and PM peak-hour trips for the proposed project were assigned to the freeway segments, roadway segments, and intersection turning movements based on the directions of approach and departure shown in Figure IV.G-6. The new trips were distributed to the study intersections as shown on Figure A-19 and to the freeway mainline segments as shown in Appendix E of the TIA. Intersection turning movement volumes for Cumulative Plus Project Conditions are shown on Figure A-23 of the TIA appendix.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

796

E
Gull Ave
Crane Ave
Metro Center Blvd
T riton Dr
Pilgrim Dr
Shell Blvd
Comet Dr
E. 3
rd
Ave
Catamaran St
Chess Dr
Chess Dr
Vintage Park DrMarsh Dr
Lakeside Dr
Mariners Island Blvd
Bridgepointe
Pkwy
Fashion Island Blvd
E. Hillsdale Blvd
Foster City Blvd
Reef Dr

PROJECT
SITE
92CALIFORNIA
FOSTER
CITY
san francisco bay
Legend
MPTA = Multi-Project Traffic Analysis
efDr
PROJEC
e
PROJEC
Construct additional westbound
thru-lane on Chess Drive.

C

FOSTERRFOF ERF T

CICCCITYY
C
Construct additional eastbound thru-lane on
Metro Center Blvd. and additional eastbound
receiving lane on Triton Drive.

VintagePa
de Dr
SITE
V
Pa
d SITE
Install signal interlock and coordinate
signals along Chess Drive.

Shell BlvdShInstall signal interlock and coordinate
signals along Metro Center Blvd.

Triton DrTT
Pil iPilgrimg
Modify signal on westbound
approach to Foster City Blvd.

Lengthen northbound left-turn
lane on Foster City Blvd.

Lengthen westbound left-turn
lane at Foster City Blvd.
2 6
5,6
5 3
Construct northbound right-turn
lane on Foster City Blvd.
8 4
7 CUMULATIVE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
FIGURE 6-3
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
Note: Project numbers refer to Table 6-3.
not to scale
FIGURE IV.G-12
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG12.ai (10/28/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Cumulative Roadway Improvements

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
797

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 188 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

798

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 189 (4) Intersection Operations. The cumulative intersection operations under no project and project conditions are presented below.

No Project. The intersection LOS analysis results for Cumulative Conditions (including the improvements shown on Figure IV.G-12) are presented in Table IV.G-17. The LOS results show that the study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better except for Norfolk Street at East Third Avenue and the SR 92 Westbound Ramps at Chess Drive. The intersection of Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue is located in the City of San Mateo and exceeds the threshold of mid- LOS D, with over 45 seconds of delay in the AM peak hour. This intersection would degrade to unacceptable operations due to the growth in eastbound traffic volumes during the AM peak hour.

The intersection of the SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive would degrade to LOS E during the PM peak hour due to traffic growth on the SR 92 freeway mainline and the westbound on-ramp.

These results are similar to those of the Foster City Multi-Project Traffic Analysis, which determined that without additional capacity on the westbound SR 92 on-ramp, the intersection of the SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive would degrade to LOS E or F under Cumulative Conditions. The Foster City General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policy LUC-50 states that it will be necessary to accept LOS E or F at this intersection under General Plan buildout.

Proposed Project. As shown in Table IV.G-17, the proposed project would contribute traffic and increase delay by more than 4 seconds at the intersection of Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue, which is operating at an unacceptable level of service during the AM peak hour. The proposed project would add 5 seconds of delay to this intersection during the AM peak hour. Therefore, the project’s contribution to this cumulative impact is significant.

Impact 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)

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-signifi- cant level.

Mitigation Measure 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

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

799

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 190 appropriate TDM Program for the life of the proposed project to reduce cumulative impacts on area roadways. (LTS)

The proposed project would cause the intersection of the SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive to degrade from LOS E to LOS F. This is primarily due to congestion on the SR 92 westbound on- ramp and the added project traffic to this already congested intersection. Foster City General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policy LUC-50 states that it will be necessary to accept LOS E or F at this intersection. Therefore, the impact at this intersection due to the proposed project would be less than significant.

All other study intersections would operate acceptably under Cumulative Plus Proposed Project Conditions.

(5) Freeway Operations. The cumulative freeway mainline operations under no project and project conditions are presented below. Cumulative daily traffic volumes plus new vehicle trips due to the proposed project on the study freeway segments are shown in Table E-4 of Appendix E of the TIA.

No Project. The Cumulative Conditions freeway volumes and analysis results are presented in Table IV.G-18. The following three mainline segments on SR 92 or US 101 would exceed their CMP LOS threshold with the addition of traffic due to cumulative development:

Segment D. Southbound US 101, south of East Hillsdale Boulevard – LOS F during the PM peak hour

Segment E. Eastbound SR 92, between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/ Edgewater Boulevard – LOS F during the PM peak hour

Segment F. Westbound SR 92, east of Foster City Boulevard – LOS F during the AM peak hour

This deterioration in freeway LOS is largely due to regional traffic growth and, to a lesser extent, development in Foster City.

In addition, northbound US 101, north of SR 92 and north of East Third Avenue would operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour. However, these levels of service are consistent with the CMP LOS standard of F for these two segments. The remaining freeway segments would operate at LOS E or better under Cumulative Conditions.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

800

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 191 Table IV.G-17: Cumulative Plus Project Intersection LOS Results Cumulative Cumulative Plus Proposed Project

AM PM AM PM
Intersection Control Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS Delay a LOS

1. Norfolk Street and East Third Avenue b Signal 45 D 34 C 50 D 36 D

2. Mariners Island Boulevard and East Third Avenue Signal 10 B 15 B 10 B 15 B

3. Lakeside Drive and East Third Avenue Signal < 10 A 16 B < 10 A 17 B

4. Marsh Drive and East Third Avenue Signal < 10 A 18 B < 10 A 22 C

5. Foster City Boulevard and East Third Avenue Signal < 10 A < 10 A < 10 A < 10 A

6. Foster City Boulevard and Vintage Park Drive/Chess Drive Signal 13 B 18 B 13 B 19 B

7. Baker Way/SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Fashion Island
Boulevard/Bridgepointe Parkway b Signal 17 B 22 C 17 B 23 C

8. Vintage Park Drive and Chess Drive Signal 26 C 47 D 26 C 49 D

9. SR 92 Westbound Ramps and Chess Drive c,d Signal 17 B 78 E 20 C 84 F

10. Foster City Boulevard and Chess Drive c Signal 26 C 41 D 27 C 45 D

11. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Edgewater Boulevard/Mariners Island Boulevard Signal 19 B 19 B 20 B 20 C

12. Edgewater Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 19 B 22 C 19 B 24 C

13. Vintage Park Drive and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 21 C 23 C 22 C 24 C

14. Shell Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard Signal 16 B 21 C 16 B 21 C

15. SR 92 Eastbound Ramps and Metro Center Boulevard c Signal 17 B 22 C 18 B 22 C

16. Foster City Boulevard and Metro Center Boulevard/Triton Drive c Signal 33 C 23 C 38 D 24 C

17. Norfolk Street and East Hillsdale Boulevard b Signal 25 C 30 C 25 C 30 C

18. Altair Avenue and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 17 B < 10 A 17 B < 10 A

19. Edgewater Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 32 C 41 D 33 C 43 D

20. Shell Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 22 C 25 C 22 C 25 C

21. Foster City Boulevard and East Hillsdale Boulevard Signal 34 C 23 C 34 C 23 C

22. Mariners Island Boulevard and Fashion Island Boulevard b Signal 29 C 35 D 29 C 36 D

23. Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive b SSS e 21 C 15 B 21 C 15 C

24. Foster City Boulevard and Marlin Avenue AWS f 31 D 16 C 32 D 17 C a For signalized and all-wa y stop controlled intersections, the delay shown is the weighted average for all movements in seconds per vehicle. For side-street stop controlled intersection, the delay shown is the worst-operating approach delay. Changes in delay to intersections operating at LOS A are imperceptible to drivers and therefore are shown to be less than 10 seconds of delay.
b Intersection in San Mateo.
c Intersection analyzed using the VISSIM microsimulation model for Cumulative No Projec t and Plus Proposed Project Conditions only. Similar to Existing Plus Project and Background Plus Project Conditions, the LOS analysis at these intersections would be comparable to the Proposed Project under the Lakeside Drive Open variant and Alternates A and B.
d Foster City General Plan Land Use and Circulation Policy LUC-50 states that it will be necessary to accept LOS E or F at this intersection. e SSS = Side-street stop
f AWS = All-way stop
Bold = Unacceptable operations
Shaded = Significant Impact
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
801

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 192 Table IV.G-18: Cumulative Plus Pro ject Freeway Segment LOS Results

CMP
LOS Cumulative
Cumulative Plus
Proposed Project
Segment Standard Peak Hour Direction Volume a LOS Volume a LOS A. US 101, north of East Third Avenue b F
AM Northbound 10,766 F 10,776 F
Southbound 9,211 D 9,253 E
PM Northbound 9,669 E 9,718 E
Southbound 9,726 E 9,739 E
B. US 101, between East Third Avenue and SR 92 F
AM Northbound 10,556 F 10,573 F
Southbound 9,148 D 9,155 D
PM Northbound 9,843 E 9,852 E
Southbound 10,198 E 10,222 E
C. US 101, north of East Hillsdale Boulevard E
AM Northbound 9,608 E 9,666 E
Southbound 8,341 D 8,355 D
PM Northbound 8,710 D 8,728 D
Southbound 8,295 D 8,359 D
D. US 101, south of East Hillsdale Boulevard E
AM Northbound 9,010 D 9,068 D
Southbound 9,622 E 9,635 E
PM Northbound 9,566 E 9,584 E
Southbound 10,466 F 10,530 F
E. SR 92, between US 101 and Mariners Island
Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 6,798 E 6,911 F
Westbound 7,429 E 7,450 E
PM Eastbound 7,341 F 7,367 F
Westbound 7,206 E 7,311 E
F. SR 92, Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard and Foster City Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 5,173 C 5,226 C
Westbound 7,081 D 7,087 D
PM Eastbound 6,547 D 6,555 D
Westbound 5,833 D 5,871 D
G. SR 92, east of Foster City Boulevard E
AM Eastbound 3,197 B 3,205 B
Westbound 7,152 F 7,173 F
PM Eastbound 6,097 D 6,137 E
Westbound 3,856 C 3,865 C
Notes:
a Volumes presented are passenger-car equivalents.
b An auxiliary lane in both directions has been comple ted on this freeway segment since the 2010 Gilead EIR.

Bold indicates locations where segment operations exceed CMP thresholds Shaded = Significant Impact
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
802

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 193 Proposed Project. As shown in Table IV.G-18, with the addition of project traffic, freeway operations would be similar to Cumulative Conditions, with only small increases in traffic on most freeway segments. Traffic due to the proposed project at the three unacceptably-operating freeway segments noted above would be less than 1 percent of the total mainline capacity at each segment.

However, the proposed project would cause the 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. This is considered a significant impact.

Impact 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)

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-signifi- cant level.

Mitigation Measure 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)

The proposed project’s contribution to other freeway segments with cumulative impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

g. Other Topics. This subsection includes a discussion of the potential impacts of the project related to pedestrian, bike, and transit facilities; site access and circulation; emergency access; air traffic; construction; transportation demand management; and parking.

(1) Pedestrian Facilities. This section addresses pedestrian connections to off-site destina- tions. In general, the proposed project would enhance pedestrian operations by closing Lakeside Drive to vehicular through traffic, which would improve pedestrian safety and mobility throughout the project site. The measures described below are recommended to improve pedestrian circulation within and around the project site, but are not required to reduce significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Select recommendations are shown on Figure IV.G-13.

Employees and visitors may be expected to travel to and from campus on foot to reach transit stops and to access local businesses. Major pedestrian access points to and from the project site include:
 Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive
 Lakeside Drive and East Third Avenue
 Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive

Currently, there is no marked crosswalk on Mariners Island Boulevard at the intersection with Reef Drive, at the western project entrance, which is located in the City of San Mateo. Improvements could be made to this intersection to improve safety for pedestrians wishing to access the project site from the SamTrans transit stop on the west side of Mariners Island Boulevard. According to the City of San Mateo Crosswalk Policy and Treatment Toolbox, a crosswalk should not be installed at an uncon-

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

803

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 194 trolled location if the sight distance in feet is less than ten times the speed limit. As the speed limit along Mariners Island Boulevard is 30 miles per hour, the sight distance would need to be 300 feet to safely install a marked crosswalk. Currently, the sight distance is approximately 200 feet when vehi- cles are parked along Mariners Island Boulevard. If the speed limit along Mariners Island Boulevard is lowered to 20 miles per hour or enough parking spaces are removed along Mariners Boulevard to increase the sight distance (and the curb where the parking spaces are removed is painted red), a marked crosswalk could be installed on the southerly leg (with the bus stop relocated to the southwest corner, in front of the crosswalk). The crosswalk would need to include high visibility striping and advance yield limit lines with post-mounted signs. Alternatively, Mariners Island Boulevard could be stop-controlled, which would allow a crosswalk to be installed. Otherwise, a crosswalk is not recom- mended at this location, and pedestrians should be instructed to cross Mariners Island Boulevard at East Third Avenue.

Other recommended off-site pedestrian amenities include improving the intersection of Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive and enhancing existing crossings or connections. The intersection of Vintage Park Drive and Lakeside Drive has marked crosswalks, with decorative brick pavers provided on all approaches. The crosswalks across Vintage Park Drive are uncontrolled. Because these cross- walks cross a multilane road, the crosswalks should include high visibility striping and advance yield limit lines with post-mounted signs. Reduced corner radii and median refuges would further enhance safety at all three crossing locations noted above. Directional curb ramps with truncated domes would enhance access for disabled pedestrians.

(2) Bicycle Facilities. Lakeside Drive has been privatized and is no longer a public street per an approval granted independently of the proposed project, which would affect the Class III bike route currently on Lakeside Drive. The proposed circulation plan reroutes the bike route via Vintage Park Drive and Marsh Drive to East Third Avenue, where it would connect with the existing Class III bike route on East Third Avenue. The proposed circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the City of Foster City Parks and Recreation Committee that serves as the City’s Bicycle and Pedes- trian Advisory Committee. The rerouting would be slightly longer than the existing route and would require bicyclists to ride on streets with higher traffic volumes. However, the increased travel distance is only about 0.1 mile. Therefore with this proposed change, the proposed project would result in no significant impacts to bicycle facilities.

(3) Transit Facilities. As discussed previously, transit lines operated by SamTrans, Caltrain, and AC Transit serve the project site. Two employer-funded shuttles, the Lincoln Centre and North Foster City shuttles, operate on Lakeside Drive through the site. All providers have a transit stop within ¼-mile of the project site. Pedestrian access is provided between the project site and the nearby transit stops, with the exception of the drop-off location for SamTrans Route FX at the northwest corner of the intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard and Reef Drive in the City of San Mateo, which lacks a marked crosswalk across Mariners Island Boulevard (as discussed above). If Lakeside Drive is closed to through traffic, the proposed project would disrupt the Lincoln Centre and North Foster City shuttle routes. This is considered a significant impact.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

804

2. Provide pedestrian
connection to Lakeside Drive

3. Maintain right-in/
right-out only

1. Maintain existing
crosswalks

4. Advance limit line
on uncontrolled multi-lane
approaches
route

PROPOSED CIRCULATION PLAN
FIGURE 7-1
Not to Scale
N
SF12-0606 Gilead Sciences EIR Redux\Graphics
feet
0 200 400
FIGURE IV.G-13
SOURCE: FEHR & PEERS, OCTOBER 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVG13.ai (11/2/12) Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Proposed Circulation Plan and Recommendations

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
805

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 196 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

806

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 197 Impact TRANS-3: The proposed project would affect the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and the North Foster City shuttle by closing Lakeside Drive. (S)

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-signifi- cant level.

Mitigation Measure 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)

Shuttle service is a key component of the TDM strategy that would be implemented as part of the project. As part of the proposed project, Gilead Sciences has made commitments to serve the future transit demand of the project through a phased funding plan. As the Gilead Sciences employee base grows, Gilead Sciences would work with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance, other corporate partners, and the City on tactical next steps at each of the following Gilead Sciences employee headcount thresholds:
 1,900 to 3,000 employees: Work with the Alliance to increase the current 24-passenger bus to a 32-35-passenger bus on the North Foster City route, if warranted.  3,000 to 5,500 employees: Work with the Alliance to add an additional bus (half hour bus in addition to the current hourly bus) on the North Foster City Center route, if warranted.  3,500 to 5,500 employees: Work with the Alliance to add an additional bus (half hour bus in addition the current hourly bus) on the Lincoln Centre route, if warranted.

This proposed shuttle plan includes approximately 140 new shuttle seats during the morning and evening commute periods under project buildout conditions. Currently, 180 employees ride Gilead campus shuttles, which represents 9.5 percent of all employee trips. The existing employer shuttle ridership currently exceeds capacity on the majority of shuttle commute trips. Assuming the existing mode share remains with the full projected employment of 5,500 employees under the proposed project, the project would generate a total of 521 shuttle riders in the future (a net increase of 341 shuttle riders). As such, the current shuttle funding plan would not adequately serve the projected shuttle ridership. This is considered a significant impact.

Impact TRANS-4: The proposed project would add ridership demand to shuttles that are over- capacity. (S)

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-signifi- cant level:

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

807

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 198 Mitigation Measure 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)

(4) Site Access and Circulation. Figure IV.G-13 shows the circulation plan for the proposed project. Primary ingress and egress to and from the project site would continue to be provided by the intersections of Reef Drive at Mariners Island Boulevard, Lakeside Drive at East Third Avenue, Lakeside Drive at Vintage Park Drive, and East Third Avenue at Marsh Drive. Lakeside Drive and Marsh Drive would provide access to project buildings and parking facilities. Emergency vehicles would be allowed on the closed portion of Lakeside Drive, maintaining existing emergency access.

Primary truck access would be provided at the shipping docks at Marsh Drive. Other truck access would be provided to shipping docks located at laboratory and office buildings throughout the site.

However, truck access to these locations would be infrequent and would therefore minimize conflicts with pedestrians, bicycles, and passenger vehicles. The proposed project would not include design features that would result in roadway or vehicle hazards. In addition, no new types of land uses would be developed on the site; therefore, no incompatible land uses would be developed that would increase hazards.

As part of the proposed project, Lakeside Drive would be closed to through traffic. The purpose of the Lakeside Drive closure would be to create a more pedestrian-friendly campus. After the Lakeside Drive closure, vehicles would no longer be able to access the northern portion of the site from the eastern entrance along Vintage Park Drive (by proceeding west along Lakeside Drive) and would instead access the site via Mariners Island Boulevard or East Third Avenue. In addition to these off- site effects, the closure of Lakeside Drive would alter on-site vehicle circulation (including shuttles) by reducing vehicle mobility and connectivity between the north and south/east portions of the site.

However, pedestrian connectivity would be enhanced due to the creation of the central portion of Lakeside Drive as a mainly car-free zone. In addition, it is anticipated that travel patterns would change such that employees who work in the northern portion of the site would use the north access points, and employees working in the southern and eastern portions of the site would use the east access point, further reducing the need for internal vehicle connectivity. Please refer to the discussion of the Lakeside Drive Open alternative in Chapter V, Alternatives, for a description of the environ- mental effects associated with continuing to allow through traffic on Lakeside Drive.

The proposed project would not result in any other major changes to internal vehicle circulation, and the expected increase in vehicular traffic to surrounding roadways caused by the closure is expected to be accommodated by the existing infrastructure.

To improve safety and mobility for all users, the following best practices are recommended for the final site plan. Implementation of these best practices would not be required to reduce the environ- mental effects of the project and the following discussion is provided for informational purposes only.

These improvements could be funded by the project sponsor and incorporated into the Specific

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

808

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 199 Development Plan/Use Permit for specific development projects undertaken as part of the 2012 Master Plan.

Enable a walkable and bikable core campus:
 Provide efficient pedestrian connections that minimize travel through parking lots.  Provide pedestrian and bicycle wayfinding to key destinations.  Should Lakeside Drive remain open, use one of the following methods to enhance the walkable core campus:
○ Close Lakeside Drive to through traffic during core business hours; or ○ Provide raised pedestrian crossings or other traffic calming treatments to slow traffic and discourage through traffic.
 Provide direct connections from the parking lot at Lakeside Drive/Velocity Way to the Vintage Lake trails.
 Provide sidewalks with landscape buffers and/or landscaped medians, where feasible on Lakeside Drive (currently underway on the project site).  Locate visitor parking adjacent to Lakeside Drive and campus entrances to ensure easy access.

Follow best practices throughout the campus and at intersections with off-site routes:
 Provide sidewalks along all roadways (currently underway on the project site).  Limit the number of lanes and lane width.
 Tighten corner radii to reduce turning speeds.
 Provide marked crosswalks on all legs at controlled intersections.  Provide high-visibility marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and midblock locations with high pedestrian demand. Enhance crosswalks with beacons or signals where higher speeds and traffic volumes are expected.
 Provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking at all buildings.  Provide pedestrian paths through parking lots that reduce pedestrian exposure and offer direct links.
 Limit the number of curb cuts/access points and ensure access points are located away from major intersections (for example, at Reef Drive and Mariners Island Boulevard).  Remove parking spaces adjacent to major intersections.

The proposed circulation plan shown in Figure IV.G-13 incorporates many of the above recommen- dations.

In addition to the preceding general comments, the following additions are suggested to clarify the circulation plan shown in Figure IV.G-13:

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

809

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 200 A. Existing marked crosswalks along Lakeside Drive between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive should be shown on the circulation plan (and maintained under the future plan) as these existing marked crosswalks provide key pedestrian links between buildings and parking facilities. This includes the existing marked crosswalk into the proposed Parking Garage (PG)-3 and the existing marked crosswalks in front of New Building (NB)/368.

B. The development of additional pedestrian connections should be considered from the pedestrian pathway through the middle of the central parking facility to Lakeside Drive.

C. Consider maintaining the driveway to the proposed PG-3 parking garage from Reef Drive in its existing right-in/right-out configuration due to its proximity to the intersection of Mariners Island Boulevard/Reef Drive.

D. At Vintage Park Drive/Lakeside Drive and other uncontrolled pedestrian crossings along Vintage Park Drive, consider striping advance limit lines in addition to the highlighted cross walk signs to enhance pedestrian safety on these multi-lane, uncontrolled approaches.

The circulation plan would be subject to further review as the proposed project is implemented.

Changes to the final circulation plan would be reviewed and approved by the City to ensure these recommendations are in place prior to issuance of a Specific Development Plan/Use Permit, as appropriate.

(5) Emergency Access. Emergency vehicles would be able to use the roadways surrounding the project site. In addition, emergency vehicles would be allowed on the closed portion of Lakeside Drive, maintaining existing emergency access. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in emergency vehicle access impacts.

(6) Air Traffic. Additional employment associated with the proposed project would not contribute substantially to demand for commercial flights because most new employees would be expected to work on-site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase flight operations. In addition, no buildings or features would be constructed on-site that would interfere with flight operations at local airports.

(7) Construction Project construction would affect off-site circulation due to increased truck traffic to and from the site. Construction would also disrupt on-site travel due to the potential closure of sidewalks and blockage of bicycle facilities and transit routes during construction.

Impact TRANS-5: Project construction activities could interfere with circulation patterns. (S)

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-signifi- cant level:

Mitigation Measure 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:

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

810

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 201  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, circulation, 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 congestion zone.

The project sponsor shall implement the construction management plan. (LTS)

(8) C/CAG TDM Requirements. C/CAG is the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County that develops the CMP. As part of the land use element of the CMP, all projects that generate 100 or more new trips during the AM or PM peak hour are required to implement transporta- tion demand management (TDM) programs that have the capacity to reduce the demand for new peak-hour trips. A project sponsor also has the option to modify the project such that it generates less than 100 peak-hour trips or pay a one-time fee of $20,000 per new peak-hour trip to a TDM fund.

The proposed project would generate more than 100 new vehicle trips during both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, per C/CAG guidelines, Gilead Sciences has developed a draft TDM Program for the proposed project which is included in Appendix G of the TIA. The draft TDM Program is currently under review by C/CAG. Conformance with the C/CAG requirement will be verified by the City during the Specific Development Plan/Use Permit review process that would be conducted prior to implementation of the proposed project. The site-specific trip generation rates used in this transpor- tation analysis include the trip reductions due to the TDM Program that were in place in 2008 when the traffic counts were collected. As shown in Appendix G of the TIA, the transit mode share has increased since 2008; therefore the trip generation rates used in this analysis ensure a reasonably cautious analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system.

C/CAG has identified acceptable TDM measures and assigned peak-hour trip credits that will be granted with implementation of each measure. Measures can be assembled from this menu of options such that the total number of trip credits is equal to or greater than the new peak-hour trips generated by the project. These programs, once implemented, must be on-going for the occupied life of the development. Programs may be substituted, with prior approval of C/CAG, as long as the total number of trip credits offsets the new trips.

In the following discussion, in lieu of new vehicle trips, the full campus trip generation is used for the purpose of trip credit comparison. This reflects the nature of the TDM strategies at buildout of the project, which would comprise both existing and additional measures that affect all trips.

To select a menu of TDM strategies appropriate for the proposed project, existing mode usage was reviewed and considered a starting point for the proposed project. A 21 percent alternative (non-

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

811

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 202 single occupant vehicle, including transit, van pool, bike, and pedestrian ) mode share was assumed for all 5,500 projected Gilead Sciences employees, based on information provided by Gilead for current employees. Applying the existing alternative mode share to future employees results in the following breakdown:
 Transit: 9.5 percent (521 employees)
 Carpool: 4.2 percent (232 employees)
 Vanpool: 5.8 percent (318 employees)
 Bicycle: 1.9 percent (110 employees)

The quantity and distribution of the TDM strategies presented in Appendix G of the TIA reflect this mode split. Should employee surveys suggest a different mode split distribution in the future, reallo- cation of the TDM strategies, and additional or substitute strategies may be appropriate.

As shown in Appendix G of the TIA, the total number of trip credits for the menu of selected TDM strategies is 3,528, which is greater than the estimated total campus AM and PM peak-hour trip generation totals for the proposed project of 2,293 and 2,425, respectively. The City would require and monitor the implementation of an appropriate TDM Program for the life of the proposed project to reduce cumulative impacts on area roadways, in compliance with C/CAG requirements.

(9) Parking. The proposed project would have 6,050 parking spaces, including spaces shared with the 303 Velocity Way building (located outside the project site). The North Campus would contain 3,796 spaces (including shared spaces) and the South Campus would contain 2,254 spaces.

Parking would be provided in a combination of parking structures and surface lots. The North Campus would include two parking structures near the intersection of Marsh Road and East Third Avenue. These parking garages would be between three and six levels. The size of the parking structures would be determined by the uses permitted for proposed buildings. Additional surface parking stalls would be provided within the South and North Campuses. Parking spaces would be universal stalls (8.5 feet wide by 18 feet long), per Foster City Municipal Code requirements.

Parking Supply Requirements. The Foster City Municipal Parking Code allows for a reduced parking ratio for laboratory buildings in biopharmaceutical campus developments, with approval by the City Council. The reduced ratio includes the following requirements for the project (Municipal Code 17.62.060(B)(5)(f)):

A. The entire land area encompassing the biopharmaceutical campus shall be owned or leased and occupied by one biopharmaceutical company, unless the city, in its sole discretion and based on the factors set forth in subsection (B)(5)(f)(vi) of this section, approves the lease or sale of a portion of the biopharmaceutical campus to another entity or entities.

B. The biopharmaceutical campus shall consist of a minimum of thirty acres, contiguous or across the street.

C. The biopharmaceutical campus shall contain sufficient land area so that at build-out it can support all required parking in either at-grade parking lots or within parking structures.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

812

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 203 D. Once approved by the city as a part of the initial use permit, the use(s) housed within buildings in the biopharmaceutical campus shall not be changed without the prior review, evaluation of parking available to serve the changed use(s), and approval by the city.

E. If the city allows a parking ratio for laboratory buildings within a biopharmaceutical campus that is less stringent than would be required for the same type of buildings not located within the subject biopharmaceutical campus, such parking ratio shall be recorded with the San Mateo County recorder’s office along with the general development plan approved by the city. The recorded document shall make clear that the reduced parking ratio applies to laboratory buildings in the subject biopharmaceutical campus only and that if removed from the bio-pharmaceutical campus or if title is transferred to another entity, at the discretion of the city, the laboratory buildings may be subject to the parking require- ments then in effect for similar buildings in the city that are not located within the subject biopharmaceutical campus. The documents shall be recorded with the San Mateo County recorder’s office such that this information shall be easily detected and routinely included in a standard preliminary title report.

F. No proposed sale or lease of any portion of the biopharmaceutical campus shall close escrow or otherwise be finalized without the prior review and approval of the city, which shall limit its review and approval to the impact of the proposed sale or lease on the ability of the existing and new occupants to meet their off-street parking requirements, both individually and in the aggregate. Any purchase and sale agreement or lease with respect to any portion of the biopharmaceutical campus shall be conditioned upon such city approval; shall specifically identify all land use approvals for the biopharmaceutical campus, includ- ing, without limitation, any environmental impact report, mitigation monitoring plan, general development plan, specific development plan or other approval applicable to the biopharmaceutical campus; and shall include an express obligation on the part of the trans- feree or lessee to abide by all conditions and requirements set forth in such existing land use approvals, including, without limitation, the conditions set forth in any environmental impact report, mitigation monitoring plan, general development plan, specific development plan or other approval applicable to the biopharmaceutical campus.”

The parking ratios approved for the Gilead Sciences Campus through City Ordinance 554, which approved the 2010 Master Plan, are:
 Office Uses: 1 space per 250 gross square feet
 Laboratory Uses: 1 space per 833 gross square feet
 Warehouse/Material Storage Uses: 1 space per 500 gross square feet

In addition, the 2010 Master Plan incorporated the following reduction for the purposes of calculating parking requirements:
 Efficiency Factor: This factor recognizes that not all of a building’s square footage is occupied by employees (e.g., hallways, lobbies, and restrooms). An efficiency factor of 85 percent was used to approximate the actual usable square footage proposed in the 2010 Master Plan.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

813

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 204 Pursuant to Section 17.62.060D of the Foster City Municipal Code, a 15 percent reduction in parking supply is being considered by Foster City to account for reductions due to the TDM Program presented in Appendix G of the TIA. Further reductions from these ratios account for motorcycle and bicycle parking. These credits include:
 Motorcycle spaces in 1 percent of parking stalls (one parking space credited for every two motorcycle spaces)
 Bicycle spaces in 5 percent of parking stalls (one parking space credited for every eight bicycle spaces)

The 2010 approved rates and parking supply methodologies have been carried forward for the proposed project. 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 a Reciprocal Easement Agreement and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (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 remained in effect until November 1, 2012, when Gilead Sciences assumed ownership of Building 303 (which is not part of the project site). This parking is included in the total count of spaces provided for the project site. Table IV.G-19 identifies the parking supply proposed as part of the project.

Parking Demand. According to data collected by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for an April 1, 2008 parking study, parking demand ratios for Gilead Sciences office and laboratory uses are

2.64 spaces per 1,000 square feet and 1.35 spaces per 1,000 square feet, respectively.

According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation, 3rd Edition, the peak parking demand ratio is 2.84 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office uses and 1.27 spaces per 1,000 square feet of industrial park uses. The manual does not include a specific ratio for laboratory uses, but industrial park uses are available as a proxy.

Parking demand, as calculated from these two sources, is summarized in Table IV.G-20. Because the land uses on-site are primarily office and laboratory uses, which peak at similar times of the day and days of the week, the potential for shared parking is limited. As shown in Table IV.G-20, based on empirical data and ITE’s published data for similar land uses, the parking supply associated with the proposed project would not result in a parking shortage or adverse secondary impacts.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

814

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 205 Table IV.G-19: Required Parking Supply Calculation
Building Type
Square
Footage
(k.s.f.)
Efficiency
Factor
Square
Footage for
Parking
Calcula-
tions
(k.s.f)
Parking
Ratio
(space/
s.f.)
Resulting
Parking
(spaces)
Parking
Required
(with 15%
reduction)
Motorcycle
Parking
Credit a
Bicycle
Parking
Credit a
Total
Parking
Required b
Proposed
Parking
Supply
Office 1,524 0.85 1,295.4 1/250 5,182 4,405 – – – –
Lab 953 0.85 810.05 1/833 973 828 – – – –
MSB + Warehouse 23.6 0.85 20.06 1/500 41 36 – – – –
Proposed Project
Subtotal 2,500.6 – – – 6,194 5,269 27 34 5,208 –
Former EFI/303
Velocity Way (Shared
Supply)
295 0.85 250.75 1/250 1,003 853 9 43 842 –
Total with EFI 2,795.6 – – – 7,197 6,122 62 308 6,050 6,050 Notes:
a A total of 53 motorcycle parking spaces are required (per the one percent requirement) and 263 bicycle parking spaces are required (per the five percent requirement). For the purpose of identifying required parking spaces, one standard parking space is credited for every two motorcycle spaces and for every eight bicycle spaces. b Includes credit for motorcycle and bicycle parking.
k.s.f. = 1,000 square feet
MSB = Material Storage Building
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
815

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
G. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4g-Transportation.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 206 Table IV.G-20: Parking Demand Estimate and Supply Comparison Building Type
Square
Footage
(k.s.f)
Efficiency
Factor
Square
Footage for
Parking
Calculations
(k.s.f.) ITE Ratio a
ITE Demand
Estimate a
Gilead’s
Empirical
Ratio b
Empirical
Demand
Estimate b
Total Parking
Supply
Provided
Office 1,524 0.85 1,295.4 2.84 per k.s.f 3,679 2.64 per k.s.f 3,420 – Lab 953 0.85 810.05 1.27 per k.s.f 1,029 1.35 per k.s.f 1,094 – MSB + Warehouse b 23.6 0.85 20.06 0.51 per k.s.f 12 N/A 12 – Proposed Project
Subtotal 2,500.6 – – – 4,720 – 4,526 5,208
Former EFI/303
Velocity Way (Shared
Supply)
295 0.85 250.75 2.84 per k.s.f 838 N/A 838 842
Total with EFI 2,795.6 – – – 5,654 – 5,364 6,050
Notes:
a Based on parking demand rates contained within the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Parking Generation, 3rd Edition. b Empirical ratio and demand estimates are ba sed on parking rates determined from the Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. April 1, 2008 parking study conducted at the Gilead Sciences campus. This study did not include MSB or Warehouse space. k.s.f = 1,000 square feet
MSB = Material Storage Building
Source: Fehr & Peers, September 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
816

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 207 H. NOISE
This section describes existing noise conditions in the vicinity of the 2012 Master Plan area, describes criteria for determining the significance of noise impacts, and estimates noise levels that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Where appropriate, mitigation measures are recom- mended to reduce noise impacts.

1. Setting
The setting section begins with an introduction to several key concepts and terms that are used in evaluating noise. It then explains the various agencies that regulate the noise environment in the City and summarizes key standards that are applied to proposed development. This setting section con- cludes with a description of current noise sources that affect the project area and the noise conditions that are experienced in the project site vicinity.

a. Fundamentals of Noise. Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Table IV.H-1 contains a list of typical acoustical terms and definitions.

Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental sounds consists of evaluating all the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive to low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. This is called “A” weighting, and the decibel level thus measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Table IV.H-2 shows representative outdoor and indoor A-weighted sound levels.

Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a conglomeration of noise from distant sources that creates a relatively steady background noise in which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A- weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period. A single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise level during a stated period of time.

In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. Most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise intrusion at that time. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, Ldn (day/night average sound level), was developed. The Ldn divides the 24-hour day into the “daytime” of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the “nighttime” of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise level. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is another 24-hour average that includes both an evening and nighttime weighting.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

817

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 208 Table IV.H-1: Definitions of Acoustical Terms
Term Definition
Decibel, dB A unit that denotes the ratio between two quantities proportional to power; the number of decibels is 10 times the logarithm (to the base 10) of this ratio.

Frequency, Hz Of a function periodic in time, the number of times that the quantity repeats itself in one second (i.e., number of cycles per second).

A-Weighted Sound
Level, dBA
The sound level obtained by use of A-weighting. The A-weighting filter de-empha- sizes the very low and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjec- tive reactions to noise. All sound levels in this analysis are A-weighted, unless reported otherwise.

L01, L10, L50, L90 The fast A-weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded by a fluctuating sound level for 1 percent, 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent of a stated time period.

Equivalent Continuous
Noise Level, Leq
The level of a steady sound that, in a stated time period and at a stated location, has the same A-weighted sound energy as the time-varying sound.

Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 5 decibels to sound levels occurring in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Day/Night Noise Level,
Ldn
The 24-hour A-weighted average sound level from midnight to midnight, obtained after the addition of 10 decibels to sound levels occurring in the night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted sound levels measured on a sound level meter, during a designated time interval, using fast time averaging.

Ambient Noise Level The all-encompa ssing noise associated with a given environment at a specified time, usually a composite of sound from many sources at many directions, near and far; no particular sound is dominant.

Intrusive The noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given location.

The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Source: Harris, Cyril M., 1998. Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

818

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 209 Table IV.H-2: Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels

Source: Compiled by LSA Associates, Inc., 2008.

b. Noise Regulatory Framework. The following section summarizes the regulatory framework for noise established by the City of Foster City. The City addresses noise in the Noise Element of the General Plan1 and in the Municipal Code.2

The goals, policies and programs listed in the Noise Element that are applicable to the proposed project are summarized as follows:
 The Land Use Compatibility Standards identify acceptable noise exposure levels for new development according to land use. Community noise exposure levels up to 65 dBA Ldn are considered normally acceptable for office buildings, business, and commercial uses.

Interior noise levels are a function of the use of space but should generally be limited to 45 dBA Leq or less.

1 Foster City, City of, 1993. Foster City General Plan, Chapter 6: Noise Element. May. 2 Foster City, City of, 2012. City of Foster City Municipal Code. May 21.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

819

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 210  The noise environment in existing
residential areas is required to be
protected. The City will require
mitigation measures for projects
that would cause the L
dn to
increase by 3 dBA or more where
noise levels would exceed or
currently exceed 60 dBA L
dn.

Noise created by commercial or
industrial sources associated with
new projects are required to be
controlled so as not to exceed the
standards presented in the “Noise
and Land Use Compatibility Standards for Industrial and Commercial Noise Sources” table as measured at any affected residential land use (Table IV.H-3).

The City of Foster City further addresses noise in the Municipal Code in section 17.68.030. The ordinance limits, only in residential districts or within 100 yards of a residential district, noise- generating construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In addition, at no time may the noise level from single or multiple sources exceed 100 dBA at the producer’s property plane unless prior authorization is obtained from the Community Development Director.

The City’s Municipal Code also restricts the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects prior to 7:30 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and before 9:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays in a residential district or within 100 yards (300 feet) of a residential district.

The Municipal Code further establishes the City’s general noise limits for receiving land use categories. These noise limits are summarized in Table IV.H-4.

Table IV.H-4: Noise Limits
Receiving Land Use Category Time Period
Noise Level (dBA)
Time Duration Greater
Than 3 Minutes
Time Duration Less
Than 3 Minutes
One- or two-family residential 10:00 p.m. – 7:30 a.m. 50 55 7:30 p.m. – 10:00 a.m. 60 65
Multiple family, public space 10:00 p.m. – 7:30 a.m. 55 60 7:30 p.m. – 10:00 a.m. 60 65
Commercial, Office 10:00 p.m. – 7:30 a.m. 60 65
7:30 p.m. – 10:00 a.m. 65 70
Light Industrial 10:00 p.m. – 7:30 a.m. 65 70
7:30 p.m. – 10:00 a.m. 70 75
Source: Foster City, City of. 2012. Foster City Municipal Code. Chapter 17.68. May.

c. Existing Noise Environment. The Master Plan area is located within the Vintage Park General Development Plan area, which is north of SR 92 and east of Mariners Island Boulevard. There are noise- sensitive residential areas to the south and west of the project site. Office uses and Mariners Table IV.H-3: Noise and Land Use Compatibility
Standards for Industrial and Commercial Noise Sources
Cumulative Duration
of Noise Event
in any
One-Hour Period
(In Minutes)
Exterior Noise Level Standards
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. –
10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. –
7:00 a.m.)
30 50 45
15 55 50
5 60 55
1 65 60
0 70 65
Source: Foster City, City of. 1993. General Plan, Chapter 6:

Noise Element, page 6-15. May.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

820

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 211 Point Golf Course are located north of the project site. Office and light industrial uses are to the east.

Uses to the south include Home Depot, Hilton Garden Inn, and Bridgepointe Shopping Center, beyond which are multi-family residential uses. A mix of multi-family and single-family residential uses and a lagoon are located west of Mariners Island Boulevard. The following section describes the existing noise environment and identifies primary noise sources in the vicinity of the project site.

(1) Existing Noise Environment. The baseline noise levels in the project site vicinity are dominated by vehicular traffic on SR 92, Mariners Island Boulevard, East Third Avenue, and other nearby roadways. Other audible mobile noise sources in the project site vicinity include motorboat operation on the lagoon waterway west of Mariners Island Boulevard and occasional aircraft over- flights. Audible stationary noise sources in the project site vicinity include mechanical equipment operation, such as air conditioner fans and compressors, as well as truck deliveries and general parking lot activities.

Noise measurements taken in preparation of the noise analysis for the 2010 Master Plan EIR documented ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity as ranging from 54 dBA to 62 dBA L eq.

Long-term ambient noise monitoring results show that the existing ambient noise levels at receivers west of the site are 55 dBA Ldn. Because local and regional traffic levels have not substantially increased since 2010, ambient noise levels have remained generally static over the past few years.

Therefore, the ambient noise levels documented as part of the 2010 Master Plan EIR continue to accurately characterize the project site and its vicinity.

(2) Existing Traffic Noise Levels. Existing traffic noise levels were calculated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model. Traffic data used in the model were obtained from the Transportation Impact Analysis 3 prepared by Fehr & Peers
Transportation Consultants for the proposed 2012 Master Plan. The traffic noise model printouts are included in Appendix D.

Table IV.H-5 lists the calculated traffic noise levels along roadway segments in the project site vicinity under existing conditions. In order to analyze the worst case scenario and highest traffic volumes for each of the modeled scenarios, PM traffic volumes were used to calculate the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes, as PM volumes were higher overall than the AM traffic volumes.

Results indicate that existing traffic noise levels from modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity range from approximately 52.2 dBA to 66.4 dBA CNEL as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

3 Fehr & Peers, 2012. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. October.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

821

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 212 Table IV.H-5: Existing Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Average
Daily
Tripsa
Centerline
to 70 dBA Ldn
(feet)
Centerline
to 65 dBA Ldn
(feet)
Centerline
to 60 dBA Ldn
(feet)
Ldn (dBA)
50 Feet From
Centerline of
Outermost
Laneb
East Third Avenue - Anchor Road
to Mariners Island Blvd. 14,200 < 50 90 189 66.4
East Third Avenue - Mariners Island Blvd.
to Lakeside Drive 9,000 < 50 69 141 64.5
East Third Avenue - Lakeside Drive
to Marsh Drive 7,900 < 50 64 129 63.9
East Third Avenue - Marsh Drive
to Foster City Blvd. 7,400 < 50 61 124 63.6
Mariners Island Blvd. - East Third Avenue
to Reef Drive 5,900 < 50 < 50 74 60.0
Mariners Island Blvd. - Reef Drive
to Trader Lane 5,500 < 50 < 50 71 59.6
Mariners Island Blvd. - Armada Drive
to Fashion Island Blvd. 5,100 < 50 < 50 67 59.3
Marsh Drive - East Third Avenue
to Vintage Park Drive 800 < 50 < 50 < 50 52.2
Vintage Park Drive - Lakeside Drive
to Chess Drive 5,100 < 50 < 50 67 59.3
Foster City Blvd. - East Third Avenue
to Vintage Park Drive 9,000 < 50 < 50 95 61.8
Foster City Blvd. - Vintage Park Drive
to Chess Drive 11,100 < 50 < 50 109 62.7
Chess Drive - Vintage Park Drive
to SR 92 WB Ramps 14,900 < 50 < 50 104 62.4
a Average daily trips are estimated based on the peak hour traffic volumes. b Traffic noise within 50 feet of the roadway centerline requires a site-specific analysis.

Note: Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the project site.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

(3) Existing Aircraft Noise Levels. San Francisco International Airport is located approxi- mately 5 miles north of the project site. Aircraft-related noise is audible on the project site, which is located within Area B of the Airport Influence Area (AIA). Area B is a combination of the outer boundaries of the noise (CNEL 65 dB) boundaries and various safety (primarily building height) boundaries.4

San Carlos Airport is located approximately 4 miles south of the project site. The project site is located within Area A of the San Carlos Airport AIA, which 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 in light of airport safety or noise considerations.
5 4 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. 5 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 1996. San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. December.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

822

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 213 No private airstrips are located near the project site.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section evaluates potential noise impacts associated with implementation of the proposed 2012 Master Plan and mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, where appropriate.

a. Criteria of Significance. A project would have a significant noise effect if it would substan- tially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of Foster City. The applicable noise standards governing the project are those in the City of Foster City’s Noise Element of the General Plan and applicable sections of the City’s Municipal Code. For the purposes of this Subsequent EIR, the project would result in a significant noise impact if it would:
 Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of normally acceptable standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance (i.e., L dn of 60 dBA for residential uses
and Ldn of 65 dBA for office and other commercial uses);  Expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or noise;  Create a clearly noticeable permanent change (a 3 dBA increase) in the noise environment, even though the acceptability threshold (Ldn of 60 dBA for residential uses and Ldn of 65 dBA for office and other commercial uses) has not been reached;  Be located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels;
 Be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or
 Construction related noise would be considered significant when a substantial temporary or periodic noise level increase would occur where:
1) Noise from construction activities would exceed 60 dBA Leq(h) and the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq(h) for a period of 1 year or more at exterior areas of uses sensitive to noise inside and outside (e.g., residences, residential care facilities, schools, and libraries); or
2) Noise from construction activities would exceed 70 dBA Leq(h) and the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq(h) for a period of 1 year or more at the exterior façades of offices or other commercial, retail, or institutional uses with interior spaces sensitive to noise.

Acceptable interior noise level standards are reflected in the normally acceptable exterior noise standards established by the City (and incorporated into the criteria of significance above). Accepta- ble interior noise levels are a function of the use of space, but should normally not exceed 45 dBA L
eq. If exterior noise level standards are met, the interiors of buildings constructed in compliance with the State Building Code would experience acceptable noise levels. Therefore, the criteria of significance listed above focus on exterior noise standards.

b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. The following project impacts would be considered less than significant and would not require mitigation.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

823

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 214 (1) Groundborne Vibration. According to the significance criteria, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the project would expose persons to or generate excessive ground- borne vibration or noise. No permanent noise sources that would expose persons to excessive ground- borne vibration or noise levels would be located within the project site. In addition, there are no known existing sources of vibration that would affect the project site (e.g., railroad trains). Construc- tion activities related to development of the proposed project could result in groundborne vibration levels that would be perceptible at points along the project site property line when heavy earthmoving equipment operates near the periphery of the site.

Demolition and construction activities proposed as part of the project may generate perceptible vibration levels when heavy equipment or impact tools (e.g., jackhammers, pile drivers, hoe rams) are used in the vicinity of nearby sensitive land uses. Distinctly perceptible groundborne vibration levels could be generated by heavy tracked vehicles (e.g., bulldozers or excavators) when this equipment operates within approximately 25 feet of sensitive land uses. Impact pile drivers can generate distinctly perceptible groundborne vibration levels at distances of up to about 100 feet.

Buildings proposed for demolition or construction are a minimum distance of 75 feet from the nearest adjacent commercial use (i.e., the commercial uses to the south of the site) and 200 feet or more from existing residences or hotels. Groundborne vibration levels generated by demolition or construction activities within the Master Plan area would not generally be perceptible at adjacent buildings because of the distance separating these receivers from such vibration-producing events. Anticipated vibration levels would not be expected to result in cosmetic or structural damage to adjacent build- ings. Therefore, groundborne vibration resulting from the project would result in a less-than- significant impact.

(2) On-Site Traffic Noise Impacts. According to the significance criteria, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of normally acceptable standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance. The City’s land use compatibility standards for new development have established a normally acceptable threshold of 60 dBA Ldn for new residential uses and 65 dBA Ldn for new office and commercial uses.

This standard applies to new development and is not intended to apply as a threshold for existing land uses (i.e., off-site land uses). Project-related traffic noise impacts to off-site land uses are analyzed in a separate impact discussion, below.

The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic- related noise conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the Ldn values. The existing and cumulative (year 2030) traffic volumes for roadway segments in the project site vicinity were used in the traffic noise impact analysis. Table IV.H-6 shows the traffic noise levels for each scenario as calculated at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lanes. The model inputs and outputs, including the 60 dBA, 65 dBA, and 70 dBA noise contour distances for each modeled roadway segment, are provided in Appendix D. Figure IV.H-1 shows the change in noise levels along modeled roadway segments from Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions.

Traffic noise levels on modeled roadway segments of East Third Avenue, Mariners Island Boulevard, Marsh Drive, and Vintage Park Drive that are adjacent to the project site would range from 60.2 dBA to 66.8 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane under Existing Plus Project conditions, and from 60.7 dBA to 67.7 dBA Ldn under Cumulative Plus Project Conditions.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

824

Anchor RdAnchor Rd
Reef DrReef Dr
Lakeside Dr
Trader LnTrader Ln
Armada Way
Fashion Island Blvd
SR 92 Ram
ps
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
E. 3rd AveE. 3rd Ave
Foster City BlvdFoster City Blvd
M
arsh Dr
Mariners Island BlvdMariners Island Blvd
Anchor Rd
Reef Dr
Lakeside Dr
Trader Ln
Armada Way
Fashion Island Blvd
SR 92 Ram
ps
Chess Dr
Vintage Park Dr
E. 3rd Ave
Foster City Blvd
M
arsh Dr
92 Mariners Island Blvd
feet
8000 400
Increases of 3 dBA or greater
Increases of 1 dBA to 3 dBA
Increases of less than 1 dBA
Project Boundary
FIGURE IV.H-1
Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate
Campus Master Plan Subsequent EIR
Modeled Traffic Noise Levels
Change from Existing to Existing with ProjectSOURCES: GOOGLE EARTH, NOV 2011; LSA ASSOCIATES, INC., 2012.

I:\CFS1201 Gilead North\figures\Fig_IVH1.ai (10/31/12)

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

825

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PL A N SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 216 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

826

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 217 Table IV.H-6: Modeled Traffic Noise Levels at 50 feet from Centerline of Outermost Travel Lane, dBA Roadway Segment
Existing
(Ldn)
Existing
+ Project
(Ldn)
Change from
Existing to
Existing
+ Project
Cumulative
(2030)
No Project
(Ldn)
Cumulative
(2030)
+ Project
(Ldn)
Change from
Cumulative
to Cumulative
+ Project
Change from
Existing to
Cumulative
+ Project
East Third Avenue - Anchor Road
to Mariners Island Blvd. 66.4 68.0 1.6 68.6 68.8 0.2 2.4 East Third Avenue - Mariners Island
Blvd. to Lakeside Drive 64.5 66.8 2.3 67.3 67.7 0.4 3.2 East Third Avenue - Lakeside Drive
to Marsh Drive 63.9 65.9 2.0 66.6 66.9 0.3 3.0
East Third Avenue - Marsh Drive
to Foster City Blvd. 63.6 64.5 0.9 65.6 65.7 0.1 2.1
Mariners Island Blvd. - East Third
Avenue to Reef Drive 60.0 61.0 1.0 61.5 61.5 0.0 1.5
Mariners Island Blvd. - Reef Drive
to Trader Lane 59.6 60.9 1.3 61.3 61.5 0.2 1.9
Mariners Island Blvd. - Armada Drive
to Fashion Island Blvd. 59.3 61.6 2.3 61.9 62.0 0.1 2.7 Marsh Drive - East Third Avenue
to Vintage Park Drive 52.2 60.2 8.0 59.4 60.7 1.3 8.5
Vintage Park Drive - Lakeside Drive
to Chess Drive 59.3 62.4 3.1 61.8 62.7 0.9 3.4
Foster City Blvd. - East Third Avenue
to Vintage Park Drive 61.8 62.5 0.7 63.5 63.5 0.0 1.7
Foster City Blvd. - Vintage Park Drive
to Chess Drive 62.7 63.5 0.8 64.1 64.2 0.1 1.5
Chess Drive - Vintage Park Drive
to SR 92 WB Ramps 62.4 62.7 0.3 62.9 63.0 0.1 0.6
Note: Shaded cells indicate roadway segments adjacent to the project site.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) &nbsp;
&nbsp;
827

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 218 New laboratory and office buildings are proposed for development as close as 525 feet from East Third Avenue, as close as 140 feet from the centerline of Mariners Island Boulevard, as close as 550 feet from Marsh Drive, and as close as 250 feet from Vintage Park Drive. At these distances, future traffic noise levels would attenuate to 54.5 dBA Ldn or less at the nearest proposed new buildings adjoining these roadways. The future noise environment at the new proposed facilities would be within the City’s normally acceptable range for the proposed land uses (65 dBA L dn or less). Thus,
project-related traffic noise levels would not result in an exceedance of the City’s land use compat- ibility standards and would therefore be considered less than significant.

(3) Aircraft Noise and Land Use Compatibility. According to the significance criteria, a significant impact would occur if the project would be located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. As discussed in the Setting section, the project site is located within Area B of the San Francisco International Airport AIA and is not within the 60 dBA CNEL noise zone of the airport. Therefore, exterior noise levels associated with aircraft at San Francisco International Airport would be compatible with the proposed office and laboratory land uses. Interior noise levels would be less than 45 dBA L eq, taking into
account aircraft operations around the site, and assuming standard construction methods. The project site is located within Area A of the San Carlos Airport AIA, which indicates a location that is only marginally influenced by airport-related noise. Therefore, persons on the project site would not be exposed to unacceptable exterior or interior noise levels associated with San Carlos Airport.

(4) Operational Delivery and Parking Lot Activities Noise. Implementation of the proposed project would result in noise from stationary noise sources, including parking lot activity and delivery truck loading and unloading activities.

Parking activities, such as people conversing or doors slamming, generate noise levels of approxi- mately 60 dBA to 70 dBA L
max at 50 feet. The 2012 Master Plan would locate parking facilities adjacent to existing and proposed laboratory and office buildings – a land use mix that currently exists within the project site. The proposed parking garages would consolidate much of the proposed parking within interior spaces, and associated parking-related noises would be reduced for surrounding uses compared to the provision of that parking in surface lots. Under existing conditions, no garage spaces are provided on the project site, and all 3,847 parking spaces are located in surface lots. Under the proposed project, the total number of parking spaces on the site would increase to 6,050, but approxi- mately 52 percent of these spaces (3,170) would be provided within parking garages, within which associated noise would be attenuated to outside receptors. With implementation of the proposed project, the total number of surface parking spaces would decrease from 3,847 to 2,880. Therefore, noise levels from parking activities would remain similar to, or even be lower than current levels.

Of the on-site stationary noise sources, noise generated by delivery truck activity would generate the highest maximum noise levels. Noise from delivery truck loading and unloading activities can result in maximum noise levels ranging from 75 dBA to 85 dBA L max at 50 feet.

The 2012 Master Plan would locate a shipping/receiving center and service yard in the northeast corner of the project site. The shipping/receiving center would be used as a location for centralized deliveries made by trucks for all campus buildings. Laboratory and other items would be delivered to

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

828

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 219 the appropriate buildings or temporarily stored in the materials storage building located adjacent to NB/357. Gilead Sciences-owned vehicles would deliver items from the shipping/receiving center to each of the campus buildings.

The City’s Municipal Code restricts the loading, unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects prior to 7:30 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and before 9:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays in a residential district or within 100 yards (300 feet) of a residential district. The closest residential land uses are located over 2,000 feet west of the proposed shipping/receiving center.

The closest existing off-site noise sensitive receptors to the shipping/receiving center are the office land uses bordering the project site to the east of Marsh Road and Vintage Park Drive. These uses are located over 200 feet from the shipping/receiving center. At this distance, assuming a direct line of sight with no intervening buildings or structures, these land uses could experience noise levels from delivery truck activities of up to 73 dBA L
max. However, the structure that would enclose the
proposed shipping/receiving center would reduce these activity noise levels by a minimum of 8 dBA by blocking the direct line of sight to these activities. Therefore, maximum noise levels from these activities would not exceed the City’s noise level thresholds for office land uses shown in Table IV.H-4. Thus noise levels from project-related stationary noise sources would result in a less-than- significant impact on off-site sensitive receptors.

Similar conclusions would apply to proposed office and laboratory buildings in the vicinity of the shipping/receiving center. The shipping/receiving center would not expose occupants of proposed office and laboratory buildings to unacceptable noise levels primarily because noise generated by the shipping/receiving center would be reduced by the structural enclosure and the three- to six-level parking garages that would be developed adjacent to the shipping/receiving center.

c. Significant Impacts. The following section discusses noise sources that would substantially increase ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project site over a temporary or permanent basis.

(1) Construction Period Noise. According to the significance criteria, a significant noise impact would occur where noise from construction activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and exceeds ambient noise levels by at least 5 dBA at noise-sensitive residential uses in the project site vicinity for a period of more than 1 year. A significant noise impact would also be identified where noise from construction activities exceeds 70 dBA L
eq and exceeds ambient noise levels by at least 5 dBA at adjacent offices or other commercial, retail, or institutional uses with interior spaces sensitive to noise for a period of more than 1 year.

Construction of the project could result in a substantial temporary noise increase at existing residen- tial land uses in the vicinity of the site. Construction activities could also substantially increase ambient noise levels at Gilead Sciences office buildings that remain in use during the construction of the project and at other existing noise sensitive land uses located adjacent to the project site. Con- struction noise impacts that would occur as a result of the project are described below.

Impact NOI-1: Construction period activities would create significant temporary noise impacts on existing noise sensitive land uses adjacent to the site. (S)

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

829

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 220 The 2012 Master Plan would be completed
over an up to 15- to 20-year period extending
to 2028 to 2033, in accordance with the
projected business needs of Gilead Sciences.

The construction period for each building
would last approximately 12 to 18 months.

Two types of short-term noise impacts would
occur during site preparation and project
construction. The first type would result from
the increase in traffic flow on local streets,
associated with the transport of workers,
equipment, and materials to and from the
project site.

The transport of workers, construction
equipment, and materials to the project site
would incrementally increase noise levels on
access roads leading to the site. Because
workers and construction equipment would use
existing routes, noise from passing trucks
would be similar to existing vehicle-generated
noise on these local roadways. For this reason,
short-term intermittent noise from trucks
would be minor when averaged over a longer
time period and would not be expected to exceed existing peak noise levels in the project vicinity.

Therefore, short-term construction-related noise associated with worker and equipment transport to the project site would result in a less-than-significant impact on receptors along the access routes leading to the site.

The second type of short-term noise impact is related to the noise generated by heavy construction equipment operating on the project site. These impacts are influenced by the types of construction equipment in use, the timing and duration of noise-generating activities, and the distance between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Existing receptors in the vicinity of the site, including residential land uses, would be subject to short-term noise generated by construction equipment and activities on the project site when construction occurs near the project boundary.

Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment and, conse- quently, its own noise characteristics. These phases would change the character of the noise generated on the project site and, therefore, the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses.

Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction- related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table IV.H-7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels recommended for noise impact assessments, based on a distance of 50 feet between the equipment and a noise receptor.

The demolition and site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading of the site, tends to generate the highest noise levels, because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving Table IV.H-7: Typical Co nstruction Equipment
Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax
Type of Equipment
Range of
Maximum
Sound Levels
(dBA at 50 feet)
Suggested
Maximum
Sound Levels
for Analysis
(dBA at 50 feet)
Pile Drivers 81 to 96 93
Rock Drills 83 to 99 96
Jackhammers 75 to 85 82
Pneumatic Tools 78 to 88 85
Pumps 74 to 84 80
Scrapers 83 to 91 87
Haul Trucks 83 to 94 88
Cranes 79 to 86 82
Portable Generators 71 to 87 80
Rollers 75 to 82 80
Dozers 77 to 90 85
Tractors 77 to 82 80
Front-End Loaders 77 to 90 86
Hydraulic Backhoe 81 to 90 86
Hydraulic Excavators 81 to 90 86
Graders 79 to 89 86
Air Compressors 76 to 89 86
Trucks 81 to 87 86
Source: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, 1987. Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

830

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 221 equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery such as backhoes, bulldozers, draglines, and front loaders. Earthmoving and compacting equipment includes compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Demolition associated with implementation of the proposed project is expected to require the use of jackhammers, haul trucks, dozers, front-end loaders, and water trucks. Assuming each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance apart from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during demolition could range up to 92 dBA L max, with the peak hourly noise
levels ranging up to 74 dBA Leq(h), as measured at a distance of 50 feet from multiple pieces of equipment operating at full power.

Construction of the proposed project is expected to require the use of earthmovers such as bulldozers and scrapers, loaders and graders, water trucks, and pickup trucks. The use of impact pile driving equipment may also be required during construction of foundations for some project buildings.

Assuming each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance apart from the other equipment, the worst-case combined noise level during the site preparation phase of construction (taking into account the potential use of impact pile drivers) could range up to 95 dBA L max, with the
peak hourly noise levels ranging up to 75 dBA Leq(h), as measured at a distance of 50 feet from multiple pieces of equipment operating at full power.

Table IV.H-8 shows the worst-case combined noise levels that could be expected at the nearest off- site sensitive receptor during the demolition and site preparation phases.

As shown in Table IV.H-8, peak hourly construction noise levels would extend up to 63 dBA L eq(h)
and thus exceed 60 dBA Leq(h) and the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at noise-sensitive residential uses in the project site vicinity for a period of more than 1 year (existing measured ambient noise levels at receivers west of the site are 54 to 55 dBA L dn). The construction of the project would thus
result in a significant temporary noise level increase at neighboring noise-sensitive residential properties.

Pursuant to the Foster City Municipal Code, the construction contractor is required to limit noise- generating construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays in residential districts or within 100 yards of a residential district, or as required in a Specific Development Plan/ Use Permit. At no time may the noise level from single or multiple sources exceed 100 dBA at the producer’s property plane unless prior authorization is obtained from the Community Development Director. The following multi-part mitigation measure would reduce the construction period noise impact of the project to a less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure NOI-1a: The construction contractor(s) shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construc- tion 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.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

831

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 222 Table IV.H-8: Construction-related Noise Levels, dBA
Building Activity
Distance to
Nearest Sensitive
Receiver
(feet)
Hourly Average
Noise Level (Leq(h))
at Nearest Receiver
Single Source
Maximum
Noise Level (Lmax)
at Nearest Receiver
320 Demolition 250 60 78
322 Demolition 250 60 78
324 Demolition 315 58 76
331 Demolition 675 51 69
333 Demolition 1,040 47 65
335 Demolition 720 50 68
342 Demolition 270 59 77
344 Demolition 275 59 77
346 Demolition 225 60 78
353 Demolition 625 52 70
355 Demolition 1,100 47 65
357 Demolition 850 49 67
366 Already Demolished – – –
368 Already Demolished – – –
PG-1 Construction 250 61 81
PG-2 Construction 200 63 83
PG-3 Construction 225 62 82
PG-4 Construction 200 63 83
NB/322 Construction 250 61 81
NB/324 Construction 315 59 79
NB/331 Construction 675 52 72
NB/333 Construction 1,040 48 69
NB/335 Construction 720 52 72
NB/342 Construction 370 57 78
NB/346 Construction 275 60 80
NB/353 Construction 625 53 73
NB/355 Construction 1,100 48 68
Pilot Lab Construction 1,075 48 68
NB/357 Construction 850 50 70
Annex (322) Construction 430 56 76
NB/305 Construction 1,050 48 69
NB/307 Construction 700 52 72
NB/309 Construction 650 52 73
Ship/Receive Construction 200 63 83
MSB Construction 430 56 76
NB/368 Construction 530 54 74
PG = Parking Garage
NB = New Building
MSB = Material Storage Building
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

832

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 223 Mitigation Measure 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-generating equipment when located near adjoining sensitive land uses. Temporary noise barriers could reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA.  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 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. (LTS)

(2) Operational Mechanical Noise. According to the significance criteria, a significant impact would occur if implementation of the project would expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of normally acceptable standards established in the General Plan or noise ordinance.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

833

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 224 Implementation of the proposed project could result in noise levels from the operation of mechanical equipment that could result in exceedances of the City’s operational noise limits.

Impact 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)

Operation of the project would introduce new sources of noise to the project site. Mechanical equip- ment expected to be installed on the site would be similar to existing equipment on the site, and would include emergency diesel engine generators, cooling towers, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and exhaust fans. The Municipal Code requires that noise from the operation of such equipment during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. not exceed 50 dBA for more than 30 minutes out of an hour, 55 dBA for more than 15 minutes out of an hour, 60 dBA for a period of more than 5 minutes out of the hour, 65 dBA for a period of more than 1 minute out of an hour, or 70 dBA for any period of time. The nighttime noise level limits are 5 dBA more restrictive (e.g., during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. noise levels cannot exceed 45 dBA for more than 30 minutes out of an hour). Refer to Table IV.H-3 for a summary of these noise and land use compatibility standards.

Noise levels generated by the project would be dependent on the number and type of equipment selected, the location of the equipment relative to nearby sensitive receivers, and the presence of shielding. In general, mechanical equipment would be placed at the tops of proposed buildings, and would be enclosed with roof screens, reducing adverse impacts to noise levels. However, noise levels generated by mechanical equipment, if not properly controlled, could result in a significant impact by exceeding the Municipal Code noise level limits.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential noise impacts associated with the operation of mechanical equipment to a less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: At the time that specific buildings 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)

(3) Off-Site Traffic Noise Impacts. One of the aforementioned significance criteria establishes that a significant impact would occur if implementation of the project would create a clearly noticeable permanent change (a 3 dBA increase) in the noise environment, even though the acceptability threshold (i.e., L
dn of 60 dBA for residential uses and Ldn of 65 dBA for office and commercial uses) has not been reached.

Impact NOI-3: Project-related traffic would create a clearly noticeable permanent change in the noise environment. (S)

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

834

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 225 The FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA RD-77-108) was used to evaluate traffic- related noise conditions along roadway segments in the vicinity of the project site. The resultant noise levels were weighed and summed over a 24-hour period in order to determine the Ldn values. The existing and future (year 2030) traffic volumes for roadway segments in the project site vicinity were used in the traffic noise impact analysis. Table IV.H-6 summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for each scenario as calculated at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lanes. Figure IV.H-1 shows the change in noise levels along modeled roadway segments from Existing to Existing Plus Project conditions.

Review of the traffic noise modeling 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. A segment of Marsh Drive would experience an increase of up to 8.0 dBA under existing plus project conditions compared to existing conditions. Vintage Park Drive, from Lakeside Drive to Chess Drive, would experience an increase of up to 3.1 dBA under existing plus project conditions compared to existing conditions.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the contribution of the project to roadway noise on the segments of Marsh Drive and Vintage Park Drive identified above, but noise along the segment of Marsh Drive would not be reduced to a less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-1. (SU)

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would result in an overall 8 percent reduction in daily project trips through the implementation of a more robust TDM Program. Under existing plus project conditions, assuming implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, noise levels would increase by up to 7.7 dBA along the segment of Marsh Drive from East Third Avenue to Vintage Park Drive, and increase by up to 2.9 dBA along the segment of Vintage Park Drive as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

Therefore, the contribution to roadway noise along Marsh Drive would remain significant and unavoidable (as the expected noise increase would be above 3dBA), although the contribution to roadway noise along Vintage Park Drive would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Due to the existing required access driveways along the impacted segment of Marsh Drive, and for aesthetic reasons, mitigation in the form of sound walls would not be feasible or desirable. An alternative mitigation measure would be to resurface this roadway segment with Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt- Open Graded (RHMA-O) or similar quieter pavement. This type of pavement has been shown in various studies to result in a 4 to 6 dBA reduction in noise levels with an average 4 dBA reduction in traffic noise realized in a California long-term study. 6 However, even by using RHMA-O or a similar
quiet pavement to resurface the segment of Marsh Drive from East Third Avenue to Vintage Park Drive, project-related traffic noise levels would still result in a clearly noticeable permanent change of approximately 3.7 dBA. In addition, the use of quiet pavement would pose long-term costs to the City and would be inconsistent with street resurfacing plans in the Foster City Capital Improvement Program. Therefore, as no feasible mitigation exists to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, project-related traffic noise increases would remain significant and unavoidable.

6 Sacramento County, 1999. Department of Environmental Review and Assessment, Report of the Status of Rubberized Asphalt Traffic Noise Reduction in Sacramento County. November.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

835

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
H. NOISE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4h-Noise.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 226 d. Cumulative Impacts. A project would make a significant contribution to a cumulative noise impact if it contributes 1 dBA or greater to an environment with existing noise levels in excess of normally acceptable standards for the designated land uses. As shown in Table IV.H-6, existing traffic noise levels along modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity would experience traffic noise levels ranging from 52.2 dBA to 66.4 dBA Ldn as measured at 500 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane.

The City’s normally acceptable land use compatibility standard for new residential and transient lodging land use development is 60 dBA L
dn. There are existing residential and transient lodging land uses located along segments of Mariners Island Boulevard and Chess Drive that would be affected by project traffic. However, as shown in Table IV.H-6, existing traffic noise levels along Mariners Island Boulevard do not exceed 60 dBA Ldn as measured at 50 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Existing traffic noise levels along the modeled segment of Chess Drive are 62.4 dBA Ldn at 50 feet from the outermost travel lane. The closest noise sensitive land use to this roadway segment is the Crowne Plaza hotel, located 75 feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. At this distance, existing traffic noise levels are approximately 58.9 dBA L dn, which is below the City’s
normally acceptable threshold for this type of land use.

Other land uses adjacent to the modeled roadway segments shown in Table IV.H-6 include commer- cial and office land uses as well as parks and golf courses. The City’s normally acceptable land use compatibility standards for new development of these types of land uses is 65 dBA L dn. The existing
traffic noise level along East Third Avenue from Anchor Road to Mariners Island Boulevard is 66.4 dBA Ldn, as measured at 50 feet from the outermost travel lane. However, this segment is bordered only by open space or undeveloped land uses. All other modeled roadway segments have existing traffic noise levels below 65 dBA L
dn. Therefore, the project would not make a significant contribu- tion to a cumulative impact by contributing 1 dBA or greater to an environment with existing noise levels in excess of normally acceptable standards for the designated land uses.

Traffic noise levels under Cumulative Plus Project conditions would result in increases along modeled roadway segments ranging up to 1.3 dBA compared to traffic noise levels under Cumulative condi- tions without the project. Only increases of 3 dBA or greater are considered perceptible in outdoor environments. Because existing traffic noise levels along modeled roadway segments in the project vicinity do not exceed the City’s normally acceptable land use compatibility standards for the adjacent types of land uses, the resulting less-than-perceptible increases in Cumulative Plus Project traffic noise levels compared to Cumulative conditions would be considered less than significant.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

836

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 227 I. AIR QUALITY
This section has been prepared using the methodologies and assumptions recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)1 and the CEQA Guidelines. In keeping with these guidelines, this section describes existing air quality and the potential effects of the 2012 Master Plan on air quality, including impacts of traffic on local carbon monoxide and regional pollutant levels. Mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant air quality impacts are identified, where appropriate.

1. Setting
This section describes existing air quality conditions in the City of Foster City, beginning with a discussion of typical air pollutant types and sources, health effects, and climatology relating to air quality.

a. Air Pollutants and Health Effects. Both State and federal governments have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards for six criteria air pollutants:
2 carbon monoxide (CO),
ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended particulate matter (PM). In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the population with a reasonable margin of safety. Long-term exposure to elevated levels of criteria pollutants may result in adverse health effects. Emission thresholds established by an air district are used to manage total regional emissions within an air basin based on the air basin’s attainment status for criteria pollutants. These emission thresholds were established for individual projects that would contribute to regional emissions and pollutant concentrations and may adversely affect or delay the proje
cted attainment target year for certain criteria pollutants.

Because of the conservative nature of the thresholds and the basin-wide context of individual project emissions, there is no direct correlation between a single project and localized air quality-related health effects. One individual project that generates emissions exceeding a threshold does not necessarily result in adverse health effects for residents in the project vicinity. This condition is especially true when the criteria pollutants exceeding thresholds are those with regional effects, such as ozone precursors like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG).

Occupants of facilities such as schools, day care centers, parks and playgrounds, hospitals, and nursing and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to air pollutants because these population groups have increased susceptibility to respiratory disease.

Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality.

Residential areas are considered more sensitive to air quality conditions, compared to commercial and industrial areas, because people generally spend longer periods of time at their residences, with greater associated exposure to ambient air quality conditions. Recreational uses are also considered

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 2 Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

837

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 228 sensitive compared to commercial and industrial uses, as people exercising inhale greater volumes of air, and thus may be exposed to higher pollutant volumes.

Air pollutants and their health effects, and other air pollution-related considerations are summarized in Table IV.I-1 and are described in more detail below.

Table IV.I-1: Sources and Health Effects of Air Pollutants Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
 Incomplete combustion of fuels and
other carbon-containing substances, such
as motor exhaust.
 Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.
 Reduced tolerance for exercise.
 Impairment of mental function.
 Impairment of fetal development.
 Death at high levels of exposure.
 Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
 Motor vehicle exhaust.
 High temperature stationary combustion.
 Atmospheric reactions.
 Aggravation of respiratory illness.
 Reduced visibility.
 Reduced plant growth.
 Formation of acid rain.

Ozone
(O
3)
 Atmospheric reaction of organic gases
with nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
 Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
 Irritation of eyes.
 Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
 Plant leaf injury.

Lead
(Pb)
 Contaminated soil.  Impairment of blood functions and nerve con- struction.
 Behavioral and hearing problems in children.

Suspended Particulate
Matter
(PM

2.5 and PM10)
 Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
 Construction activities.
 Industrial processes.
 Atmospheric chemical reactions.
 Reduced lung function.
 Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.
 Aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory
diseases.
 Increased cough and chest discomfort.
 Soiling.
 Reduced visibility.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
 Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil
fuels.
 Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
 Industrial processes.
 Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
 Reduced lung function.
 Irritation of eyes.
 Reduced visibility.
 Plant injury.
 Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.

Source: California Air Resources Board (ARB), 2012.

(1) Ozone. Ozone is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. The main sources of ROG and NOx, often

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

838

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 229 referred to as ozone precursors, are combustion processes (including combustion in motor vehicle engines) and the evaporation of solvents, paints, and fuels. In the Bay Area, automobiles are the single largest source of ozone precursors. Ozone is referred to as a regional air pollutant because its precursors are transported and diffused by wind concurrently with ozone production through the photochemical reaction process. Ozone causes eye irritation, airway constriction, and shortness of breath and can aggravate existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.

(2) Carbon Monoxide. CO is an odorless, colorless gas usually formed as the result of the incomplete combustion of fuels. The single largest source of CO is motor vehicles. While CO transport is limited, it disperses with distance from the source under normal meteorological condi- tions. However, under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways or intersections may reach unhealthful levels that adversely affect local sensitive receptors (e.g., residents, schoolchildren, the elderly, and hospital patients). Typically, high CO concentrations are associated with roadways or intersections operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS) or with extremely high traffic volumes. Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen- carrying capacity of the blood and can cause headaches, nausea, dizziness, and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina (chest pain) in persons with serious heart disease.

Extremely high levels of CO, such as those generated when a vehicle is running in an unventilated garage, can be fatal.

(3) Particulate Matter. Particulate matter is a class of air pollutants that consists of heterogeneous solid and liquid airborne particles from manmade and natural sources. Particulate matter is categorized in two size ranges: PM
10 for particles less than 10 microns in diameter and PM2.5 for particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter. In the Bay Area, motor vehicles generate about half of the air basin’s particulates, through tailpipe emissions as well as brake pad and tire wear. Wood burning in fireplaces and stoves, industrial facilities, and ground-disturbing activities such as con- struction are other sources of such fine particulates. These fine particulates are small enough to be inhaled into the deepest parts of the human lung and can cause adverse health effects. According to the California Air Resources Board (ARB), studies in the United States and elsewhere have demon- strated a strong link between elevated particulate levels and premature deaths, hospital admissions, emergency room visits, and asthma attacks, and studies of children’s health in California have demonstrated that particle pollution may significantly reduce lung function growth in children. The ARB also reports that Statewide attainment of particulate matter standards could prevent thousands of premature deaths, lower hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disease and asthma- related emergency room visits, and avoid hundreds of thousands of episodes of respiratory illness in California.
3 (4) Nitrogen Dioxide. NO2 is a reddish brown gas that is a byproduct of combustion processes. Automobiles and industrial operations are the main sources of NO2. Aside from its contri- bution to ozone formation, NO2 also contributes to other pollution problems, including a high concen- tration of fine particulate matter, poor visibility, and acid deposition. NO2 may be visible as a coloring component of smog on high pollution days, especially in conjunction with high ozone levels. NO2 decreases lung function and may reduce resistance to infection. On January 22, 2010, the U.S.

3 California Air Resources Board, 2011. Fact Sheets. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/htm/fslist.htm#Health.pdf. October.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

839

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 230 Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) strengthened the health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for NO2.

(5) Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless acidic gas with a strong odor. It is produced by the combustion of sulfur-containing fuels such as oil, coal, and diesel. SO2 has the potential to damage materials and can cause health effects at high concentrations. It can irritate lung tissue and increase the risk of acute and chronic respiratory disease.4 SO2 also reduces visibility and the level of sunlight at the ground surface.

(6) Lead. Lead is a metal found naturally in the environment as well as in manufactured products. The major sources of lead emissions have historically been mobile and industrial sources.

As a result of the phase-out of leaded gasoline, metal processing is currently the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in the air are generally found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources are waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery factories.

Twenty years ago, mobile sources were the main contributor to ambient lead concentrations in the air.

In the early 1970s, the U.S. EPA established national regulations to gradually reduce the lead content in gasoline. In 1975, unleaded gasoline was introduced for motor vehicles equipped with catalytic converters. The U.S. EPA banned the use of leaded gasoline in highway vehicles in December 1995.

As a result of the U.S. EPA’s regulatory efforts to remove lead from gasoline, emissions of lead from the transportation sector and levels of lead in the air decreased dramatically.

(7) Odors. Odors are also an important element of local air quality conditions. Specific activities can raise concerns related to odors on the part of nearby neighbors. Major sources of odors include restaurants and manufacturing plants. Other odor producers include the industrial facilities within the region. While sources that generate objectionable odors must comply with air quality regulations, the public’s sensitivity to locally-produced odors often exceeds regulatory thresholds.

(8) Toxic Air Contaminants. In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern. Some examples of TACs include: benzene, butadiene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen sulfide. Potential human health effects of TACs include birth defects, neurological damage, cancer, and death. There are hundreds of different types of TACs with varying degrees of toxicity. Individual TACs vary greatly in the health risk they present; at a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another.

TACs do not have associated ambient air quality standards, but are regulated by the U.S. EPA, ARB, and BAAQMD. In 1998, ARB identified particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines as a TAC.

ARB has completed a risk management process that identified potential cancer risks for a range of activities and land uses that are characterized by use of diesel fueled engines. 5 High-volume freeways,
stationary diesel engines, and facilities attracting heavy and constant diesel vehicle traffic (distribu- tion centers, truck stops) were identified as posing the highest risk to adjacent receptors. Other

4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011, op. cit. 5 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel- Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

840

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 231 facilities associated with increased risk include warehouse distribution centers, large retail or indus- trial facilities, high-volume transit centers, and schools with a high volume of bus traffic. Health risks from TACs are a function of both concentration and duration of exposure.

Monitoring data and emissions inventories of TACs help the BAAQMD determine health risks to Bay Area residents. Ambient monitoring concentrations of TACs indicate that pollutants emitted primarily from motor vehicles (1,3-butadiene and benzene) account for slightly over 50 percent of the average calculated cancer risk from ambient air in the Bay Area.6

Unlike TACs emitted from industrial and other stationary sources noted above, most diesel particulate matter is emitted from mobile sources – primarily “off-road” sources such as construction and mining equipment, agricultural equipment, and truck-mounted refrigeration units, as well as trucks and buses traveling on freeways and local roadways. Agricultural and mining equipment is not commonly used in urban parts of the Bay Area, while construction equipment typically operates for a limited time at various locations. As a result, the readily identifiable locations where diesel particulate matter is emitted in the City of Foster City include high-traffic roadways and other areas with substantial truck traffic.

Although not specifically monitored, recent studies indicate that exposure to diesel particulate matter may contribute significantly to a cancer risk (a risk of approximately 500 to 700 in a population of 1,000,000) that is greater than all other measured TACs combined. 7 The technology for reducing
diesel particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty trucks is well established, and both State and federal agencies are moving aggressively to regulate engines and emission control systems to reduce and remediate diesel emissions. ARB anticipates that by 2020 average Statewide diesel particulate matter concentrations will decrease by 85 percent from levels in 2000 with full implementation of the Diesel Risk Reduction Plan, meaning that the Statewide health risk from diesel particulate matter is expected to decrease from 540 cancer cases in 1,000,000 to 21.5 cancer cases in 1,000,000. It is likely that the Bay Area cancer risk from diesel particulate matter will decrease by a similar factor by 2020.

(9) High Volume Roadways. Air pollutants and their associated health burdens vary considerably within places in relation to sources of air pollution. Motor vehicle traffic is perhaps the most important source of intra-urban spatial variation in air pollution concentrations. Air quality research consistently demonstrates that pollutant levels are substantially higher near freeways and busy roadways, and human health studies have consistently demonstrated that children living within 100 to 200 meters of freeways or busy roadways have reduced lung function and higher rates of respiratory disease.
8 At present, it is not possible to attribute the effects of roadway proximity on non- cancer health effects to one or more specific vehicle types or vehicle pollutants. Engine exhaust, from diesel, gasoline, and other combustion engines, is a complex mixture of particles and gases, with collective and individual toxicological characteristics. Four epidemiological studies on roadways and health impacts conducted in California populations are described below.

6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2007. Toxic Air Contaminant Control Program Annual Report 2003 Volume 1. August.
7 Ibid.
8 Delfino, RJ., 2002. Epidemiologic Evidence for Asthma and Exposure to Air Toxics: Linkages Between Occupational, Indoor, and Community Air Pollution Research. Environmental Health Perspectives.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

841

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 232  In Oakland, California, children at schools in proximity to high volume roadways experi- enced more asthma and bronchitis symptoms.9
 In a low-income population of children in San Diego, children with asthma living within 550 feet of roadways with high traffic volumes were more likely than those residing near roadways with lower traffic volumes to have medical care visits for asthma.10  In a study of southern California school children, residence location within 75 meters (246 feet) of a major road was associated with an increased risk of asthma. 11  In a study conducted in 12 southern California communities, children who lived within 500 feet of a freeway had reduced growth in lung capacity compared to those living greater than 1,500 feet from a freeway.12

Federal and State regulations control air pollutants at the regional level by limiting vehicle and stationary source emissions. However, air quality regulations have not limited the use of vehicles and generally have not protected sensitive land uses from air pollution “hot spots” associated with proximity to transportation facilities.

b. Existing Climate and Air Quality. Regional air quality, local climate, air quality in the peninsula region, and air pollution climatology are described below.

(1) Local Climate and Topography. The San Francisco Bay Area is a large shallow air basin ringed by hills that taper into a number of sheltered valleys around the perimeter. Two primary atmospheric outlets exist. One is through the strait known as the Golden Gate, a direct outlet to the Pacific Ocean. The second extends to the northeast, along the west delta region of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The City of Foster City is located in the peninsula region of the Bay Area, which extends from the area northwest of San Jose to the Golden Gate of San Francisco Bay. The Santa Cruz Mountains extend up the center of the peninsula, with elevations exceeding 2,000 feet at the south end, and gradually decreasing to 500 feet in South San Francisco, where the mountains terminate.

Air quality is a function of both local climate and local sources of air pollution. Air quality is the balance of the natural dispersal capacity of the atmosphere and emissions of air pollutants from human uses of the environment. The City of Foster City is located on the east side of the mountain range, which experiences warmer temperatures and few foggy days because the marine layer, with an average depth of 1,700 feet, is blocked by the 2,000-foot ridge to the west. Annual average wind speeds range from 5 to 10 miles per hour throughout the peninsula. However, the Crystal Springs

9 Kim, J., et al., 2004. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Respiratory Health: East Bay Children’s Respiratory Health Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 10 English, P., et al., 1999. Examining Associations Between Childhood Asthma and Traffic Flow Using a Geo- graphic Information System. Environmental Health Perspectives. 11 McConnell, R., et al., 2006. Traffic, Susceptibility, and Childhood Asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives. 12 Gauderman, W.J., 2005. The Effect of Air Pollution on Lung Development From 10 to 18 Years of Age. New England Journal of Medicine. March.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

842

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 233 Gap, located along State Route 92 between Half Moon Bay and San Carlos, permits maritime air to pass across the mountains and has a cooling effect commonly seen from San Mateo to Redwood City.

Topography can restrict horizontal dilution and mixing of pollutants by creating a barrier to air movement. Air pollution potential is lowest in San Francisco and highest along the southeastern portion of the peninsula because this area is most shielded from the high winds and fog of the marine layer, there is a high-concentration of pollutant sources, and pollutant transport from upwind sites is possible.

The combined effects of topography and climate give Foster City a moderate atmospheric potential for air pollution compared to other parts of the San Francisco Bay Air Basin.

(2) Air Monitoring Data. The City of Foster City is within the jurisdiction of the BAAQMD, which has seen air quality conditions improve significantly since the organization was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days during which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen dramatically. Exceedances of air quality standards occur primarily during meteorological conditions conducive to high pollution levels, such as cold, windless winter nights or hot, sunny summer afternoons.

The Air Monitoring Program of the BAAQMD operates a 28-station monitoring network which provides the data required to determine whether the Bay Area is in compliance with State and federal air quality standards. Most monitoring stations sample air levels for criteria pollutants, while only some of the monitoring sites include toxics sampling equipment. The monitored toxic compounds include benzene; 1,1,1 trichloroethane (TCA); trichloroethylene (TCE); chloroform (TCM); 1,2 dichloroethane (EDC); 1,2 dibromoethane (EDB); methylene dichloride (DCM); carbon tetrachloride, and tetrachloroethylene (perc); and vinyl chloride and toluene (while not considered a toxic air contaminant, toluene was chosen to better assess the origin of benzene emissions). In addition, sampling for the heavy metals lead, nickel, manganese and total chromium is carried out at the five ARB sites in Fremont, Richmond, Concord, San Francisco, and San Jose.

Pollutant monitoring results for the years 2009 to 2011 at the 897 Barron Ave. (Redwood City) ambient air quality monitoring station (the closest monitoring station to the project site) and, where data was not available there, the 158 Jackson Street monitoring station in San Jose, are shown in Table IV.I-2. Based on the monitoring data, Foster City air pollutant levels were below all applicable State and national Ambient Air Quality Standards for gaseous criteria pollutants, including CO, NO 2 and SO2.

Ozone levels, measured by peak concentrations and the number of days over the State 1-hour standard, have declined substantially as a result of aggressive programs by the BAAQMD and other regional, State, and federal agencies. The reduction of peak concentrations represents progress in improving public health. However, ozone levels exceeded the State 1-hour standard on two days, and exceeded both the State and federal 8-hour standard on one day in 2010.

Similarly, the Bay Area has achieved significant reductions in PM concentrations since 1990, but continues to exceed several State and federal PM standards. Monitoring results show that the State annual PM
10 standard was exceeded locally in 2009 and the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was exceeded once in 2010 and once in 2011.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

843

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 234 Table IV.I-2: Ambient Air Quality at the 897 Barron Ave., Redwood City, Monitoring Station Pollutant Standard 2009 2010 2011
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 3.5 3.3 3.8
Number of days exceeded: State: > 20 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 35 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.76 1.72 1.67
Number of days exceeded: State: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 9 ppm 0 0 0
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.087 0.113 0.076
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.09 ppm 0 2 0
Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.063 0.077 0.061
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.07 ppm 0 1 0
Federal: > 0.08 ppm 0 1 0
Coarse Particulates (PM10) a
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 41.1 44.2 41.3
Number of days exceeded: State: > 50 µg/m 3 0 0 0
Federal: > 150 µg/m 3 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 20.3 19.5 19.2 Exceeded for the year: State: > 20 µg/m 3 Yes No No
Federal: > 50 µg/m 3 No No No
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hour concentration (µg/m3) 31.7 36.5 39.7
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 35 µg/m 3 0 1 1
Annual arithmetic average concentration (µg/m3) 8.6 8.3 8.7 Exceeded for the year: State: > 12 µg/m 3 0 0 0
Federal: > 15 µg/m 3 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.056 0.059 0.056
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.250 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) 0.012 0.012 0.012 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.053 ppm 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) a
Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.006 0.005 0.007
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.25 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 3-hour concentration (ppm) 0.004 0.003 0.005
Number of days exceeded: Federal: > 0.50 ppm 0 0 0
Maximum 24-hour concentration (ppm) 0.001 0.002 0.003
Number of days exceeded: State: > 0.04 ppm 0 0 0
Federal: > 0.14 ppm 0 0 0
Annual arithmetic average concentration (ppm) ND 0.000 0.000 Exceeded for the year: Federal: > 0.030 ppm ND 0 0
a Results based on readings at the San Jose-Jackson Street monitoring station. ppm = parts per million
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
ND = No data. There were insufficient (or no) data to determine the value.

Source: ARB, U.S. EPA, and BAAQMD, 2012.

c. Regulatory Framework. Air quality standards, the regulatory framework, and State and federal attainment status are discussed below.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

844

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 235 The BAAQMD is primarily responsible for regulating air pollution emissions from stationary sources (e.g., factories) and indirect sources (e.g., traffic associated with new development), as well as for monitoring ambient air pollutant concentrations. The BAAQMD’s jurisdiction encompasses seven counties – Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa – and portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. The ARB and the U.S. EPA regulate direct emissions from motor vehicles.

(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency. At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. U.S. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), which was enacted in 1963. The FCAA was amended in 1970, 1977, and 1990.

The FCAA required U.S. EPA to establish primary and secondary NAAQS and required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (FCAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is periodically modified to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. U.S. EPA has responsibility to review all state SIPs to determine conformity with the mandates of the FCAAA and determine if implementation will achieve air quality goals. If the U.S. EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) may be prepared for the nonattainment area which imposes additional control measures. Failure to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated timeframe may result in sanctions on transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.

The U.S. EPA is also required to develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants, which are defined as those which may reasonably be anticipated to result in increased deaths or serious illness and which are not already regulated. An independent science advisory board reviews the health and exposure analyses conducted by the U.S. EPA on suspected hazardous pollutants prior to development of regulations.

(2) California Air Resources Board. In 1992 and 1993, the ARB requested delegation of authority for the implementation and enforcement of specified New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants to the BAAQMD. U.S. EPA’s review of the State of California’s laws, rules, and regulations showed them to be adequate for the implemen- tation and enforcement of federal standards, and the U.S. EPA granted the delegations as requested.

The ARB is the agency responsible for the coordination and oversight of State and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires that all air districts in the State achieve and maintain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The CCAA specifies that districts should focus on reducing the emissions from transportation and air-wide emission sources, and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.

ARB is also primarily responsible for developing and implementing air pollution control plans to achieve and maintain the NAAQS. ARB is primarily responsible for Statewide pollution sources and

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

845

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 236 produces a major part of the SIP. Local air districts provide additional strategies for sources under their jurisdiction. ARB combines this data and submits the completed SIP to U.S. EPA.

Other ARB duties include monitoring air quality (in conjunction with air monitoring networks main- tained by air pollution control and air quality management districts), establishing CAAQS (which are more stringent than the NAAQS), determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, and off-road vehicles. The ARB’s Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
13 is intended to substantially reduce diesel particu-
late matter emissions and associated health risks through introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel – a step already implemented – and cleaner-burning diesel engines.

The State of California's regulatory efforts are embodied in the Tanner Bill 14 (effective 1984), which
defines a process for the identification and control of toxic air contaminants. The California ARB identifies the most important toxic pollutants by considering risk of harm to public health, amount or potential amount of emissions, manner of usage of the substance, its persistence in the atmosphere, and its concentration in outdoor air. The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assess- ment (OEHHA) prepares health assessment documents that outline the toxicity of compounds. After a pollutant is listed as a toxic air contaminant, control measures are developed by the ARB and local air districts.

Other relevant legislation is the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act 15 (AB2588).

This bill was enacted in 1987 with the objective of collecting information concerning industrial emissions of toxic air contaminants and making the information available to the public. The bill established a formal regulatory program for site-specific air toxics emissions inventory and health risk quantification that is managed by California air districts. Under this program, a wide variety of industrial, commercial, and public facilities are required to report the types and quantities of toxic substances their facilities routinely release into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics Hot Spots Program are to collect emissions data, identify facilities with potential for localized health impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of risks that are determined to warrant such notification, and reduce significant risks.

Because of the robust evidence correlating proximity to roadways and a range of non-cancer and cancer health effects, the ARB also created guidance for avoiding air quality conflicts in land use planning in its Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. 16 In its
guidance, the ARB advises that new sensitive uses (e.g., residences, schools, day care centers, playgrounds, and hospitals) not be located within 500 feet of a freeway or urban roads carrying 100,000 vehicles per day, or within 1,000 feet of a distribution center (warehouse) that accommodates more than 100 trucks or more than 90 refrigerator trucks per day.

13 California Air Resources Board, 2000. Stationary Source Division and Mobile Source Control Division. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October. 14 California Air Resources Board, 1997. Technical Support Document, Proposed Identification of Inorganic Lead as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A – Exposure Assessment. March. 15 AB 2588, Connelly, 1987. Chaptered in the California Health and Safety Code Section 44300, et. al. 16 California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board, 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

846

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 237 ARB guidance suggests that the use of these guidelines be customized for individual land use decisions, and take into account the context of development projects. The Air Quality and Land Use Handbook specifically states that these recommendations are advisory and acknowledges that land use agencies must balance other considerations, including housing and transportation needs, economic development priorities, and other quality of life issues.

(3) National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. Pursuant to the FCAA of 1970, the U.S. EPA established NAAQS. The NAAQS were established for major pollutants, termed “criteria” pollutants. Criteria pollutants are defined as those pollutants for which the federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations in order to protect public health.

Both the U.S. EPA and the ARB have established ambient air quality standards for the following common pollutants: CO, O
3, NO2, SO2, Pb, and PM. In addition, the State has set standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. These standards are designed to protect the health and welfare of the population with a reasonable margin of safety. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant.

Federal standards include both primary and secondary standards. Primary standards establish limits to protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. State and federal standards for the criteria air pollutants are listed in Table IV.I-3.

(4) Bay Area Air Quality Management District. The BAAQMD seeks to attain and maintain air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and education. The clean air strategy includes the preparation of plans for the attainment of ambient air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. The BAAQMD also inspects stationary sources and responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements programs and regulations required by law.

BAAQMD Regulation 7
17 places general limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous compounds. This regulation limits the “discharge of any odorous substance which causes the ambient air at or beyond the property line…to be odorous and to remain odorous after dilution with four parts of odor-free air.”

17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1982. Rules and Regulations, Regulation 7: Odorous Substances.

Amended March 17.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

847

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 238 Table IV.I-3: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standardsa Federal Standardsb
Concentrationc Method d Primary c,e Secondary c,f Method g Ozone
(O3)
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 μg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
No Federal Standard Same as
Primary Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 μg/m3)

0.075 ppm
(147 μg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
24-Hour 50 μg/m3
Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation
150 μg/m3
Same as
Primary Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 μg/m3 –
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
24-Hour No Separate State Standard 35 μg/m3
Same as
Primary Standard
Inertial
Separation and
Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 μg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 15 μg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
8-Hour 9.0 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) None Non-Dispersive
Infrared
Photometry
(NDIR)
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
8-Hour
(Lake Tahoe)
6 ppm
(7 mg/m3) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide
(NO2)h
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.03 ppm
(57 μg/m3) Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
53 ppb
(100 μg/m3)
Same as
Primary Standard Gas Phase
Chemiluminesc-
ence 1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 μg/m3)
100 ppb
(188 μg/m3) None
Lead
(Pb) j,k
30-Day
Average 1.5 μg/m3
Atomic Absorption
– –
High-Volume
Sampler and
Atomic
Absorption
Calendar
Quarter – 1.5 μg/m3
(for certain areas)k Same as
Primary Standard Rolling 3-
Month
Averagei
– 0.15 μg/m3
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)i
24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence

0.14 ppm
(for certain areas)i –
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence;
Spectrophoto-
metry
(Pararosaniline
Method)
3-Hour – – 0.5 ppm
(1300 μg/m3)
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 μg/m3)
75 ppb
(196 μg/m3) –
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
– 0.030 ppm
(for certain areas)i –
Visibility-
Reducing
Particlesl
8-Hour
Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer -
visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07–30 miles
or more for Lake Tahoe) due to particles
when relative humidity is less than 70
percent. Method: Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through Filter Tape.

No

Federal

Standards

Sulfates 24-Hour 25 μg/m3 Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1-Hour 0.03 ppm
(42 μg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloridej 24-Hour 0.01 ppm
(26 μg/m3) Gas Chromatography
Table notes are provided on the following page.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

848

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 239 a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except for the 8-hour Lake Tahoe standard), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24- hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. CAAQS are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b National standards (other than standards for ozone, partic ulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8- hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentra- tion above 150 μg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was prom ulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
d Any equivalent procedure which can be show n to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
e National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
f National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
g Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. h To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98 th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national standards are in units of parts per billion (ppb).

California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national standards to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standards of 53 ppb and 100 ppb are identical to 0.053 ppm and 0.100 ppm, respectively.
i On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattain- ment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of ppb. California standards are in units of ppm.

To directly compare the 1-hour national standards to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. j The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as “toxic air contaminants” with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
k The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 , to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
l In 1989, the ARB converted both the general Statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and “extinction of 0.07 per kilometer” for the Statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively. C = degrees Celsius
ARB = California Air Resources Board
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
ppb = parts per billion
ppm = parts per million
mg/m
3 = milligrams per cubic meter
g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

849

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 240 The BAAQMD must receive ten or more odor complainants within a 90-day period in order for the limitations of this regulation to go into effect. If this criterion has been met, an odor violation can be issued by the BAAQMD if a test panel of people can detect an odor in samples collected periodically from the source.

Clean Air Plan. The BAAQMD is responsible for developing a Clean Air Plan18 which guides the region’s air quality planning efforts to attain the CAAQS. The BAAQMD’s Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan is the latest Clean Air Plan which contains district-wide control measures to reduce ozone precursor emissions (i.e., ROG and NOx), particulate matter, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on September 15, 2010, by the BAAQMD’s board of directors:
 Updates the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the CCAA to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone;  Provides a control strategy to reduce ozone, PM, TACs, and greenhouse gases in a single, integrated plan;
 Reviews progress in improving air quality in recent years; and  Establishes emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010 to 2012 timeframe.

BAAQMD CARE Program. The Community Air Risk Evaluation (CARE) program was initiated in 2004 to evaluate and reduce health risks associated with exposures to outdoor TACs in the Bay Area. The program examines TAC emissions from point sources, area sources, and on-road and off-road mobile sources with an emphasis on diesel exhaust, which is a major contributor to airborne health risk in California. The CARE program is an on-going program that encourages community involvement and input. The technical analysis portion of the CARE program is being implemented in three phases that include an assessment of the sources of TAC emissions, modeling and measurement programs to estimate concentrations of TACs, and an assessment of exposures and health risks.

Throughout the program, information derived from the technical analyses will be used to focus emission reduction measures in areas with high TAC exposures and a high density of sensitive populations. Risk reduction activities associated with the CARE program are focused on the most at- risk communities in the Bay Area. The BAAQMD has identified six affected communities. The City of Foster City has not been included as an affected community. However, nearby Redwood City, East Palo Alto, and San Jose have all been identified as in need of immediate mitigation action.

For commercial and industrial sources, the BAAQMD regulates TACs using a risk-based approach.

This approach uses a health risk assessment to determine what sources and pollutants to control as well as the degree of control. A health risk assessment is an analysis in which human health exposure to toxic substances is estimated and considered together with information regarding the toxic potency

18 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. September.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

850

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 241 of the substances, in order to provide a quantitative estimate of health risks.19 As part of ongoing efforts to identify and assess potential health risks to the public, the BAAQMD has collected and compiled air toxics emissions data from industrial and commercial sources of air pollution throughout the Bay Area.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were prepared to assist in the evaluation of air quality impacts of projects and plans proposed within the Bay Area. The guidelines provide recommended procedures for evaluating potential air impacts during the environmental review process, consistent with CEQA requirements, and include recom- mended thresholds of significance, mitigation measures, and background air quality information.

They also include recommended assessment methodologies for air toxics, odors, and greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2010, the BAAQMD’s Board of Directors adopted CEQA thresholds of signifi- cance and an update of the CEQA Guidelines. In May 2011, the updated BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were amended to include a risk and hazards threshold for new receptors and modified procedures for assessing impacts related to risk and hazard impacts.

On March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of significance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA.

The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. In May of 2012, the BAAQMD filed an appeal of the court’s decision, the results of which are pending as of preparation of this Subsequent EIR.

Although lead agencies may rely on the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollu- tants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that they be used as a general measure of a project’s signifi- cant air quality impacts. The BAAQMD also recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended Thresholds of Significance contained in its CEQA Guidelines adopted in 1999. 20 The court’s invalidation of BAAQMD’s thresholds presents uncertainty for current project applicants and local agencies regarding proper evaluation of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA documents. Although the thresholds are no longer publicly available, local agencies still have a duty to evaluate impacts related to air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresh- olds previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as they are

19 In general, a health risk assessment is required if the BAAQMD concludes that projected emissions of a specific air toxic compound from a proposed new or modified source suggests a potential public health risk. Such an assessment generally evaluates chronic, long-term effects, including the increased risk of cancer as a result of exposure to one or more TACs.
20 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

851

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 242 supported by substantial evidence.21 Accordingly, the City of Foster City is using the BAAQMD’s thresholds to evaluate project impacts in order to protectively evaluate the potential effects of the project on air quality. The City believes that these protective thresholds are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the project and its proximity to sensitive residential uses, and notes that the court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits. The City also notes that the Court did not address the merits of the science or evidence supporting the thresholds. The City finds that, despite the court ruling, the science and reasoning contained in the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available.

For that reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

(5) Attainment Status Designation. The ARB is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for each State standard. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate pollutant standards. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data do not support either an attainment or nonattainment status. The law divides districts into moderate, serious, and severe air pollution categories, with increasingly stringent control requirements mandated for each category. The U.S. EPA uses similar categories for classifying air pollutants under federal standards. Table IV.I-4 provides a summary of the attainment status for the San Francisco Bay Area with respect to NAAQS and CAAQS.

Under the NAAQS, the San Francisco Bay Area is under nonattainment status for O 3 (8-hour and 1-
hour), PM10 (annual mean and 24-hour), and PM2.5 (annual mean). The region is under attainment status for the other criteria pollutants, or the standard is not applicable. Under the CAAQS, the region is under nonattainment status for O3 (8-hour) and PM2.5 (24-hour). The region is under attainment status for all other criteria pollutants, or is unclassified, or the standard is not applicable.

21 Public Resources Code Section 21082: 14 Cal. Code Regs. and Sections 15064.7, 15064.4 (addressing greenhouse gas emissions impacts). See also Citizens for Responsible and Equitable Environmental Development v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th.327 (upholding city’s greenhouse gas emissions threshold based on Assembly Bill 32 compliance).

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

852

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 243 Table IV.I-4: San Francisco Bay Area Attainment Status
Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California Standards a National Standards b
Concentration
Attainment
Status Concentration c
Attainment
Status
Carbon Monoxide
(CO) 8-Hour 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Attainment 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3) Attainment f
1-Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3) Attainment 35 ppm
(40 mg/m3) Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2) Annual Mean 0.030 ppm
(57 mg/m3) Attainment 0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3) Attainment
1-Hour 0.18 ppm
(338 µg/m3) Attainment 0.100 ppm j Unclassified
Ozone
(O3) 8-Hour 0.07 ppm
(137 µg/m3) Nonattainment h 0.075 ppm Nonattainment d
1-Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Nonattainment Not Applicable Not Applicable e Suspended Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Annual Mean 20 µg/m 3 Nonattainment g Not Applicable Not Applicable 24-Hour 50 µg/m 3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m 3 Unclassified Suspended Particulate
Matter (PM

2.5)
Annual Mean 12 µg/m 3 Nonattainment g 15 µg/m 3 Attainment 24-Hour Not Applicable Not Applicable 35 µg/m3
See footnote i Nonattainment
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO
2)k Annual Mean Not Applic able Not Applicable 80 µg/m3 (0.03 ppm) Attainment
24-Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3) Attainment 365 µg/m3
(0.14 ppm) Attainment
1-Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3) Attainment 0.075 ppm
(196 µg/m3) Attainment
a California standards for ozone, carbon m onoxide (except the standards for Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24- hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour, or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that ARB determines would occur less than once per year on average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one- half the national standard and two-thirds the State standard. b National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates, and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent 3-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8-hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the fourth highest daily concentrations is 0.075 ppm (75 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM 10 standard is attained
when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3.

Except for the national particulate standards, annual standard s are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially-averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.
c National air quality standards are set by U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety.
d On September 22, 2011, the U.S. EPA announced it will implement the current 8-hour ozone standard of 75 ppb. The U.S. EPA finalized area designations for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in April 2012 and has classified the Bay Area as “marginal” nonattainment.
e The national 1-hour ozone standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005. f In April 1998, the Bay Area was redesignated to attainment for the national 8-hour carbon monoxide standard.

Table notes are continued on the following page.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

853

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 244 g In June 2002, ARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. Statewide Voluntary Remediation Program Standard (except Lake Tahoe Air Basin): Particles in sufficient amount to produce an extinction coefficient of 0.23 per kilometer when the relative humidity is less than 70 percent. This standard is intended to limit the frequency and severity of visibility impairment due to regional haze and is equivalent to a 10-mile nominal visual range. h The 8-hour California ozone standard was approved by the ARB on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006.
i The U.S. EPA lowered the 24-hour PM 2.5 standard from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3 in 2006. The U.S. EPA designated the Bay Area as nonattainment of the PM2.5 standard on October 8, 2009. The effective date of the designation is December 14, 2009, and the BAAQMD has 3 years to develop a SIP that demonstrates the Bay Area will achieve the revised standard by December 14, 2014. The SIP for the new PM2.5 standard must be submitted to the U.S. EPA by December 14, 2012. j To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the 98 th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average at each monitor within an area must not exceed 0.100 ppm (effective January 22, 2010). k On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1-hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and

0.14 ppm 24-hour SO2 NAAQS must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. The U.S. EPA expects to designate areas by June 2012.

Lead (Pb) is not listed in the above table because it has been in attainment since the 1980s. ppm = parts per million
mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter
µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2012.

(6) City of Foster City General Plan. The Conservation Element of the City of Foster City General Plan includes the following policies related to air quality, as show in Table IV.I-5.22

Table IV.I-5: General Plan Goals and Policies Related to Air Quality Goal C-A Protect and Conserve Natural Resources. Protect and conserve wildlife habitat, energy resources, land resources, air quality, and the quality and quantity of water resources Policy C-3 Air Quality. Reduce the impact of development on local air quality.

Program C-j Air Quality Impacts. Review proposed projects for their potential to affect air quality conditions.

Program C-k Air Pollution Sensitive Land Uses. To the extent feasible, separate air pollution sensitive land uses from sources of air pollution.

Program C-m Reduction in Automobile Trips. Encourage Foster City residents and employees to consolidate and/or eliminate motor vehicle trips as often as possible.

Program C-n Coordination with Other Agencies in Air Quality Improvements. Coordinate review of large projects with local, regional and state agencies to improve air quality.

Policy H-A-4-a Air Quality Impacts. When site-specific development is proposed and/or a Rezoning application is processed, potential air quality impacts from project traffic shall be studied, and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards in effect at the time shall be recommended if necessary.

Source: City of Foster City General Plan, 1993. May; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section provides an assessment of the potential adverse impacts related to air quality associated with the proposed project. It begins with the criteria of significance, which establish the thresholds for

22 Foster City, City of, 1993. Foster City General Plan. May.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

854

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 245 determining whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section identifies potential impacts. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are recommended.

a. Significance Criteria. Consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD and Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment related to air quality if it would:
 Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation by:
○ Contributing to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards; ○ Generate construction emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or ○ Generate operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day, or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.
 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors);
 Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial pollutant concentrations by:
○ Individually exposing sensitive receptors (such as residential areas) to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds:
■ Increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million; ■ Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic or acute); or
■ Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average. ○ Cumulatively exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants in excess of the following thresholds:
■ Increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million; ■ Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic); or ■ Ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average.  Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the current Air Quality Plan; or  Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.

The emission thresholds were established based on the attainment status of the air basin for specific criteria pollutants. Because the concentration standards were set at a level that protects public health with an adequate margin of safety according to the U.S. EPA, these emission thresholds are regarded as protective.

b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. Implementation of the project would result in less-than- significant air quality impacts related to odors.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

855

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 246 Odors. During construction, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site would create localized odors. These odors would be temporary and are not likely to be noticeable for extended periods of time beyond the project site. The potential for diesel odor impacts is therefore considered less than significant. Odors from existing uses are contained within on-site laboratory facilities and are not noticeable beyond the site boundary. The proposed uses that would be developed within the project site would be similar to existing uses and are not expected to produce any offensive odors that would result in frequent odor complaints.

c. Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the following significant air quality impacts.

(1) Violate Any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, to meet air quality standards for operational-related criteria air pollutant and air precursor impacts, the project must not:
 Contribute to CO concentrations exceeding the State ambient air quality standards;  Generate construction emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 (exhaust) greater than 54 pounds per day or PM10 exhaust emissions greater than 82 pounds per day; or  Generate operational emissions of ROG, NOx or PM2.5 greater than 10 tons per year or 54 pounds per day or PM10 emissions greater than 15 tons per year or 82 pounds per day.

The following section describes the project’s CO impacts and construction- and operation-related air quality impacts.

Localized CO Impacts. The BAAQMD has established a screening methodology that provides a conservative indication of whether the implementation of a proposed project would result in significant CO emissions. According to the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met:
 The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, and the regional transportation plan and local congestion management agency plans.  Project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour.
 The project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, or below-grade roadway).

The proposed project, in addition to traffic from other reasonably foreseeable future projects, would cause the freeway segment of eastbound SR 92 between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/ Edgewater Boulevard to degrade to an unacceptable level of service, which would not meet the goals of the San Mateo Transportation Authority’s Congestion Management Program. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 would require implementation of a Transportation Demand Manage-

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

856

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 247 ment (TDM) program that would reduce traffic volumes on this segment, resulting in an acceptable level of service. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the San Mateo Transporta- tion Authority’s Congestion Management Program for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, or other agency plans.

The proposed project would not be located in an area where vertical or horizontal mixing is substan- tially limited (as the area is exposed to breezes from San Francisco Bay) and traffic volumes on roadways in the vicinity of the project site are less than 44,000 vehicles per hour. As shown in Table IV.I-2, background CO concentrations in the area are substantially below State and federal standards.

The proposed project would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour and would not result in localized CO concentrations that exceed State or federal standards. Localized CO impacts would therefore be less than significant.

Construction Period Impacts. During construction, short-term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions generated by excavation, grading, hauling, and other activities. Emissions from construction equipment are also anticipated and would include CO, NO x,
ROG, directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter.

Impact AIR-1: Construction of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that could violate air quality standards. (S)

Site preparation and project construction would involve demolition of the existing structures on the project site, clearing, cut-and-fill activities, grading, and building activities. Construction-related effects on air quality from the proposed project would be greatest during the site preparation phase because most engine emissions are associated with the excavation, handling, and transport of soils on the site. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM 10, PM2.5, and to a
lesser extent CO, SO2, NOx, and VOCs. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction sites and trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site would deposit dirt and mud on local streets, which could be an additional source of airborne dust. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil moisture, the silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of operating equipment. Larger dust particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the construction site. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the construction sites.

Water or other soil stabilizers can be used to control dust, resulting in emission reductions of 50 percent or more. The BAAQMD has established standard measures for reducing fugitive dust emis- sions (PM

2.5 and PM10). With the implementation of standard construction measures such as frequent watering (e.g., two times per day at a minimum), fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would not result in adverse air quality impacts.

The 2012 Master Plan would be constructed over an approximately 15- to 20-year period extending to 2028 to 2033, in accordance with the projected business needs of Gilead Sciences. The construction period for each building would be approximately 12 to 18 months. Construction emissions were estimated for the project using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod v.1.1). Total

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

857

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 248 construction emissions were estimated using default assumptions in CalEEMod. Total estimated emissions were averaged over a 15-year construction period to estimate the average daily emission rate. Construction-related emissions are presented in Table IV.I-6. As shown in Table IV.I-6, construction emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) would not exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold for average daily construction emissions.

Table IV.I-6: Project Construction Emissions in Pounds Per Day Project Construction ROG NO x
Exhaust
PM2.5
Fugitive
Dust
PM2.5
Total
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM10
Fugitive
Dust
PM10
Total
PM10
Average Daily
Construction Emissions 20.5 35.2 1.5 0.3 1.8 1.6 4.7 6.3 BAAQMD Thresholds 54.0 54.0 54.0 BMP NA 82.0 BMP NA
Exceed Threshold?a No No No No a NA No a No NA
Notes:
a Would not exceed the threshold with implementation of Best Management Practices (see Mitigation Measure AIR-1).

NA = Not Applicable, the BAAQMD does not have a threshold.

BMP = Best Management Practices
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

However, the BAAQMD recommends the implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 would require implementation of the BAAQMD’s Best Management Practices and additional measures to reduce diesel PM exhaust emissions and other fugitive dust impacts. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce PM emissions to a less-than-signif- icant level.

Mitigation Measure 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 completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 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.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

858

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 249  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 telephone number and person to contact at the City of Foster City regarding 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-signifi- cant level. (LTS)

Operational Emissions – Regional Emissions Analysis. The project would generate long- term air emissions associated with changes in the permanent use of the project site. These long-term emissions are primarily mobile source emissions that would result from vehicle trips associated with the proposed project. Area sources, such as natural gas heaters, landscape equipment, and use of consumer products such as pressurized air canisters would also result in pollutant emissions.

The emissions estimator model CalEEMod, which the BAAQMD approves for use in estimating emissions associated with land use development projects, was used to calculate long-term mobile and area source emissions for both existing on-site emissions and emissions associated with the project.

CalEEMod output sheets are included in Appendix C.

Existing On-Site Emissions. The project site is currently developed with office and laboratory uses, along with associated surface parking, landscaping, and accessory uses. According to the Trans- portation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the project (see Appendix B), existing trip generation on the project site is equal to 8,847 trips per day,
23 which was used to estimate criteria air pollutants
for existing vehicle emissions. Area source emissions associated with the existing uses were calcu- lated using existing building square footages and CalEEMod default assumptions based on the land use type. Daily and annual emissions for the existing uses on the project site are shown in Table IV.I-

7. 23 Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants, 2012. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. October.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

859

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 250 Project Emissions. According to the TIA
prepared for the project, buildout of the 2012
Master Plan is expected to generate approximately
24,615 trips per day (or 15,768 net trips, taking into
account existing uses on the site).24 The trip rate
assumed for the project accounts for reductions
associated with implementation of Gilead’s exist-
ing TDM Program (see Chapter III, Project
Description, for a discussion of this TDM Pro-
gram). Area source emissions associated with the
project would include consumer product use,
architectural coatings, and the use of landscaping
equipment.

The net new daily and annual emissions associated
with the project are identified in Table IV.L-8 for

ROG, NO
x, PM10, and PM2.5. The results indicate
the net new project emissions would exceed the
BAAQMD’s threshold for ROG, NO
x, and PM10;
therefore, the proposed project would have a
significant effect on regional air quality.

Table IV.I-8: Project Regional Emissions
Emissions in Pounds Per Day Emissions in Tons Per Year ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
2012 Master Plan Emissions
Area Source Emissions 69.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 Energy Emissions 1.50 13.63 1.04 1.04 0.27 2.49 0.19 0.19 Mobile Emissions 93.46 159.16 202.60 9.54 11.85 21.55 22.64 1.32 Total Emissions 164.34 172.79 203.64 10.58 24.78 24.04 22.83 1.51 Existing Emissions 83.66 116.62 77.31 4.75 11.97 15.57 8.54 0.67 Net New Total
Project Emissions 80.68 56.17 126.33 5.83 12.81 8.47 14.29 0.84 BAAQMD Significance
Threshold 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 Exceed? Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No
NA = Not Available. Emission estimates are not available.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

The primary emissions associated with the project are regional in nature, meaning that air pollutants are rapidly dispersed on emission or, in the case of vehicle emissions associated with the project, emissions are released in other areas of the air basin. Because the resulting emissions are dispersed rapidly and contribute only a small fraction of the region’s air pollution, air quality in the immediate vicinity of the project site would not substantially change compared to existing conditions or the air

24 Ibid.

Table IV.I-7: Regional Emissions from
Existing On-Site Uses
Emissions in Pounds Per Day
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5
Area Source
Emissions 25.71 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.53 4.86 0.37 0.37
Mobile Source
Emissions 57.42 111.76 76.94 4.38
Total
Emissions 83.66 116.62 77.31 4.75
Emissions in Tons Per Year
Area Source
Emissions 4.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Source 0.10 0.89 0.70 0.07
Mobile Source
Emissions 7.18 14.68 8.47 0.60
Total
Emissions 11.97 15.57 8.54 0.67
Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

860

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 251 quality monitoring data reported in Table IV.I-2. However, regional emissions would exceed the BAAQMD’s significance criteria. Therefore mitigation would be required.

Impact AIR-2: Operation of the proposed project would generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD criteria and violate air quality standards. (S)

As shown in Table V.I-8 the majority of emissions associated with the project would be generated by employee, visitor, and vendor trips to and from the project site (i.e., mobile emissions). The primary strategy for reducing these trips is the implementation of a TDM Program. Gilead Sciences currently operates a TDM Program that is designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles and encourage the use of carpooling, transit, biking, and walking for work-related trips. The current program includes subsidized public transit tickets, a carpool and vanpool program, commute assistance, and video conferencing. Mitigation Measure AIR-2 (requiring implementation of the TDM Program outlined in Mitigation Measure TRANS-1) would supplement this existing TDM Program with additional measures designed to reduce project vehicle trips. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the project’s NO
x operational emissions to a less-than- significant
level, but ROG and PM10 emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure 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)

Table IV.I-9: Mitigated Project Regional Emissions
Emissions in Pounds Per Day Emissions in Tons Per Year

Reactive
Organic
Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides PM10 PM2.5
Reactive
Organic
Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides PM10 PM2.5
Mitigated 2012 Master Plan Emissions
Area Source Emissions 65.38 0.00 0.0 0.00 11.93 0.00 0.00 0.0 Energy Emissions 1.50 13.63 1.04 1.04 0.27 2.49 0.19 0.19 Mobile Emissions 86.05 146.54 186.58 8.79 10.97 19.85 20.96 1.22 Total Emissions 152.93 160.17 187.62 9.83 23.17 22.44 21.15 1.41 Existing Emissions 83.66 116.62 77.31 4.75 11.97 15.57 8.54 0.67 Net New Mitigated Total
Project Emissions 69.62 43.55 110.31 5.07 11.20 6.87 12.61 0.74 BAAQMD Significance
Threshold 54.00 54.00 82.00 54.00 10.00 10.00 15.00 10.00 Exceed? Yes No Yes No Yes No No No
NA = Not Available. Emission estimates are not available.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

(2) Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Pollutant.

According to the BAAQMD, regional air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. No single project is sufficient in size to independently create regional nonattainment of ambient air quality standards.

Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

861

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 252 quality impacts. Therefore, if daily average or annual emissions of construction- or operational- related criteria air pollutants exceed any applicable threshold established by the BAAQMD, the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact.

Impact AIR-3: Operation of the proposed project would result in a significant cumulative net increase in criteria pollutant emissions. (S)

With implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, construction of the proposed project would not result in a significant net increase in criteria air pollutants. However, as shown in Table IV.I-9, the proposed project would exceed the threshold for operational impacts for criteria pollutants even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures; therefore, the project would also contribute to a cumulatively significant criteria air pollutant impact. While implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-3 would reduce this impact, cumulative regional air quality impacts of the project would remain significant and unavoidable.

Mitigation Measure AIR-3: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2. (SU)

(3) Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations. According to the BAAQMD, a project would result in a significant impact if it would: individually expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 10.0 in one million, increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic or acute), or an annual average ambient PM

2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3. A significant cumulative impact would occur if the project in combination with other projects located within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site would expose sensitive receptors to TACs resulting in an increased cancer risk greater than 100.0 in one million, an increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic), or an ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.8 µg/m3 on an annual average basis. Certain groups of people are more susceptible to health effects associated with air pollution than others. ARB has identified the following groups that are most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14 years, the elderly over 65 years, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. These groups are classified as sensitive receptors. Locations that may contain a high concentration of these sensitive population groups include residential areas, hospitals, daycare facilities, elder care facilities, elementary schools, and parks and recreational facilities. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are located in residences along Mariners Island Boulevard that are approximately 200 feet to the west of the project site. There are also residences about 350 feet to the south of the site on Chess Drive.

Impact AIR-4: Construction of the proposed project would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (S)

The 2012 Master Plan would be constructed over an approximately 15- to 20-year period extending to the period of 2028 to 2033, in accordance with the projected business needs of Gilead Sciences. The construction period for each building would be approximately 12 to 18 months. Construction of the project would result in emissions of dust and diesel exhaust. Toxic construction-related health risks are dependent on the type of construction equipment used and duration of the construction period.

Due to the lack of specific construction information, a precise estimate of project construction health risks cannot be determined. To ensure that construction impacts do not adversely affect sensitive receptors, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

862

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 253 Mitigation Measure 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 construction. 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 or result in a non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index or ambient PM2.5 increase greater than 0.3 µg/m3 on an annual average basis. If multiple buildings would be constructed simultaneously, a combined health risk assessment may be prepared. Alternately, a health risk assessment for the entire project may be prepared if sufficiently detailed construction information is available. (LTS)

Impact AIR-5: Operation of the proposed project would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (S)

The proposed project may result in the installation of additional back-up emergency generators that would be phased-in as new buildings are constructed. Although the precise locations are not known at this time, the generators would be located as far away as possible from residential areas. All genera- tors would require permits issued by the BAAQMD and would require intermittent testing, which would result in the emission of diesel particulate matter. In order for emissions to be below the significance threshold of 10 in 1 million, generators must be located more than 500 feet from any residential dwelling.

To ensure that generators are located an appropriate distance from sensitive receptors, the following measure shall be implemented:

Mitigation Measure 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 cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in one million;  Increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 on the Hazard Index (chronic or acute);  Ambient 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 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)

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-5 would ensure that generators are located an appropriate distance from sensitive receptors in order to ensure that potential health risks for sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are less than significant. In the event that generators are proposed for locations within 500 feet of any residential uses, a health risk assessment would be required to demonstrate that carcinogenic health risks would be less than significant, or the generator would need to be relocated to meet the 500-foot distance standard.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

863

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 254 (4) Consistency with BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan. The applicable air quality plan is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, which was adopted on September 15, 2010. The Clean Air Plan is a comprehensive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defines a control strategy to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of air pollutants; safeguard public health by reducing exposure to air pollutants that pose the greatest health risk, with an emphasis on protecting the communities most heavily affected by air pollution; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the climate. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the project does the following: 1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan. The project’s consistency with these objectives is described below.

1) Does the project support the goals of the Clean Air Plan?

The primary goals of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan are to: attain air quality standards; reduce population exposure to air pollutants and protect public health in the Bay Area; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate.

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the recommended measure for determin- ing project support of the Clean Air Plan goals is consistency with the thresholds of significance. As indicated in the operational analysis above, the project would exceed the individual project-level BAAQMD thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants even after mitigation; therefore, the project would not be considered consistent with the goals 2010 Clean Air Plan.

2) Does the project include applicable co ntrol measures from the Clean Air Plan?

The control strategies of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan include measures in the traditional cate- gories of stationary source measures, mobile source measures, and transportation control measures.

This latest Clean Air Plan identifies two new subcategories of control measures, including land use and local impact measures and energy and climate measures. Stationary source measures are not specifically applicable to the proposed project and therefore are not evaluated further in this Subse- quent EIR. The project’s consistency with other measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan is discussed below.

Transportation and Mobile Source Control Measures. The transportation control measures in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan are designed to reduce emissions from motor vehicles by reducing vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in addition to vehicle idling and traffic congestion.

Transportation Control Measure (TCM) C-1, Voluntary Employer-Based Trip Reduction Programs, supports voluntary efforts by Bay Area employers to encourage their employees to use alternative commute modes, such as transit, ride sharing, bicycling, walking, or telecommuting. The purpose of this measure is to reduce ozone precursor emissions by reducing commute trips, VMT, and vehicle emissions. In addition this measure is intended to reduce emissions of particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gases. Gilead Sciences currently operates a TDM Program that is designed to reduce the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles and encourage the use of carpooling, transit, biking, and walking for work-related trips. The current program includes subsidized public transit tickets, a carpool and vanpool program, commute assistance, and video conferencing. In addition, the project

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

864

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 255 includes extensive on-site pedestrian facilities, which would make it easy for employees to move around the site by foot. These measures would reduce vehicle trips generated by the project and would be consistent with TCM C-1 of the Clean Air Plan.

TCM D-1, Bicycle Access and Facilities Improvements, is intended to expand bicycle facilities serving employment sites, educational and cultural facilities, residential areas, shopping districts, and other activity centers. Typical improvements include bike lanes, routes, paths, and bicycle parking facilities. This measure is designed to reduce ozone precursor emissions by sustaining and improving bicycle access and facilities throughout the Bay Area. The project would provide bicycle access to the project site for bicyclists and would provide bike racks on-site. In addition, the project would improve existing bike and pedestrian infrastructure on streets surrounding the project site, allowing for continued bike access around the site. Therefore, in general, the project would include the applicable transportation demand and control measures from the BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan.

Land Use and Local Impact Measures. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan includes Land Use and Local Impacts Measures (LUMs) to achieve the following: promote mixed-use, compact development to reduce motor vehicle travel and emissions; and ensure that planned growth is focused in a way that protects people from exposure to air pollution associated with stationary and mobile sources of emissions. The LUMs identified by the BAAQMD are not specifically applicable to the proposed project as they primarily relate to actions the BAAQMD will take to reduce impacts from goods movement and health risks in affected communities. The measures also detail new regulatory actions the BAAQMD will undertake related to land use, including the updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to which the proposed project would be subject, and indirect source review, which is still under development by the BAAQMD. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any of the Land Use and Local Impact Measures of the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan.

Energy Measures. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan also includes Energy and Climate Control Measures (ECM), which are designed to reduce ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants and reduce emissions of CO

2. Implementation of these measures is intended to promote energy conservation and efficiency in buildings throughout the community, promote renewable forms of energy production, reduce the “urban heat island” effect by increasing reflectivity of roofs and parking lots, and promote the planting of (low-VOC-emitting) trees to reduce biogenic emissions, lower air temperatures, provide shade, and absorb air pollutants. The energy measures are not specifically applicable to the proposed project at this time as they relate to future building codes and other actions that regulatory agencies may adopt; however the proposed project would be conditioned to meet the requirements for specific energy and climate control measures as they are required by the BAAQMD and the City of Foster City in the future.

3) Would the project disrupt or hinder implemen tation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan?

As discussed above, the proposed project would not conflict with the measures outlined in the Clean Air Plan, including transportation control measures and energy measures. Therefore, the project would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures from the Clean Air Plan.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

865

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
I. AIR QUALITY

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4i-AirQuality.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 256 Although the project generally is consistent with the Clean Air Plan’s goals and control measures, the project ultimately would not be consistent with the Clean Air Plan because it would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for criteria air pollutants.

Impact 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 incon- sistency with the Clean Air Plan. (S)

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-2 would reduce this impact; however, no additional measures would be feasible to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure AIR-6: Implement Mitigation Measure AIR-2. (SU)

d. Cumulative Impacts. As discussed above, air pollution is a regional issue affected by climate, land uses and topography. Development projects from the past, present, and future contribute to regional pollution on a cumulative basis because air pollutants, once emitted at a particular location, move throughout the atmosphere and air basin. If a project’s contribution at the individual level is considerable, then the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on air quality would also be considered significant.

The analysis presented above discusses air quality conditions related to implementation of the project, as well as the project’s conformance with the BAAQMD’s 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The Clean Air Plan is the region’s plan for attaining air quality standards and accounts for future cumulative regional growth. Therefore, consistency with the Clean Air Plan would indicate the project would not make a significant contribution to a cumulative air quality impact.

Although the project is generally consistent with the Clean Air Plan’s goals and control measures, the project ultimately would not be consistent with the Clean Air Plan because it would exceed the BAAQMD’s threshold of significance for criteria air pollutants, resulting in a significant contribution to a cumulative air quality impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR-1 and AIR-2 would reduce this impact; however, the impact, relating to vehicle emissions and dust, would remain signifi- cant and unavoidable.

The proposed project could include the addition of emergency generators, which would be a source of cumulative stationary toxic air contaminants for receptors located in the vicinity of the project site.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-5 would ensure that all cumulative impacts from genera- tors on the project site would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

866

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 257 J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION
This section analyzes the potential impacts of the 2012 Master Plan on public services, utilities, and recreation facilities, including: fire protection, police services, schools, open space and recreation facilities, water, wastewater, solid waste, telecommunications, and electricity and natural gas.

Potential impacts that could result from the proposed project are identified, and mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate. The related topic of storm drainage is evaluated in Chapter IV.E, Hydrology and Water Quality.

1. Setting
This section discusses current service locations, capacities, and planned expansion relating to public services, utilities, and recreation.

a. Fire Protection. The Foster City Fire Department (FCFD) provides fire suppression, life- safety, and hazardous material response and containment services for Foster City. The FCFD participates in joint dispatching with other fire agencies in San Mateo County, in which the closest uncommitted unit responds to emergency calls, regardless of jurisdiction. In addition, the FCFD jointly delivers some fire services with the City of San Mateo Fire Department. The FCFD also has an Automatic Aid agreement with the City of Hayward Fire Department for the San Mateo Bridge. In addition, the FCFD participates in the Master Mutual Aid System for the State of California, which provides staff and mechanical assistance throughout the State. FCFD staffing, facilities, equipment, and response times are described below.

(1) Staffing. The FCFD has a current authorized staff of 36 full-time and two part-time employees, including 19 Firefighters, nine Captains, two Battalion Chiefs, one Fire Marshal, and two administrative staff. In addition, Foster City also shares a Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief, and Battalion Chief with the City of San Mateo. Each shift is assigned one Battalion Chief, three Captains, and seven Firefighters. All engine companies are staffed with Advanced Life Support systems (operated by FCFD paramedics) and one paramedic is on duty at all times. 1 (2) Facilities and Equipment. Foster City Fire Station 28 is located at 1040 East Hillsdale Boulevard. It is the closest fire station to the project site, and is located approximately 1 mile from the site. In-service equipment housed at the fire station includes one fire truck, two fire engines, and one 14-foot water rescue boat. Reserve fire equipment includes one command unit vehicle (used to tow the rescue boat), two reserve fire engines, and one reserve fire truck. There are currently no planned improvements at this fire station, and there are no plans for the construction of new fire stations in the area.
2 The second closest station to the project site is Station 26 at 1500 Marina Court in San Mateo, which is staffed by the City of San Mateo Fire Department. Station 26 is 1.8 miles from the project site. This station is equipped with one fire engine and has one fire captain and two firefighters present at all

1 Keefe, Michael, 2012. Fire Chief, Foster City Fire Department. Written communication with City of Foster City.

October.
2 Ibid.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

867

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 258 times. Three fire personnel are assigned to the station per day. This station is equipped with one fire engine and a lumber truck (i.e., a truck carrying lumber that can be used to temporarily support buildings that are structurally unsound). There are currently no planned improvements at San Mateo Fire Station 26.

(3) Response Times. FCFD’s average response time goal within the City limits is 3.5 to 4.5 minutes. FCFD is currently meeting that goal 90 percent of the time. By contract, Foster City fire engines must arrive at the scene of a medical call in less than 7 minutes. Response time to the project site under current conditions is generally between 3 to 4 minutes. The average response time is under

4.5 minutes.3

FCFD’s current Insurance Service Office (ISO) rating is Class 2 (1 being the highest and 10 being the lowest), upgraded from Class 3 in 2000. This rating is based on a consideration of a community’s fire defense capacity versus fire potential and is used to set property insurance premiums for homeowners and commercial property owners.
4 b. Police Services. The Foster City Police Department (FCPD) is located at 1030 East Hillsdale Boulevard, approximately 1 mile from the project site. The FCPD has a current staff of 36 sworn and 13 non-sworn personnel. The FCPD is currently fully staffed, but anticipates vacancies in the near future. The FCPD also has an additional staff of 20 volunteers. 5 As with all police departments in California, the FCPD staffing goal is to achieve the industry standard of 1.5 officers per 1,000 residents. The industry standard does not take into account a nonresident daytime population. Generally, police departments in cities with uses such as universities, large sports stadiums, and large business parks use the officer/residents industry standard ratio as a baseline, and then add more officers as needed to address the demand placed on the department by the nonresident population. However, the FCPD has not identified a service standard that takes into account a non- resident daytime population. Due to ongoing budgetary constraints, the current police officers-to- residents ratio in Foster City is approximately 1.2 sworn officers per 1,000 residents. 6 Citywide, one supervisor and three to five officers work during the daytime and evening shifts.

Between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. that level can fall to as few as one supervisor and two officers, due to the low level of service calls. Officers patrol the City and respond to all calls for service.

The FCPD has a goal of responding to all emergency calls in 5 minutes or less. Depending on their nature, non-emergency calls are responded to in less than 10 minutes on average. In Foster City, the average response time for emergencies (Priority 1 calls) is 4 minutes, while non-emergency calls have a response time of 6 minutes. In 2011, there were a total of 316 incidents recorded in the reporting area surrounding the project site. The average response time for all calls in this area was 5 minutes.

3 Keefe, Michael, 2012, op. cit.
4 Foster City, City of, 2012. ISO “Class 2.” Website: www.fostercity.org/services/safety/fire/iso-classification.cfm. 5 Martell, Matthew, 2012. Captain, Foster City Police Department. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 19.
6 Ibid.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

868

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 259 The FCPD anticipates a total of 400 calls for service during 2012, an increase of approximately 27 percent.

c. Schools. The following section describes school services within Foster City, which are provided by two school districts: the San Mateo-Foster City School District (SMFCSD); and the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD). School Services, enrollment, and enrollment standards for each of these school districts are discussed below.

(1) San Mateo-Foster City School District. The SMFCSD operates 20 schools serving the communities of San Mateo and Foster City, including 16 elementary and four middle schools. District- wide enrollment for the 2011-2012 school year was 11,204 students. 7 The SMFCSD operates three
elementary schools and one middle school in Foster City. These schools, along with current enrollment numbers, are listed in Table IV.J-1. Enrollment within Foster City schools is approximately 28 percent of District-wide enrollment.

Table IV.J-1: SMFCSD 2011-2012 Enrollment at Schools Serving Foster City School Enrollment Capacity Excess Capacity a
Audubon Elementary 632 658 26
Foster City Elementary 800 931 131
Brewer Island Elementary 715 760 45
Bowditch Middle 939 1,100 161
Total 3,086 3,449 363
a Positive numbers mean a school is under capacity.

Source: SMFCSD, 2012; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

The SMFCSD does not maintain a student generation rate. 8 However, based on California Department
of Finance (CDF) data, in 2010-2011 there were 64,397 students enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade (the grade range served by SMFCSD) in San Mateo County9 and the number of house- holds in San Mateo County was 257,848.10 Thus, the student generation rate for kindergarten through eighth grade is approximately 0.25 students per household.11 The enrollments for the current school year (2011-2012) of the elementary and middle schools in Foster City are shown in Table IV.J-1.

Audubon Elementary School, Foster City Elementary School, Brewer Island Elementary School, and Bowditch Middle School are operating at approximately 96 percent, 86 percent, 94 percent, and 85

7 California Department of Education, 2012. Educational Demographics Unit. Dataquest. Website: dq.cde.ca.gov/ dataquest/. September 4.
8 Barton, Molly, 2012. Assistant Superintendent for Student Services, San Mateo Foster City School District. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. November 20.
9 California Department of Finance, 2011. California Public K–12 Graded Enrollment Projections Table, 2011 Series. Website: www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/k-12/view.php (accessed November 11, 2012). 10 California Department of Finance, 2011. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011 and 2012. Website: www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2011-20/view.php (accessed November 2, 2012).
11 LSA Associates was not able to obtain a District-specific student generation rate from the SMFCSD. Thus the most recent available data were used.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

869

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 260 percent capacity, respectively.12 In addition, while there are elementary schools assigned to each neighborhood, students are allowed to transfer to non-assigned schools.

New development is required to provide necessary funding and/or capital facilities for the school system, as determined by applicable State-mandated development impact fees. The developers of commercial and industrial developments are required to pay a fee of $0.28 per square foot for the development of school facilities (assuming the developers do not develop school facilities as part of projects).13

(2) San Mateo Union High School District. The SMUHSD provides high school education to the communities of Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Mateo, and San Bruno.

The SMUHSD operates six high schools and one continuation high school. Projected district-wide enrollment for the 2012-2013 school year is 8,208. The SMUHSD operates three high schools in that serve families in Foster City: Aragon High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School. While all new employees generated by the proposed 2012 Master Plan would not necessarily live within the boundaries of the SMUHSD, high school-aged children who move to Foster City with households including employees of Gilead Sciences would likely go to one of these three schools.

The SMUHSD uses a student generation rate of 0.69 households per 1,000 feet of commercial construction and 0.187 high school students per household. Based these rates, the existing buildings (926,735 square feet) currently generate approximately 120 students. The enrollment for the current school year (2011-2011) of these high schools is shown in Table IV.J-2. Aragon High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School are operating at approximately 99 percent, 94 percent and 90 percent capacity, respectively.
14 Table IV.J-2: SMFCSD 2011-2012 Enrollment at Schools Serving Foster City School Enrollment Capacity Excess Capacity a
Aragon High School 1,499 1,500 1
Hillsdale High School 1,318 1,400 82
San Mateo High School 1,373 1,500 127
Total 4,190 4,400 210
a Positive numbers mean a school is under capacity.

Source: California Department of Education, 2012; McManus, Elizabeth, 2012.

Similar to SMFCSD, the SMUHSD requires new development to provide necessary funding and/or capital facilities for the school system, as determined by applicable State-mandated development impact fees. SMUHSD currently charges a commercial development fee of $0.19 per square foot.

12 Barton, Molly, 2012, op. cit.
13 San Mateo Union High School District, 2012. School Impact (Developer) Fees. Website: www.smuhsd.org/ developerfees. September 4.
14 McManus, Elizabeth, 2012. Deputy Superintendent Business Services, San Mateo Union High School District.

Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. July 25.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

870

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 261 d. Open Space and Recreation. The City of Foster City has 21 recreational facilities within the 4 square miles comprising the City. These open space areas range in size from 0.12 acres to 23.9 acres, and total approximately 113.8 acres.15 In addition, the City has 212 acres of recreational waterways.

Almost all residents live within walking distance, or ¼-mile, of open space or a private recreational facility. All of those who do not live within ¼-mile of open space generally live within ¼-mile of the waterfront. The closest City-managed open space to the project site is the 20.75-acre Leo J. Ryan Memorial Park. The open space area is located approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site. A shoreline access point in Foster City is located approximately ¼-mile north of the site. In addition, there are two open space areas operated and maintained by the City of San Mateo that are located in the vicinity of the 2012 Master Plan area. The 15.3-acre Tidelands Park and 4-acre Mariners Island Park are both located within ¼-mile of the project site. In addition, the Foster City Community Center and the William E. Walker Recreation Center are located approximately 1 mile from the project site, at 1000 East Hillsdale Boulevard and 650 Shell Boulevard, respectively.

The City of Foster City uses a 5-acres-per-1,000-residents standard as a threshold to measure how well its citizens are provided with access to open space and recreational facilities. 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.
16 The City requires payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication, or a combination of a fee and land dedication, for residential developments that do not provide adequate open space, based on the 5-acres-per-1,000-residents standard. Since the proposed 2012 Master Plan does not include residential uses, the project would not be subject to this requirement.

e. Water Services. The Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) manages the distribution, operation, and maintenance of Foster City’s water supply system. The City’s sources of water, water treatment facilities, and water distribution system are described below. This information is primarily based on the revised Water Supply Assessment published by EMID in November 2012 (and included as Appendix E to this Subsequent EIR).
17 (1) Water Sources. EMID obtains potable water from the City and County of San Francisco’s regional system, operated by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC).

This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes small amounts of treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties. As a water retailer, EMID has no direct control over its water supply.

In 1984 EMID, along with 29 other Bay Area water suppliers represented by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), signed a Settlement Agreement and Master Water

15 Foster City, City of, 2008. Foster City Park Guide. Website: www.fostercity.org/Services/recreation/ ParkGrid.cfm. August.
16 Foster City, City of, 2009. General Plan, Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space Element. July. 17 Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2012. Water Supply Assessment Report for Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project; 15-Acres Project; 400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidelands Park) Residential Project; Chess Hotel Project; Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project; Bayside Towers III Project; Visa V Project; Marina Project. November 5.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

871

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 262 Sales Contract with the SFPUC, supplemented by an individual Water Supply Contract. A new Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract were approved in August 2009 and provide for a 184 million gallon per day (mgd) “Supply Assurance” to the SFPUC’s wholesale customers.

The Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract expire in 2034 but contain provisions for extension to 2044.18

The projected water supply and demand in EMID’s service area between 2015 and 2030, not taking into account major anticipated development projects in the service area (including the 2012 Master Plan), are shown in Table IV.J-3. During a normal year, EMID is assured a water supply of 6,608 acre feet.

The SFPUC can meet the demands of its retail and wholesale customers in years of average and above-average precipitation. However, global climate change poses a long-term threat to water supply reliability, although the exact effects are unknown. California relies on a combination of rainfall in the winter and runoff from the Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack in the spring and summer months.

Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could reduce the spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages. At the same time, warmer weather could increase precipitation in the State. Therefore, the effects of global climate change on the State’s water supply may be variable.

Supply instability is addressed through the Master Water Sales Contract, which allows the SFPUC to reduce water deliveries during droughts, emergencies, and for scheduled maintenance activities. The SFPUC and all wholesale customers adopted an Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan in 2011 to address the allocation of water between San Francisco and wholesale customers in aggregate and among individual wholesale customers during water shortages of up to 20 percent of system-wide use. In addition, EMID adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in 1993 to address reduced water deliveries within its service area.

Table IV.J-4 shows projected water deliveries to EMID during multiple dry years. The SFPUC would reduce water deliveries by 10 percent for the first two consecutive dry years, and 20 percent for the remaining consecutive dry years. Water demand within the EMID service area would be accordingly reduced during multiple dry years with implementation of the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan.

Table IV.J-3: EMID Current and Planned Water Supply and Demand (acre feet/year) 2015 2020 2025 2030
Normal Year Supply 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608
EMID Water Demand 5,373 5,497 5,579 5,635
Annual Difference 1,235 1,111 1,029 973
Source: Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2012.

18 Hanson Bridgett, LLP, 2009. Re. Fully Executed Water Supply Agreement and Individual Water Sales Contract with San Francisco. August 24.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

872

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 263 Table IV.J-4: Projected EMID Deliveries For Five Consecutive Dry Years (acre feet/year) 2010
One Critical
Dry Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Supply 6,608 5,947 5,947 5,286 5,286 5,286
% Reduction – 10 % 10% 20% 20% 20%
Source: Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2012.

(2) Water Treatment, Distribution, and Storage Facilities. As discussed above, the majority of the SFPUC’s water supply originates in the upper Tuolumne River watershed, high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, remote from human development. Hetch Hetchy water is protected in pipes and tunnels as it is conveyed to the Bay Area, requiring only primary disinfection and pH adjustment to control corrosion in the pipelines. Small amounts of local water may be blended with Hetch Hetchy water. Water from the Alameda watershed is treated at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant in Sunol, while water from the Peninsula Watershed is treated at the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant in San Bruno.

Potable water from the SFPUC flows through a 54-inch line located in the City of San Mateo on Crystal Springs Road (Crystal Springs No. 2). EMID’s 24-inch main water line connects to this line and potable water flows by pressure from this connection point throughout the EMID distribution system.
19 EMID currently owns and operates four water storage tanks with a combined capacity of 20 million gallons of treated water.

In addition, EMID has a 12-inch connection to the California Water Service Company, which serves the City of San Mateo, and a 12-inch connection to the Mid-Peninsula Water Agency, which serves the cities of Belmont, San Carlos, and portions of Redwood City. EMID has transfer/exchange agree- ments with both agencies that allow EMID to use these connections during emergency situations.

Water distribution lines within the vicinity of the 2012 Master Plan area include a 12-inch water main located under Lakeside Drive that provides water to the project site from both the Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive directions. Various 8-inch water lines extend from the 12-inch line under Lakeside Drive to serve each building on the campus. All of the water lines currently serving the campus were built in approximately 1986. In addition, there is a 12-inch redundant loop system located near the southern boundary of the project site that serves the Bridgepointe Shopping area, including the Home Depot store.
20 f. Wastewater (Sanitary Sewer) System. The wastewater collection and treatment system serving the project site is owned by EMID and operated by the Sewer Division of the Foster City Public Works Department. The existing collection system and wastewater treatment facilities serving the City are described below.

19 Towne, Ray, 2012. Public Works Director, Foster City Public Works Department. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. August 13.
20 Ibid.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

873

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 264 (1) Collection System. The Sewer Division of the Foster City Public Works Department operates and maintains approximately 66 miles of sanitary sewer lines, more than 8.5 miles of sewer force mains, 48 pumping stations, 15 permanent standby generators, and four portable generators to ensure that the approximately 3 million gallons of wastewater that Foster City homes and businesses generate each day is pumped to the jointly owned San Mateo Water Quality Treatment Control Plant (SMWQCP) in San Mateo. Wastewater pipes within Foster City range in age from approximately 17 years old to 45 years old.
21 The system is maintained and upgraded on an as-needed basis.

Infrastructure in the vicinity of the project site consists of an 8-inch sewer line located beneath Lakeside Drive that runs from the intersection of Lakeside Drive to Vintage Park Drive to the existing Building 335. At this point, several 8-inch sewer lines run from Lakeside Drive to the various build- ings on this portion of the campus. These pipes were constructed around 1986. There is a sanitary pump station (Pump Station 27) located on Lakeside Drive that collects wastewater from the project area and pumps wastewater into a force main system. Downstream from Pump Station 27, Pump Stations 28 and 15 also pump into the force main system that conveys these flows to the EMID main pump station, Pump Station 59, located at the City/EMID Corporation Yard. All City/EMID waste- water is then pumped from Pump Station 59 to the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located off East Third Avenue in San Mateo, where it is treated and then discharged into San Francisco Bay, or is used for acceptable non-potable purposes.
22 (2) Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Wastewater treatment is provided by the San Mateo WWTP, which is jointly owned by EMID and the City of San Mateo. EMID owns 27 percent of the treatment plant’s average daily flow capacity, or approximately 4.3 million gallons per day (mgd).

The treatment plant’s maximum daily wet weather capacity is 39.3 mgd and its maximum daily dry weather capacity is 22.0 mgd. The treatment plant’s 1 hour peak wet weather capacity is 60 mgd and its 1 hour peak dry weather capacity is 39.5 mgd. The average daily wastewater flow in 2012 (up to July 31) was 15.7 mgd.
23 g. Solid Waste. The following section describes Foster City’s non-hazardous and hazardous waste disposal services and capacity, as well as applicable solid waste regulations, including source reduction and recycling regulations.

(1) Non-Hazardous Solid Waste. Foster City is a member agency of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), a joint powers authority created in 1982 to facilitate waste management programs for its member agencies. The SBMWA contracts with private companies for hauling and disposal of solid waste. Franchised solid waste collection, disposal, and recycling services in Foster City are provided by Recology San Mateo County. Non-hazardous solid waste is taken to the Shoreway Environmental Center on the border of the cities of San Carlos and Redwood City. The Shoreway Environmental Center has a maximum allowable capacity of 3,000 tons of waste per day and processes a daily average of approximately 1,154 tons of waste. 24 After undergoing

21 Ibid.
22 Towne, Ray, 2012, op. cit.
23 Ibid.
24 San Mateo County, 2010. San Mateo County Integrated Waste Management Plan. June.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

874

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 265 processing, non-recyclable waste from the Shoreway Environmental Center is delivered to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill in Half Moon Bay. The landfill, which handles construction, demolition, and mixed municipal waste, has a capacity of 69 million cubic yards. In the year 2000, the total estimated capacity used was approximately 25 million cubic yards, or 36 percent. The landfill has a permitted throughput of 3,598 tons per day and a remaining capacity of 25,000,000 cubic yards.25 This capacity is anticipated to be sufficient for the landfill to operate until approximately 2050.

Currently, the landfill does not have a closure plan and it is not known at this time where future solid waste generated in Foster City will be disposed after 2050. 26 The California Department of Resources,
Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle) estimates an average waste generation rate of 5.6 pounds per day per employee in Foster City.27

(2) Hazardous Solid Waste. Foster City’s hazardous waste is disposed at the Kettleman Hills Facility, Landfill B-18, which is operated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (CWM). The Kettleman Hills Facility is located in the San Joaquin Valley along Interstate 5, midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The facility is approved under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and permitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to manage hazardous waste materials. The Kettleman Hills Landfill B-18 encompasses 499 acres and has a total capacity of 10,700,000 cubic yards, of which 6,000,000 cubic yards (56 percent) are remaining. According to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle), no closure date has been identified for the landfill.28

h. Telecommunications. A number of telecommunications providers currently provide service to residents and businesses in Foster City. AT&T is the primary telephone provider (or Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier – ILEC). Other carriers such as Qwest, Williams Communications, MCI/Worldcom, and Sprint have started providing services to commercial accounts in Foster City.29 Other providers provide digital subscriber line (DSL)-type services to the residential market, but most providers are reliant upon AT&T’s infrastructure. The City also has a non-exclusive Franchise Agreement with the Comcast Corporation, which is currently the sole cable television and broadband internet provider. The City regulates Comcast services as provided under federal law.30 All of these service providers are privately owned and operated and recover the costs of operation, maintenance, and capital improve- ment through connection and user fees, which are collected from all customers. These services are currently available at the project site.

25 Permitted throughput is the maximum permitted amount of waste a landfill can handle and dispose of in one day.

This figure is established in the current solid waste facilities permit issued by the Integrated Waste Management Board. 26 Turk, Frank, 2012. Division Manager, Central-Cal Post-Collection, Republic Services. Written communication with LSA Associates, Inc. August 27.
27 California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery, 2012. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends:

Foster City. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Jurisdiction/ReviewReports.aspx. July 10. 28 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, 2012. Facility/Site Summary Details: Kettleman Hills. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/16-AA-0023/Detail/. July 9. 29 Foster City, City of, 2012. Telephone Service Providers Servicing Foster City. Website: www.fostercity.org/ community_info/telecomm/Telephone-Companies-Servicing-Foster-City.cfm. July 10. 30 Foster City, City of, 2012. Cable Television, Broadband and Satellite Dishes. Website: www.fostercity.org/ community_info/telecomm/Cable-Television-and-Similar-Services.cfm. July 10.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

875

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 266 The California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates California’s telecommunication industry, requires that local phone service providers anticipate and serve new growth. To meet this requirement, local phone service providers continually upgrade their facilities and infrastructure, adding new facilities and technology to remain in conformance with California Public Utilities Commission tariffs and regulations and to serve customer demand in the City.

i. Electricity and Gas. The Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) provides electricity and natural gas service to customers in Foster City. PG&E charges connection and user fees for all new development in addition to sliding rates for electrical and natural gas service based on use. Electrical services are currently available at the project site.

2. General Plan Policies
The Foster City General Plan includes the following policies and programs related to public services and utilities.

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.  Policy LUC-65: Adequacy of Public Infrastructure and Services. New projects which require construction or expansion of public improvements shall pay their pro rata fair share of the costs necessary to improve or expand infrastructure necessary to serve them, including streets and street improvements, parks, water storage tanks, sewer and water service, and other public services. The City has established several assessment districts to pay for needed municipal improvements.

Facilities benefiting a specific development must be provided by the developer of that project.

Parks and Open Space Element
 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 recreational 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.
 Policy C-1: Water Resources. Conserve water resources in existing and new development.  Policy C-5: Solid Waste. Reduce the generation of solid waste through recycling and other methods.  Program C-a: Water Saving Landscaping and Irrigation. Promote the use of low-water-use land- scaping and irrigation devices in parks, and during review of new projects and modifications to existing developments.
 Program C-b: Property Owner Water Saving Techniques. Encourage all property owners to imple- ment the following conservation techniques: utilize drought tolerant plant materials, limit turf areas to 25 percent of landscaping, limit hours of the day for watering, retrofit with water-conserving fixtures, retrofit existing bathrooms and install new bathrooms with ultra low-flow toilets and water- conserving shower heads.
 Program C-o: Title 24. Construct new buildings and additions to energy efficiency standards according to Title 24 of the California State Model Code.  Program C-p: Solar Heating and Cooling. Encourage installation of solar panels for heating and cooling with solar energy.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

876

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 267  Program C-t: Source Reduction and Recycling Element. Implement the Source Reduction and Recycling Element in accordance with State regulations.

Safety Element
 Policy 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.  Policy S-10: Water Supply. The City will provide an adequate supply of water for daily use and emergency situations.
 Policy S-11: Police Services. The City will provide police services necessary to maintain community order and public safety.
 Program 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.
 Program S-m: Water Supply and Delivery. The City will maintain a water supply and delivery system that can meet potential fire-fighting demands through annual exercising of fire hydrants and periodic review of storage needs.
 Program S-v: Police Services. The City will provide adequate personnel, training, and equipment to support the provision of police services.
 Program S-x: Development Review for Crime Prevention. The City will review proposals for new and modified buildings for compliance with crime prevention requirements.

3. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section discusses public service, utility, and recreation impacts that could result from the proposed 2012 Master Plan. The section begins with the significance criteria, which establish the thresholds used 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, if appropriate.

Less-than-significant impacts are discussed first, followed by significant impacts and then cumulative impacts.

a. Significance Criteria. The project would have a significant impact on the environment related to public services and utilities if it would:
 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
○ Fire protection;
○ Police protection;
○ Schools; or
○ Other public facilities.
 Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated;

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

877

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 268  Create a shortage of parks facilities for new residents, because total park acreage does not meet the Government Code standard of 5 acres per 1,000 population (Foster City Municipal Code Section 16.36);
 Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment;  Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board;
 Require or result in construction of new wastewater facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;  Require or result in construction of new water facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;  Cause there to be insufficient water supplies to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, requiring new and expanded entitlements; or  Violate applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed 2012 Master Plan would result in the following less-than-significant impacts to public services and utilities.

(1) Fire Protection. The proposed project would increase the number of employees on the campus by 3,700, which could increase the demand for fire and emergency services on the project site. As described above, the FCFD’s average response time goal within City limits is 3.5 to 4.5 minutes, and it is currently meeting that goal for calls to the project site (the current response time is slightly under 4.5 minutes). While increased development at the project site could marginally lengthen response times to the project site and increase calls to the FCFD, the FCFD expects to be able to meet its response time goal. In addition, increased development would not exceed the capabilities of existing or planned FCFD staffing levels. 31 As such, development of the proposed
project would result in a less-than-significant impact to fire and emergency medical services within the City.

Moreover, the proposed project would be required to meet all FCFD and Fire Code requirements.

These requirements include those pertaining to: sprinkler systems; fire alarms; fire flow, access, and fire hydrant spacing; fire rated assemblies and walls; active and passive smoke control; voice evacua- tion; and additional radio repeaters. Minor adjustments to existing infrastructure may be required to ensure adequate water flow for fire-fighting needs. For example, underground fire water pipe connections would require a flex joint in a vault where the pipe transitions to a building. 32 In addition, the City may require the following measures as part of the Development Agreement for the project to further reduce the already less-than-significant impacts on FCFD services:

31 Keefe, Michael, 2012, op. cit.
32 Ibid.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

878

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 269  Gilead Sciences shall participate in the replacement/upgrade of traffic signal preemption devices on all traffic signals which are deemed necessary on the typical response route to the 2012 Master Plan area. The signal list will be determined by the FCFD.  Fire roads and lanes shall be adequately identified for fire suppression response teams that may be unfamiliar with the campus layout.

Site-specific design plans are required by the Fire Code to be submitted to and reviewed by the Fire Chief prior to the issuance of any building permits.
33 (2) Police Services. The proposed project would increase the number of employees on the Gilead Sciences campus by 3,700, which could increase the demand for police services on the project site. As noted in the setting section, there is no industry-wide standard to determine the ratio of police officers needed to serve a non-resident daytime population. The project could lead to an increased demand for police services.

However, Gilead Sciences would continue to maintain a high level of privately-funded security on the campus. In particular, the security of the buildings from East Third Avenue to Vintage Park Drive would be increased through the privatization of Lakeside Drive. Security measures may include the following: increasing the number of security cameras on the buildings; increasing roving security guard patrols; and the potential addition of a perimeter fence that would help regulate pedestrian and automobile access. The increased security measures on the campus would help to reduce the demand for police services.

Therefore, it is likely that calls for municipal police services would only increase slightly after implementation of the 2012 Master Plan.
34 The FCPD would need to increase police patrols around the construction site during the evening hours to deter theft on the project site. In addition, the proposed 2012 Master Plan would likely require additional police resources during the operational phase of the project. According to e-mail correspondence with the FCPD, the FCPD expects that the project would increase demand for police services, but this demand would be met without the need for additional personnel or acquisition of additional equipment or facilities.

(3) School Services. The following subsection evaluates the project’s environmental effects related to school services. The project, which does not include the development of new residential uses, would not directly generate new students. However, students could be added to the school system if new Gilead Sciences employees with children move to the area from elsewhere.

San Mateo-Foster City School District. The proposed project would be subject to a developer mitigation fee of $0.28 per square foot of commercial or industrial development. Therefore, Gilead Sciences would be required to pay up to approximately $440,682 to the SMFCSD. 35 As discussed in
the Setting section, the student generation rate for grades kindergarten through eight in San Mateo

33 Foster City, City of, 2012. Municipal Code, Chapter 15.24, Fire Code. 34 Martell, Matthew, 2012, op. cit.
35 San Mateo Union High School District, 2012. School Impact (Developer) Fees. Website: www.smuhsd.org/ developerfees. September 4.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

879

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 270 County is approximately 0.25 students per household. As discussed in detail in Chapter IV.C, the project would add approximately 384 households to Foster City and 331 households to the City of San Mateo (715 total), the areas primarily served by the SMFCSD. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would add approximately 179 students in grades kindergarten through eight. The SMFCSD currently has an excess capacity of 363 students at schools serving Foster City and would thus have sufficient capacity to serve the students generated by the project.

The SMFCSD’s maximum student teacher ratio is 28 students per teacher for grades kindergarten through third and 30 students per teacher for grades fourth through eighth grade. 36 Assuming that all
the students would be accommodated in new classrooms, and each teacher requires approximately one classroom, students generated by the project would require approximately six additional class- rooms. Based on aerial photography of the Audubon Elementary School, Foster City Elementary School, Brewer Island Elementary School and Bowditch Middle School, sufficient space exists at these campuses to accommodate the eight additional classrooms.

Moreover, there is additional capacity available at other schools within the SMFCSD, but located outside of Foster City, in San Mateo. Although school attendance outside of Foster City may be an undesirable option for new residents, the SMFCSD has the additional capacity to serve new students generated by the proposed project. Also, the proposed project would be required to pay developer mitigation fees to SMFCSD to fund capital improvements to local schools. With payment of these fees, the impact of the project on school facilities would be less than significant.

In addition, the SMFCSD, in anticipation of enrollment growth, is planning to reopen Knolls Elemen- tary School in San Mateo and expand Bowditch Middle School. As discussed above, Bowditch Middle School currently serves grades six to eight. Under the expansion, the Middle School would serve grades five to eight. By expanding Bowditch Middle School to accommodate fifth grade students, the SMFCSD would free up space in its existing and reopened schools. 37 This capacity expansion, along
with the reopening of Knolls Elementary School, would further reduce the already less-than-significant school services impacts that would result from the project. Any District projects would undergo appropriate review pursuant to CEQA prior to approval.

San Mateo Union High School District. SMUHSD currently charges a commercial develop- ment fee of $0.19 per square foot. As such, it is estimated that Gilead Sciences would be required to pay up to approximately $299,034 to the SMUHSD.
38 As discussed in the Setting section, the
SMUHSD uses a student generation rate of 0.69 households per 1,000 feet of commercial construc- tion and 0.187 high school students per household to ascertain the effects on student enrollment associated with development projects. Based on these rates, the existing buildings (926,735 square feet) on the project site currently indirectly generate approximately 120 students. At buildout of the 2012 Master Plan (2,500,600 square feet), the Gilead Sciences Corporate Campus would indirectly generate 323 students, a net increase of 203 students over existing conditions. The SMUHSD currently has excess capacity for 210 students at schools serving Foster City and would thus have

36 Barton, Molly, 2012, op. cit.
37 Barton, Molly, 2012, op. cit.
38 Ibid.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

880

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 271 sufficient capacity to serve the students generated by the project. However, students generated by the proposed project would absorb almost all of the currently-available enrollment capacity. According to the SMUHSD, the addition of new students generated by the project would create a financial burden and could require new facilities and staff.39

The SMUHSD’s maximum student teacher ratio is 26 students per teacher. Assuming that all the students would be accommodated in new classrooms, students generated by the project would require four additional classrooms. Aragon High School, Hillsdale High School, and San Mateo High School each have sufficient undeveloped space on their campuses to accommodate the four additional class- rooms.

Moreover, there is additional capacity available at other schools within the SMUHSD, but located outside of Foster City, in San Mateo. Although school attendance outside of Foster City may be an undesirable option for new residents, the SMFCSD has the additional capacity to serve new students generated by the proposed project. Also, the proposed project would be required to pay developer mitigation fees to SMUHSD to fund capital improvements to local schools. With payment of these fees, the impact of the project on school facilities would be less than significant.

Payment of Developer Fees. As noted above, payment of the statutory developer mitigation fees ($0.47 and $0.19 per square foot of commercial or industrial development for SMFCSD and SMUHSD respectively) is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of a project’s impact on school facilities under CEQA.
40,41 Fees are paid at the time a building permit is issued for a specific building project, and are based on the net new square footage resulting from the project.

As an alternative to the statutory square footage fee, and under limited circumstances, a school district may instead impose a fee for up to 50 percent of certain costs of new school facilities, with the remaining 50 percent to be matched by the State.
42 To qualify for these sources of funding, school
districts must demonstrate to the State their long-term facilities needs and costs based on long-term population growth projections, apply and be eligible for State funding for new school facility construction, and satisfy two of the four specified criteria: (1) 40 percent of pupils are enrolled on a multi-track year-round schedule; (2) a general obligation bond to finance new school facilities has been placed on the ballot in the past 4 years and passed with just over 50 percent of the vote; (3) at least 20 percent of teaching stations are portable classrooms; and (4) the school district has issued debt or incurred obligations for capital outlay in an amount equal to 15 percent of the school district’s local bonding capacity, including property taxes, parcel taxes, the district’s general fund, redevelop- ment agency funds, and special taxes from community facilities districts approved prior to November 1998 (or 30 percent if post-November 1998 landowner-approved Mello-Roos bonds are counted).

(4) Open Space and Recreation. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan, which would generate 3,700 new jobs, could induce population growth within Foster City and surrounding communities.

39 McManus, Elizabeth, 2012, op. cit.
40 California Government Code, Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b). 41 Chawanakee Unified School District v. County of Madera, et al. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1016. 42 California Government Code, Sections 65995.5 and 65995.7.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

881

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 272 New residents indirectly generated by the project could increase the demand for existing neighbor- hood and regional open space, and recreational facilities. As previously described, the City of Foster City uses a 5-acre per 1,000-residents standard as a threshold to measure how well its citizens are provided with access to open space and recreational facilities. 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.43 Any impacts on open space and recreation facilities resulting from increased population would be addressed through payment of fees and/or dedication of land in connection with new residential developments. These fees and land dedication would ensure that existing parks and recreational facilities would not experience substantial physical deterioration due to residential population increases associated with the proposed project.

In addition, the new employees themselves might use local open space and recreation facilities before work, at lunch, and after work. The proposed project would increase the amount of open space within the project site that would serve Gilead Sciences employees. These open space areas would be located around Vintage Lake and in between campus buildings. The provision of on-site open space would be expected to reduce the demand for off-site open space by Gilead Sciences employees such that deterioration of open space facilities would be unlikely to occur as a result of the project.

The open space areas proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan would not include the construction of recreational facilities (other than open space intended to be used for passive recreation). Therefore, the 2012 Master Plan would not require the construction of recreational facilities, the construction of which would cause environmental impacts. In addition, because the proposed 2012 Master Plan does not include residential uses, the project would not be subject to the City’s requirement of land dedica- tion or in lieu fee payment for residential projects that do not provide adequate open space.

(5) Water Supply. Buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would result in a net increase of up to approximately 1,573,865 square feet of new office, laboratory, and accessory uses on the project site, which would increase demand for water. In addition, 28 percent of the project site (approximately 21 acres) would consist of pervious surfaces that may require irrigation. The project would be subject to the requirements in Section 8.80 of the EMID Code (Outdoor Water Conservation in Landscaping), which would reduce outdoor water usage compared to standard practice.

According to a revised Water Supply Assessment (included in Appendix E) conducted for the proposed 2012 Master Plan and other major projects in Foster City, the proposed project would result in approxi- mately 206 acre feet of additional water demand per year. 44 Table IV.J-5 shows the anticipated water
supply every 5 years between 2015 and 2030 (assuming no supply disruptions or multi-year droughts), projected demand within the EMID service area associated with population growth (the data from Table IV.J-3), additional demand associated with the 2012 Master Plan, demand associated with other major anticipated development projects in the EMID service area, and water supply remaining after accounting for expected demand.

43 Foster City, City of, 2009. General Plan, Chapter 5: Parks and Open Space Element. July. 44 Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2012, op. cit.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

882

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 273 Table IV.J-5: EMID Water Supply and Demand Projections Plus Project (acre feet/year) 2015 2020 2025 2030
Normal Year Supply 6,608 6,608 6,608 6,608
EMID Water Demand 5,373 5,497 5,579 5,635
Proposed Project Demand 206 206 206 206
Other Major Project Demand 447 447 447 447
Remaining Supply 582 458 376 320
Source: Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2012.

As indicated in Table IV.J-5, EMID is under contract to receive 6,608 acre feet per year from the SFPUC, assuming no significant supply disruptions or prolonged drought conditions. This water supply is assured through 2034, with provisions for extension to 2044. Taking into account major anticipated development projects within the EMID service area, including the 2012 Master Plan, EMID would have a sufficient water supply to meet expected demand. The expected water supply surplus would range from 582 acre feet per year in 2015 to 320 acre feet per year in 2030

In the event of prolonged drought conditions, EMID would implement the Water Shortage Contin- gency Plan, which would result in reduced water demand of up to 20 percent within the service area.

The Water Shortage Contingency Plan would thus ensure an adequate water supply within the EMID service area if the SFPUC reduces water deliveries to EMID by 10 to 20 percent (as would occur during a prolonged drought). For instance, a 20 percent reduction in water demand would reduce overall demand during year 5 of a 5-year drought starting in 2030 to approximately 5,030 acre feet.

The anticipated supply that year, taking into account a 20 percent reduction in water deliveries from the SFPUC, would be 5,286 acre feet. Thus even under a 5-year drought scenario starting in 2030, EMID would still be able to provide adequate water to all existing and anticipated development and maintain a water surplus of approximately 256 acre feet. See Table 8 of Appendix E for additional detail.
45 Therefore, the water demand associated with the project and all foreseeable development could be accommodated during multiple dry years (such as those that could result from global climate change), assuming implementation of the mandatory demand reductions outlined in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan.

(6) Wastewater Treatment. As described above, the WWTP’s maximum daily wet weather capacity is 39.3 mgd and its maximum daily dry weather capacity is 22.0 mgd. The WWTP’s average daily flow is approximately 15.7 mgd (approximately 71 percent of total plant dry weather capacity).

EMID is allocated approximately 27 percent of the WWTP’s total daily flow capacity, or 4.3 mgd.

The City’s average daily flow as of 2012 was 2.30 mgd (approximately 53 percent of allocated daily flow capacity). The existing buildings on the project site generate approximately 0.32 mgd. The 2012 Master Plan would generate 0.68 mgd of wastewater, adding 0.36 mgd to the existing daily flow. 46 45 Ibid.
46 Assumes a wastewater generation rate of 0.27 gallons per day per every square foot of office and laboratory uses.

City of Foster City, 1999. Civic Center Master Plan Study. March.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

883

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 274 The net increase of 0.36 mgd would increase the City’s average daily flow to 2.66 mgd (approxi- mately 62 percent of allocated daily flow capacity) and the WWTP’s total average daily flow to 16.06 mgd (approximately 73 percent of total plant daily dry weather capacity). Because the proposed project would allow EMID to remain well below its allocated daily flow capacity at the WWTP, it would result in a less-than-significant impact on wastewater treatment and disposal (as no new wastewater facilities would be required to serve the project).

(7) Solid Waste. The proposed project would be served by landfills with the capacity to handle solid waste generated by the demolition and operational phases of the proposed project.

Demolition wastes from existing structures, paved asphalt areas, and utilities would be collected and hauled to the Shoreway Environmental Center for landfill diversion and recycling.

As required by Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act, a mini- mum of 50 percent of the City’s waste must be recycled. Per the City’s construction and demolition debris ordinance, the construction contractor would be required to recycle a minimum of half of all demolition and construction debris to meet City requirements. Chapter 15.44 (Ordinance 593) of the Foster City Municipal Code also requires construction contractors to take their construction and demo- lition debris to a facility that processes construction and demolition materials for recycling. According to the project sponsor, demolition activities on the site would generate approximately 3,143 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. The remaining demolition debris would consist of a variety of materials, including roof materials, windows, doors, light fixtures, ceiling materials, partitions, and steel columns. Per Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 15.44, at least 50 percent (1571.5 tons) of the debris would be diverted from the landfill and the remaining debris would be taken to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. Solid waste generated by the demolition and construc- tion phases of the proposed project, which would be spread out over a 15- to 20-year period, repre- sents approximately 4,400 cubic yards
47 or less than 0.01 percent of the Landfill’s remaining capacity (25 million cubic yards). Thus, the project would not substantially shorten the life of the landfill.

The proposed project would also generate solid waste during the operational phase of the project. As previously described, Cal Recycle estimates an average waste generation rate of 5.6 pounds per employee per day.
48 The 3,700 new employees resulting from buildout of the proposed 2012 Master Plan would generate up to approximately 20,720 additional pounds per day (approximately 10.36 tons per day) of solid waste. This represents approximately 0.35 and 0.29 percent of the total daily permit- ted throughput for the Shoreway Environmental Center and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, respec- tively. The landfill has a remaining capacity of 25 million cubic yards. Since the project would contribute less than 1 percent of daily permitted throughput, the amount of solid waste generated by operation of the proposed project would not exceed the capacity of the landfill or substantially shorten its useful life.

47 The estimated 3,143 tons of construction debris generated by the project were converted into cubic yards using the following equation: 1.4 ton of rubble = 1 cubic yard. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. Concepts for Reuse and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste. June.
48 California Department of Resource, Recycling and Recovery, 2012. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends:

Foster City. Website: www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/Jurisdiction/ReviewReports.aspx. July 10.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

884

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 275 In addition, Recology San Mateo County currently provides recycling services to the project site.

These services contribute to a reduction in solid waste generated by proposed development. The design and location of on-site recycling bins serving new development would be subject to City review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

The Kettleman Hills Landfill, which accepts hazardous wastes, has a total capacity of 10,700,000 cubic yards, of which 6,000,000 cubic yards (56 percent) are remaining. The hazardous waste gener- ated by the demolition and operation phases of the project would not compromise this remaining capacity.

(8) Electricity, Gas, and Telecommunications. Development of the proposed project would occur in a location that currently has electricity, gas, telephone, cable, and internet services.

Electricity and natural gas supplies to serve the project are expected to be adequate. As such, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact on electricity, gas, telecommunications, cable, and internet services.

c. Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in any signifi- cant public services, utilities, and recreation impacts.

d. Cumulative Impacts. The proposed project and cumulative projects would increase the demand for fire, police, school, and recreation services. These services are subject to an annual budgeting process during which service priorities are established and service levels are monitored, allowing for adjustments where needed. Changes in demand for these services are expected to be incremental, allowing for carefully planned expansions of existing facilities. Any expansions would be likely to occur on sites already occupied by existing service providers. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to these services are anticipated that would result in adverse physical impacts associated with the maintenance of service standards.

The anticipated growth in the 2012 Master Plan area, in combination with past, present, and reasona- bly foreseeable future projects, could adversely affect FCFD response times. However, the FCFD anticipates that it would continue to be able to meet its response time goal in the context of future development. In addition, the measures that the City may require as part of the Development Agree- ment (including requiring Gilead Sciences to participate in the City’s replacement/upgrade of traffic signal preemption devices, and requiring the identification of fire roads and lanes) would further reduce the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts on FCFD services. Similar measures may also be incorporated into other planned projects of a similar size and would reduce the impact of cumulative development on emergency response times (and avoid the need for new capital facilities to retain existing response times). Thus, no cumulative impacts to fire services are anticipated that would result in adverse physical impacts associated with the maintenance of service standards.

The proposed project and cumulative development projects would increase water demand in Foster City. According to the Water Supply Assessment (provided in Appendix E), and as shown in Table IV.J-5, the proposed project would increase water demand by approximately 206 acre feet per year.

Other major anticipated projects in the EMID service area would increase water demand by approxi- mately 447 acre feet per year. Thus the 2012 Master Plan, in combination with other major develop- ment projects in the area, would increase water demand by 653 acre feet per year.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

885

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
J. PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND RECREATION

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4j-PubUtil.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 276 Table IV.J-5 shows that the contracted supply allocations would be able to meet total system demand during normal water years. The Water Supply Assessment also found that during multiple dry years, there would continue to be sufficient supplies to meet all cumulative demand if EMID implements mandatory demand reduction measures identified in the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not make a significant contribution to a cumulative water shortage.

The proposed project and cumulative development projects would also increase demand for waste- water services and other utilities in Foster City. While development of the proposed project would place additional demands on the City’s wastewater plant, buildout of the 2012 Master Plan would still leave the system operating well below capacity (approximately 68 percent of allocated capacity and 73 percent of total capacity). It is not expected that the proposed project in combination with other cumulative development would result in a significant impact on these utilities.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

886

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 277 K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Increasing public awareness and general scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring have placed a new focus on CEQA as a potential means to address a project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This section begins by providing general background information on climate change and meteorology. It then provides data on the existing global climate change setting, discusses the regulatory framework for global climate change, and evaluates potential GHG emissions associated with the proposed project. Modeled project emissions are estimated based on the land uses associated with the proposed project, project trip generation, energy use, and other variables. The section then evaluates whether the project could cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to climate change using methods and assumptions outlined in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.
1 1. Setting
The following discussion provides an overview of global climate change, its causes, its potential effects, emission sources, and inventories.

a. Global Climate Change Background. A description of global climate change and its sources is provided below.

(1) Global Climate Change. Global climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans in recent decades. Global surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C (1.1°F ± 0.4°F) between 1906 and 2005. The rate of warming over the last 50 years of this period is almost double that over the last 100 years. 2 The prevailing scientific
opinion on climate change is that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. The increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other GHGs are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. GHGs are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing, agriculture, and other activities, and lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect.3

GHGs are present in the atmosphere naturally, are released by natural sources, or are formed from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. The gases that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are:
 Carbon dioxide (CO2);
 Methane (CH4);
 Nitrous oxide (N2O);

1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. 3 The temperature on Earth is regulated by a system commonly known as the “greenhouse effect.” Just as the glass in a greenhouse lets heat from sunlight in and reduces the heat escaping, greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere keep the Earth at a relatively even temperature. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be a frozen globe; thus, although an excess of GHGs results in global warming, the naturally occurring greenhouse effect is necessary to keep our planet at a comfortable temperature.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

887

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 278  Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs);
 Perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and
 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).

Over the last 200 years, humans have caused substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and enhanc- ing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global warming. While manmade GHGs include naturally-occurring GHGs such as CO
2, methane, and N2O, some gases, like HFCs,
PFCs, and SF6 are completely new to the atmosphere.

Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmos- phere for significant periods of time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation.

These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas.

The GWP is based on several factors, including the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere (“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO
2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for a
particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e). Table IV.K-1 shows the GWPs for each type of GHG. For example, SF6 is 22,800 times more potent at contributing to global warming than CO2. The following discussion summarizes the characteristics of the six GHGs.

Table IV.K-1: Global Warming Potential of Greenhouse Gases Gas
Atmospheric Lifetime
(Years)
Global Warming Potential
(100-Year Time Horizon)
Carbon Dioxide 50-200 1
Methane 12 25
Nitrous Oxide 114 298
HFC-23 270 14,800
HFC-134a 14 1,430
HFC-152a 1.4 124
PFC: Tetrafluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 7,390
PFC: Hexafluoromethane (C2F6) 10,000 12,200
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 22,800
Source: IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC.

Carbon Dioxide. In the atmosphere, carbon generally exists in its oxidized form, as CO2.

Natural sources of CO2 include the respiration (breathing) of humans and other animals, volcanic outgassing, decomposition of organic matter, and evaporation from the oceans. Human-caused sources of CO2 include the combustion of fossil fuels and wood, waste incineration, mineral produc- tion, and deforestation. Natural sources release approximately 150 billion tons of CO2 each year, far

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

888

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 279 outweighing the 7 billion tons of man-made emissions of CO2 each year. Nevertheless, natural removal processes, such as photosynthesis by land- and ocean-dwelling plant species, cannot keep pace with this extra input of man-made CO2 and consequently the gas is building up in the atmos- phere.

Methane. CH4 is produced when organic matter decomposes in environments lacking sufficient oxygen. Natural sources include wetlands, termites, and oceans. Decomposition occurring in landfills accounts for the majority of human-generated CH4 emissions in California and in the United States as a whole. Agricultural processes such as intestinal fermentation, manure management, and rice cultivation are also significant sources of CH4 in California. CH4 accounted for approximately 6 percent of gross climate change emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002.

Total annual emissions of CH4 are approximately 500 million tons, with manmade emissions account- ing for the majority. As with CO2, the major removal process of atmospheric CH4 – a chemical breakdown in the atmosphere – cannot keep pace with source emissions, and CH4 concentrations in the atmosphere are increasing.

Nitrous Oxide. N
2O is produced naturally by a wide variety of biological sources, particularly microbial action in soils and water. Tropical soils and oceans account for the majority of natural source emissions. N2O is a product of the reaction that occurs between nitrogen and oxygen during fuel combustion. Both mobile and stationary combustion emit N2O, and the quantity emitted varies according to the type of fuel, technology, and pollution control device used, as well as maintenance and operating practices. Agricultural soil management and fossil fuel combustion are the primary sources of human-generated N2O emissions in California. N2O emissions accounted for nearly 7 percent of man-made GHG emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002.

Hydrofluorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons, and Sulfur Hexafluoride. HFCs are primarily used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances regulated under the Montreal Protocol.4 PFCs and SF6 are emitted from various industrial processes, including aluminum smelting, semiconductor manufac- turing, electric power transmission and distribution, and magnesium casting. There is no aluminum or magnesium production in California; however, the rapid growth in the semiconductor industry leads to greater use of PFCs. HFCs, PFCs, and SF
6 accounted for about 3.5 percent of man-made GHG
emissions (CO2e) in California in 2002.

(2) Impacts of Climate Change. The potential impacts of global climate change are described in the following section.

Temperature Increase. State-of-the art climate models indicate that temperatures in California may be expected to rise by 3°F to 10.5°F by the end of the century. 5 Because GHGs persist for a long time in
the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere cannot be tied to a specific point of emission.

4 The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty that became effective on January 1, 1989, and was intended to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of several groups of halogenated hydrocarbons believed to be responsible for ozone depletion.
5 California Climate Change Center, 2006. Our Changing Climate. Assessing the Risks to California. July.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

889

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 280 Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precip- itation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from:
 Natural factors, such as changes in the sun’s intensity or slow changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun;
 Natural processes within the climate system (e.g., changes in ocean circulation and reduction in sunlight from the addition of GHGs and other gases to the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions); and
 Human activities that change the atmosphere’s composition (e.g., through burning fossil fuels) and the land surface (e.g., from deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, and desertification).

The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in the average global temperature. The impact of human activities on global climate change is readily apparent in the observational record.

For example, surface temperature data show that 11 of the 12 years from 1995 to 2006 rank among the 12 warmest since 1850, the beginning of the instrumental record for global surface temperature. 6 Climate change modeling shows that further warming could occur, which would induce additional changes in the global climate system during the current century. Changes to the global climate system, ecosystems, and the environment of California could include, but are not limited to:
 The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack, resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures;  Rise in the global average sea level primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets;  Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather, including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones;  Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for a significant amount of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;  Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depend- ing on the future temperature scenario) in high-ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century; and
 High potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level.

Precipitation and Water Supply. Global average precipitation is expected to increase during the 21st century as the result of climate change, but will vary in different parts of the world. However, global climate models are generally not well suited for predicting regional changes in precipitation

6 California, State of, 2009. California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. May.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

890

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 281 because of the scale of regionally important factors, such as the proximity of mountain ranges that affect precipitation.7

Most of California’s precipitation falls in the northern part of the State during the winter. A vast network of man-made reservoirs and aqueducts capture and transport water throughout the State from northern California rivers as the greatest demand for water comes from users in the southern part of the State during the spring and summer.8 The current distribution system relies on Sierra Nevada mountain snowpack to supply water during the dry spring and summer months. Rising temperatures, potentially compounded by decreases in precipitation, could severely reduce spring snowpack, increasing the risk of summer water shortages.

Some models predict drier conditions and decreased river and spring flows, while others predict wetter conditions in various parts of the world. If heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, more precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, and the snow that does fall will melt earlier, reducing the Sierra Nevada spring snowpack by as much as 70 to 90 percent over the next 100 years.

The extent to which various meteorological conditions will affect groundwater supply is unknown.

Warmer temperatures could increase the period when water is on the ground by reducing soil freeze.

However, warmer temperatures could also lead to higher evaporation or shorter rainfall seasons, shortening the recharge season. Warmer winters could increase the amount of runoff available for groundwater recharge. However, the additional runoff would occur at a time when some basins, particularly in Northern California, are being recharged at their maximum capacity.

Where precipitation is projected to increase in California, the increases are focused in Northern California. However, various California climate models provide mixed results regarding changes in total annual precipitation in the State through the end of this century; therefore, no conclusion on an increase or decrease can be made. Considerable uncertainties about the precise effects of climate change on California hydrology and water resources will remain until there is more precise and consistent information about how precipitation patterns, timing, and intensity will change. 9 However,
the State is taking measures to adapt to the effects of climate change by identifying climate change adaptation strategies for California’s water.10

Sea Level Rise. Rising sea level is one of the major areas of concern related to global climate change. Two of the primary causes for a sea level rise are the thermal expansion of ocean waters (water expanding as it heats up) and the addition of water to ocean basins by the melting of land- based ice. From 1961 to 2003, the global average sea level rose at an average rate of 0.07 inches per year, and at an accelerated average rate of about 0.12 inches per year during the last decade of this

7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, op. cit. 8 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit.
9 California, State of, 2006. Department of Water Resources. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into Management of California’s Water Resources. July.
10 California, State of, 2008. Department of Water Resources. Managing Our Uncertain Future, Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

891

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 282 period (1993 to 2003).11 Over the past 100 years, sea levels along California’s coasts and estuaries have risen about 7 inches.12

Sea levels could rise an additional 22 to 35 inches by the end of the century as global climate change continues.13 Although these projections are on a global scale, the rate of sea level rise along California’s coast is relatively consistent with the worldwide average rate observed over the past century. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that changes in worldwide sea level rise will also be experienced along California’s coast, including San Francisco Bay.14

Sea level rise of this magnitude would increasingly threaten California’s coastal regions with more intense coastal storms, accelerated coastal erosion, threats to vital levees, and disruption of inland water systems, wetlands, and natural habitats. Rising sea levels and more intense storm surges could increase the risk for coastal flooding. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Com- mission (BCDC) employed geographic information system (GIS) software to identify the shoreline areas likely to be most affected by a 1-meter rise in sea level. 15 According to the BCDC, changes in
climate may cause increased storm activity, which in combination with a higher sea level, may cause even greater flooding. It is expected that extreme storm events will cause most of the shoreline damage from flooding. Rising sea levels could affect the delivery of petroleum products, electricity, and drinking water to Bay Area residents and businesses. Residents may also suffer if wastewater treatment is compromised by inundation from rising sea levels, given that a number of treatment plants discharge to the Bay.

Water Quality. Water quality depends on a wide range of variables such as water temperature, flow, runoff rates and timing, waste discharge loads, and the ability of watersheds to assimilate wastes and pollutants. Climate change could alter water quality in a variety of ways, including higher winter flows that reduce pollutant concentrations (through dilution) or increase erosion of land surfaces and stream channels, leading to higher sediment, chemical, and nutrient loads in rivers.

Water temperature increases and decreased water flows can result in increasing concentrations of pollutants and salinity. Increases in water temperature alone can lead to adverse changes in water quality, even in the absence of changes in precipitation.

Land and resource use changes can have impacts on water quality comparable to or even greater than those from global climate change. The net effect on water quality for rivers, lakes, and groundwater in the future is dependent not just on climate conditions, but also on a wide range of other human actions and management decisions.

11 California, State of, 2009. California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research Program. The Future is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. May. 12 Ibid.
13 California Climate Change Center, 2006, op. cit.
14 California, State of, 2006, Department of Water Resources, op. cit. 15 California, State of, 2011. Living with a Rising Bay: Vulnerability and Adaptation in San Francisco Bay and on its Shoreline. September.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

892

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 283 Public Health. Global climate change is also anticipated to result in more extreme heat events.16 These extreme heat events increase the risk of death from dehydration, heart attack, stroke, and respiratory distress, especially with people who are ill, children, the elderly, and the poor, who may lack access to air conditioning and medical assistance. According to the California Climate Change Center, more research is needed to understand the effects of higher temperatures and how adapting to these temperatures can minimize health effects.17

(3) Emissions Inventories. An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies the primary human-generated sources and sinks of GHGs is a well-recognized and useful tool for addressing climate change. This section summarizes the latest information on global, United States, California, and local GHG emission inventories.

Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 27 billion metric tons of CO2e per year.18 Global estimates are based on country inventories developed as part of programs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

U.S. Emissions. In 2010, the United States emitted about 1,633.2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e with each individual at home releasing approximately 4 metric tons per year. Of the four major sectors nationwide – residential, commercial, industrial and transportation – transportation accounts for the highest amount of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to 40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion. Between 1990 and 2009, total U.S. GHG emissions rose by 7.3 percent, but emissions decreased from 2008 to 2009 by 6.1 percent. This decrease was primarily due to (1) a decrease in economic output resulting in a decrease in energy consumption across all sectors; and (2) a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels used to generate electricity due to fuel switching as the price of coal increased, and the price of natural gas decreased significantly. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have increased at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent. 19 State of California Emissions. According to California Air Resources Board (ARB) emission inventory estimates, California gross emissions of GHG decreased 1.5 percent, from 463.6 MMT20 of CO2e emissions in 2000 to 456.8 MMT in 2009, with a maximum of 488.8 MMT in 2007.21 During the same period, California’s population grew by 9.1 percent, from 33.9 to 37.2 million people and GHG emissions per person decreased from 13.7 to 12.4 metric tons of CO2e per person. The year 2009 saw a 5.8 percent decrease in Statewide GHG emissions, driven by a noticeable drop in on-road

16 California Climate Change Center, 2006.
17 Ibid.
18 Combined total of Annex I and Non-Annex I County CO2e emissions. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2007. GHG Inventory Data. Websites: www.unfccc.int/ghg_data/ghg_data_unfccc/ time_series_annex_i/items/3814.php and www.maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/ docs/2005/sbi/eng/18a02.pdf.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011. The U.S. GHG Emissions and Sinks: Fast Facts. Website:
www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. 20 A metric ton is equivalent to approximately 1.1 tons. 21 California Air Resources Board, 2011. Trends in California GHG Emissions for 2000 to 2009 by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-09_trends.pdf.

December.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

893

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 284 transportation, cement production, and electricity. The year 2009 also reflects the full effects of the economic recession and rising fuel prices. As the economy recovers, GHG emissions are likely to rise again without other mitigation actions.

California has the fourth lowest per-capita CO2 emission rate from fossil fuel combustion in the country, due to the success of its energy efficiency and renewable energy programs and commitments that have lowered the State’s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than half of what it would have been otherwise.22

ARB is responsible for developing the California GHG Emission Inventory. This inventory estimates the amount of GHGs emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities within the State of California and supports the Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Climate Change Program, discussed below. ARB’s current GHG emission inventory for the years 2000 to 2009 (using categories estab- lished by ARB) is shown in Figure IV.K-1. The emission inventory estimates are based on the actual amount of all fuels combusted in the State, which accounts for over 85 percent of the GHG emissions within California.

Figure IV.K-1: California GHG Emissions by Sector (2000-2009 Average) Electric Power
23%
Commercial and Residential
9%
Industrial
18%
Recycling and Waste

1.5%
High GWP

3.5% Agriculture
7%
Transportation
38%

Note: “High GWP” = high global warmi ng potential sources (e.g., semiconductor manufacturing)
Source: ARB, 2011. Trends in California GHG Emissions for 2000 to 2009 – by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan. December. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ inventory/pubs/reports/ghg_inventory_00-09_trends.pdf.

22 California Energy Commission, 2007. Inventory of California GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA. December 22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update to that report.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

894

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 285 Bay Area Emissions. The BAAQMD has also prepared an inventory of GHG emissions for the Bay Area. The latest version of the inventory, updated in 2010, provides information on 2007 emissions.23 Transportation and industrial/commercial uses are the largest sources of GHG emissions, each contributing 36.4 percent of the area’s total CO2e emissions in the year 2007. The estimated GHG emissions for the year 2007 for the nine-county Bay Area totaled 95.8 MMT of CO2e. The Bay Area GHG emissions by sector for the year 2007 are shown in Figure IV.K-2.

Figure IV.K-2: Bay Area GHG Emissions by Sector (2007)
Off-Road Equipment
3%
Industrial / Commercial
37%
Agricultural / Farming
1%
Transportation
36%
Electricity / Co-Generation
16%
Residential Fuel Usage
7%

Source: BAAQMD, 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area GHG Emissions. February.

Foster City Emissions. Two inventories address GHG emissions in Foster City: the Foster City 2005 Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory24 (Government Operations Inventory), which covers Citywide municipal operations, and the 2005 Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory,25 which covers emission estimates for San Mateo County as a whole, as well as individual jurisdictions within the County, including Foster City. Foster City initiated the preparation of the Government Operations Inventory to: 1) establish a baseline emissions inventory, against which to measure future progress and 2) understand the scale of emissions from the various sources within government operations. Foster City’s Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory was prepared as a baseline to move forward into target setting and climate action planning.

23 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2010. Source Inventory of Bay Area GHG Emissions. Website:
www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Emission%20Inventory/regionalinventory2007_2_10.ashx.

February.
24 Foster City, City of, 2010. 2005 Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. 25 San Mateo RecycleWorks and the City and County Association of Governments, 2010. County of San Mateo 2005 Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. March 25.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

895

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 286 Overall, the Government Operations Inventory establishes 2005 GHG emissions at 3,312 metric tons of CO2e. Buildings and facilities (24.4 percent), employee commutes (23.3 percent), and vehicle fleet (20.8 percent), were the three largest GHG emissions-producing sectors. The remaining emissions resulted from water/sewage transport (14.4 percent), public lighting (12.3 percent), government- generated solid waste (4.4 percent), and the transit fleet (0.4 percent).

The Foster City Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory indicates 2005 GHG emis- sions were 274,933 metric tons of CO
2e. The largest sources of emission were transportation on State highways (34 percent) and commercial and industrial energy use (23 percent). Transportation on local roads contributed 21 percent of total emissions and residential energy use contributed 16 percent. Off- road equipment and generated waste comprised the remainder. Municipal operations, as outlined above, account for approximately 1.2 percent of community emissions.

b. Regulatory Framework. The regulatory framework and governmental activities addressing GHG emissions and global climate change are discussed in this section. Although GHG emissions are being addressed on an international level, federal, State, regional, and local activities are most appli- cable to the proposed project and are discussed below.

(1) Federal Regulations. The United States has historically had a voluntary approach to reducing GHG emissions. However, on April 2, 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has the authority to regulate CO 2 emis-
sions under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). While there currently are no adopted federal regulations for the control or reduction of GHG emissions, the U.S. EPA commenced several actions in 2009 to implement a regulatory approach to global climate change, including the ones described below.

On September 22, 2009, U.S. EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emission sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide the U.S. EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons or more of CO
2 per year. This publicly-available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost-effective oppor- tunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppli- ers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs, along with vehicle and engine manufacturers, will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85 percent of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this rule.

On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed a final action under the CAA, finding that six GHGs (CO
2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6) constitute a threat to public health and welfare, and that the combined emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to global climate change. This U.S. EPA action does not impose any requirements on industry or other entities. However, the find- ings are a prerequisite to finalizing the GHG emission standards for light-duty vehicles mentioned below. U.S. EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, U.S. EPA denied these petitions.

On April 1, 2010, the U.S. EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced a final joint rule to establish a national program consist- ing of new standards for model year 2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles that will reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel economy. U.S. EPA is finalizing the first-ever national GHG emissions

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

896

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 287 standards under the CAA, and NHTSA is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. The U.S. EPA GHG standards require light-duty vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile in model year 2016, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon.

In December 2010, the U.S. EPA issued its plan for establishing GHG pollution standards under the CAA in 2011. The agency looked at a number of sectors and is moving forward on GHG standards for fossil fuel power plants and petroleum refineries – two of the largest industrial sources, represent- ing nearly 40 percent of the GHG emissions in the United States. 26 On August 9, 2011, U.S. EPA and the NHTSA announced the first-ever standards to reduce GHG emissions and improve the fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. The final combined standards of the Heavy-Duty National Program will reduce CO 2 emissions by about 270 MMT and
save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built for the 2014 to 2018 model years.

The heavy duty sector addressed in the U.S. EPA and NHTSA rules (including the largest pickup trucks and vans, semi-trucks, and all types and sizes of work trucks and buses in between) accounts for nearly 6 percent of all U.S. GHG emissions and 20 percent of transportation emissions. In addition, air quality will continue to improve as less fuel use leads to reduced ozone and particulate matter, improving the health of Americans.

(2) State Regulations. The ARB is the lead agency for implementing climate change regulations in the State. Since its formation, the ARB has worked with the public, the business sector, and local governments to find solutions to California’s air pollution problems.

Assembly Bill 1493 (2002). In a response to the transportation sector’s significant contribution to California’s CO
2 emissions, AB 1493, Pavley, was enacted on July 22, 2002. AB 1493 requires the ARB to set GHG emission standards for passenger vehicles and light duty trucks (and other vehicles whose primary use is noncommercial personal transportation in the State) manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. The ARB originally approved regulations to GHG standards in Septem- ber 2004 to take effect for model years starting in 2009 to 2016. However, to set its own GHG emissions limits on motor vehicles, California needed a waiver from the U.S. EPA. On June 30, 2009, the U.S. granted the waiver of CAA preemption to California. The ARB responded by amending its original regulation, now referred to as Low Emission Vehicle III GHG, to take effect for model years starting in 2017 to 2025.27

Executive Order S-3-05 (2005). Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S- 3-05 on June 1, 2005, which proclaimed that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The executive order declared that increased temperatures could reduce snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, further exacerbate California‘s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the executive order established California’s GHG emissions reduction targets, which established the following goals:

26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Press Release. December 23. 27 California Air Resources Board, 2010. California Clean Car Standards – Pavely, Assembly Bill 1493. Website:
arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

897

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 288  GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010;  GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and  GHG emissions should be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is required to coordinate efforts of various State agencies in order to collectively and efficiently reduce GHGs. A biannual progress report must be submitted to the Governor and State Legislature disclosing the progress made toward GHG emission reduction targets. In addition, another biannual report must be submitted illustrating the impacts of global warming on California’s water supply, public health, agriculture, the coastline, and forestry, and possible mitigation and adaptation plans must be reported to address these impacts.

The Secretary of CalEPA leads this Climate Action Team (CAT) made up of representatives from State agencies as well as numerous other boards and departments. The CAT members work to coordinate Statewide efforts to implement global warming emission reduction programs and the State’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. The CAT is also responsible for reporting on the progress made toward meeting the Statewide GHG targets that were established in the executive order and further defined under Assembly Bill 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006” (AB 32). The first CAT Report to the Governor and the Legislature was released in March 2006, which laid out 46 specific emission reduction strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets estab- lished in the Executive Order. The CAT Report to the Governor and Legislature and will be updated and issued every 2 years; the most recent was released in December 2010.

Assembly Bill 32 (2006), California Global Warming Solutions Act. California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is AB 32, passed by the State legislature on August 31, 2006.

This effort aims to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The ARB has established the level of GHG emissions in 1990 at 427 MMT CO
2e. The emissions target of 427 MMT requires the
reduction of 169 MMT from the State’s projected business-as-usual 2020 emissions of 596 MMT.

AB 32 requires the ARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for meeting the 2020 deadline and to reduce GHGs that contribute to global climate change. The Scoping Plan was approved by the ARB on December 11, 2008, and includes measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste, among other measures.
28 The Scoping Plan includes a range of GHG reduction actions that may include direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system. The Scoping Plan, even after ARB approval, remains a recommendation. The measures in the Scoping Plan will not be binding until they are adopted through the normal rulemaking process. The ARB rulemaking process includes preparation and release of each of the draft measures, public input through workshops, and a public comment period, followed by an ARB hearing and rule adoption.

In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed the ARB and the newly created CAT to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that could be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. On January 18, 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger

28 California Air Resources Board, 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change. December.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

898

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 289 signed Executive Order S-1-07, further solidifying California’s dedication to reducing GHGs by setting a new Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Executive Order sets a target to reduce the carbon intensity of California transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 and directs the ARB to consider the Low Carbon Fuel Standard as a discrete early action measure.

In June 2007, the ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on GWP Refrigerants, and Landfill CH 4 Capture).29 Discrete early action measures are measures that were required to be adopted as regulations and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5. The ARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures. These measures relate to truck efficiency, port electrifica- tion, reduction of PFCs from the semiconductor industry, reduction of propellants in consumer products, proper tire inflation, and SF
6 reductions from the non-electricity sector. The combination of early action measures is estimated to reduce Statewide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT.30

In December 2008, ARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 169 MMT of CO 2e, or
approximately 30 percent from the State’s projected 2020 emission level of 596 MMT of CO2e under a business-as-usual scenario (this is a reduction of 42 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent from 2002- 2004 average emissions). The Scoping Plan also includes ARB-recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the State’s GHG inventory. The Scoping Plan calls for the largest reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards:
 Improved emissions standards for light-duty vehicles (estimated reductions of 31.7 MMT CO2e);
 The Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (15.0 MMT CO2e);
 Energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances and the widespread development of combined heat and power systems (26.3 MMT CO2e); and
 A renewable portfolio standard for electricity production (21.3 MMT CO2e).

The Scoping Plan identifies 18 emissions reduction measures that address cap-and-trade programs, vehicle gas standards, energy efficiency, low carbon fuel standards, renewable energy, regional transportation-related GHG targets, vehicle efficiency measures, goods movement, solar roof programs, industrial emissions, high speed rail, green building strategies, recycling, sustainable forests, water, and air. The measures would result in a total reduction of 174 MMT CO 2e by 2020.

The final regulations went into effect on January 1, 2012.

On August 24, 2011, the ARB unanimously approved both ARB’s new supplemental assessment and re-approved its Scoping Plan, which provides the overall roadmap and rule measures to carry out AB

29 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard has been the subject of litigation in federal court that is still pending as of August 2012. 30 California Air Resources Board, 2007. “ARB approves tripling of early action measures required under AB 32” News Release 07-46. Website: www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr102507.htm. October 25.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

899

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 290

32. The ARB also approved a more robust CEQA equivalent document supporting the supplemental analysis of the cap-and-trade program. ARB also announced that it would be delaying the date that entities would be required to comply with its cap-and-trade program until 2013.

ARB has not yet determined what amount of GHG reductions it recommends for local government operations; however, the Scoping Plan states that land use planning and urban growth decisions will play an important role in the State’s GHG reductions because local governments have primary author- ity to plan, zone, approve, and permit how land is developed to accommodate population growth and the changing needs of their jurisdictions (meanwhile, ARB is also developing an additional protocol for community emissions). ARB further acknowledges that decisions on how land is used will have large impacts on the GHG emissions that will result from the transportation, housing, industry, forestry, water, agriculture, electricity, and natural gas emission sectors. The Scoping Plan states that the ultimate GHG reduction assignment to local government operations is to be determined. With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects approximately 5.0 MMT CO 2e will be achieved
associated with implementation of SB 375, which is discussed further below.

Senate Bill 375 (2008). Signed into law on October 1, 2008, SB 375 supplements GHG reductions from new vehicle technology and fuel standards with reductions from changed land use patterns and improved transportation. Under the law, the ARB approved GHG reduction targets in February 2011 for California’s 18 federally designated regional planning bodies, known as Metro- politan Planning Organizations (MPOs). The ARB may update the targets every 4 years and must update them every 8 years. MPOs in turn must demonstrate how their plans, policies and transporta- tion investments meet the targets set by the ARB through Sustainable Community Strategies (SCS).

The SCS are included with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), a report required by State law.

However, if an MPO finds that its SCS will not meet the GHG reduction target, it may prepare an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS). The APS identifies the impediments to achieving the targets.

The applicable SCS for Foster City is discussed below.

Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007). To assist public agencies in analyzing the effects of GHGs under CEQA, Senate Bill 97 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to evaluate, minimize, and mitigate a project’s GHG emissions.

On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines related to climate change. These amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. Revisions to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines suggest that development projects be evaluated based on the following thresholds:
 The project would generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; and
 The project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

(3) Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulations. BAAQMD is the regional government agency that regulates sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through the following plans, programs, and guidelines.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

900

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 291 Regional Clean Air Plans. BAAQMD and other air districts prepare clean air plans in accordance with the State and federal Clean Air Acts. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) is a comprehen- sive plan to improve Bay Area air quality and protect public health through implementation of a control strategy designed to reduce emissions and ambient concentrations of harmful pollutants. The most recent CAP also includes measures designed to reduce GHG emissions.

BAAQMD Climate Protection Program. The BAAQMD established a climate protection program to reduce pollutants that contribute to global climate change and affect air quality in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The climate protection program includes measures that promote energy efficiency, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and develop alternative sources of energy, all of which assist in reducing emissions of GHGs and in reducing air pollutants that affect the health of residents. BAAQMD also seeks to support current climate protection programs in the region and to stimulate additional efforts through public education and outreach, technical assistance to local governments and other interested parties, and promotion of collaborative efforts among stakeholders.

BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The BAAQMD adopted revised CEQA Air Quality Guidelines on June 2, 2010 and then adopted a modified version of the Guidelines in May, 2011. The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines include thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. Under the latest CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a local government may prepare a qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that is consistent with AB 32 goals. If a project is consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and General Plan that addresses the project’s GHG emissions, it can be presumed that the project will not have significant GHG emissions under CEQA.
31 The BAAQMD also adopted a quantitative threshold for project level analyses based on estimated GHG emissions as well as per capita metrics.32

(4) Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments Sustainable Communities Strategy. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the federally recognized MPO for the nine county Bay Area, which includes San Mateo County and Foster City. There is not an applicable SCS for the region at this time because MTC adopted its current RTP, Transportation 2035: Change in Motion,
33 before the ARB adopted GHG reduction
targets for communities in 2011. Currently, both MTC and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are in the preliminary stages of Plan Bay Area, the name given to the unique collaboration between the two organizations. In March 2011, Plan Bay Area released its Initial Vision Scenario, which presents a first draft of targeted growth areas and regional projections. From the Initial Vision Scenario,34 Plan Bay Area adopted the Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy35 in May 2012. Drafting of the SCS/RTP is scheduled to last until December 2012, with final adoption tentatively scheduled for January 2013.

31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. May. 32 As noted below in Section 2.a, Criteria of Significance, the BAAQMD Guidelines were the subject of a lawsuit in early 2012. Please see that discussion for details of the dispute and implications for this GHG analysis. 33 Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2009. Transportation 2035: Change in Motion. April. 34 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2011. Plan Bay Area: Initial Vision Scenario. May.
35 Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2012. Plan Bay Area Preferred Land Use and Transportation Investment Strategy. May 11.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

901

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 292 (5) Local Policies. Foster City regulates GHG emissions primarily through its General Plan, as described below. The City’s Ad Hoc Environmental Sustainability Task Force developed a draft Sustainability Action Plan, which includes recommended strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emis- sions. However the Sustainability Action Plan was not adopted by the City and is therefore not applicable at this time.

General Plan. While Foster City’s General Plan does not include policies that specifically address global climate change, the following goals and policies listed in Table IV.K-2 would be expected to reduce GHG emissions.

Table IV.K-2: General Plan Goals and Policies that Would Reduce GHG Emissions Goal LUC-B Promote Proper Site Planning, Architectural Design and Property Maintenance. Ensure high quality site planning and architectural design for all new development, renovation or remodeling and require property maintenance to maintain the long-term health, safety and welfare of the community.

Goal LUC-H Encourage Mixed Use Projects. Encourage mixed use projects, with the residential portion of mixed use projects built at the maximum allowed densities to reduce trips to, from and within the City.

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.

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 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.

Policy LUC-18 Mixed Use Residential/Commercial Projects. The City will encourage housing production by allowing mixed use residential/commercial projects to be built with the residential portion of mixed use projects built at the maximum allowed densities to reduce trips to and from and within the City. In allowing higher residential densities for mixed use projects, the project must comply with the goals and policies of the General Plan, including Policies LUC-15 and LUC-16.

Policy LUC-52 Transportation Systems Management (TSM). The City will participate in an ongoing joint effort with several neighboring cities to adopt and enforce a Traffic Systems Management (TSM) program. The program shall require the participation of all future and existing commercial and industrial employers.

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.

Policy LUC-54 Coordination with SamTrans. The City shall work with Sam Trans in defining new routes and improving the public transit and transportation system.

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.

Goal PC-F Provide Adequate Open Space to Serve Existing and New Development. Assure the provision of adequate open space to serve existing and new development and preserve existing open spaces with public access easements within private commercial developments.

Goal C-A Protect and Conserve Natural Resources. Protect and conserve wildlife habitat, energy resources, land resources, air quality, and the quality and quantity of water resources Policy C-4 Energy Conservation. Promote energy conservation in existing and new development (see Housing Element).

Policy H-A-4-a Air Quality Impacts. When site-specific development is proposed and/or a Rezoning application is processed, potential air quality impacts from project traffic shall be studied, and mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards in effect at the time shall be recommended if necessary.

Policy H-B-3 Encourage Energy Conservation in Housing. Encourage adoption of energy conservation measures and promote energy conservation programs that provide assistance for energy conservation improvements.

Goal PC-C Maintain and Improve the City’s Pedway and Bikeway System. Maintain and improve the pedway system that surrounds that city and the walkway system that provides safe access to parks, schools and other streets.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

902

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 293 Table IV.K-2 Continued
Policy PC-7 Bikepath System. Develop a Foster City bikepath system to connect major work, shopping, school, civic and recreational destinations throughout the city.

Policy PC-9 Pedway and Bikeway System Maintenance and Improvement. Continue to maintain, expand and improve the existing walkway and pedway system.

Policy C-3 Air Quality. Reduce the impact of development on local air quality.

Policy C-4 Energy Conservation. Promote energy conservation in new and existing development.

Source: Foster City General Plan, 1993, May; LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

2. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
This section evaluates significant impacts related to GHG emissions that could result from the proposed project. Where potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures are recommended, as appropriate. The consistency of the project with general sustainability principles is also discussed.

a. Criteria of Significance. This section evaluates impacts related to GHG emissions and global climate change that could result from implementation of the proposed project. Section 15064.4 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: “A lead agency should make a good-faith effort, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data, to describe, calculate or estimate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from a project.” In performing that analysis, the lead agency has discretion to determine whether to use a model or methodology to quantify GHG emissions, or to rely on a quali- tative analysis or performance-based standards. In making a determination as to the significance of potential impacts, the lead agency then considers the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead agency determines applies to the project, and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a Statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

An individual development project typically does not generate a sufficient quantity of GHG emissions to affect global climate change; therefore, the global climate change impacts of the proposed project are discussed in the context of cumulative impacts, per the approach recommended by the BAAQMD.

This section begins by establishing the thresholds to determine whether an impact is significant. The latter part of this section identifies GHG emissions associated with existing operations on the project site and evaluates the GHG emissions expected to result from the project.

The BAAQMD has adopted GHG thresholds of significance in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. 36 The BAAQMD has not adopted thresholds for construction emissions but recommends quantification and disclosure of these emissions. Local agencies are encouraged to adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction emissions. This Subsequent EIR analyzes whether the project’s GHG emissions would be cumulatively significant. Accordingly, the project would result in significant adverse impacts on global climate change if it would:

36 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2011, op. cit.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

903

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 294  Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, defined as not meeting at least one of the following criteria:
○ Resulting in operational-related GHG emissions of less than 1,100 metric tons of CO2e a year, or
○ Resulting in operational-related GHG emissions of less than 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per capita service population (employees) per year.
 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

These significance thresholds were adopted as part of the May 2011 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. It should be noted that on March 5, 2012, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a judgment find- ing that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA when it adopted the thresholds of signifi- cance in the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The court did not determine whether the thresholds of significance were valid on their merits, but found that the adoption of the thresholds was a project under CEQA. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the BAAQMD to set aside the thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD complied with CEQA. In May of 2012, the BAAQMD filed an appeal of the court’s decision, the results of which are pending as of September 2012.

Although lead agencies may rely on the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for assistance in calculating air pollution emissions, obtaining information regarding the health impacts of air pollutants, and identifying potential mitigation measures, the BAAQMD has been ordered to set aside the thresholds and is no longer recommending that they be used as a general measure of a project’s significant air quality impacts. The BAAQMD also recognizes that lead agencies may rely on the previously recommended thresholds of significance contained in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines adopted in 1999.
37 However, the 1999 CEQA Guidelines do not contain thresholds to determine the significance of GHG emissions.

The court’s invalidation of BAAQMD’s thresholds presents uncertainty for current project applicants and local agencies regarding proper evaluation of air quality and GHG emissions in CEQA docu- ments. Although reliance on the thresholds is no longer required, local agencies still have a duty to evaluate impacts related to air quality and GHG emissions. In addition, CEQA grants local agencies broad discretion to develop their own thresholds of significance, or to rely on thresholds previously adopted or recommended by other public agencies or experts so long as they are supported by substan- tial evidence.
38 Accordingly, Foster City has not adopted its own GHG emission thresholds and will continue to use the BAAQMD’s thresholds to evaluate project impacts in order to evaluate the poten- tial effects of the project on global climate change. The City believes that these protective thresholds are appropriate in the context of the size, scale, and location of the project. The BAAQMD’s approach to developing a quantitative threshold of significance for GHG emissions was to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legis-

37 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 1999. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans. December.
38 CEQA Section 21082; CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.7 and 15064.4 (addressing GHG impacts).

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

904

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 295 lation and policy adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions. According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, if a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant.

The Alameda County Superior Court did not question the science behind the thresholds or their merit.

Therefore, Foster City finds that, despite the court ruling, the science and reasoning contained in the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide the latest state-of-the-art guidance available.

For that reason, substantial evidence supports continued use of the 2011 BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines and the significance thresholds contained therein.

b. Less-Than-Significant Impacts. Implementation of the 2012 Master Plan would result in the less-than-significant impacts discussed below.

(1) Construction Activities. Construction activities, such as site preparation, site grading, on-site heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew would produce combustion emissions from various sources. During construction of the project, GHGs would be emitted through the operation of con- struction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels would create GHGs such as CO
2, CH4, and N2O. Furthermore, CH4 would be emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment.

It is anticipated that development of the project site would require demolition of existing buildings and hauling of demolished materials. Each of the new buildings would be constructed over a period of 12-18 months for a period of 15 to 20 years. Using the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod v.2011.1), the total CO
2 emissions associated with construction equipment for the proposed project would be approximately 13,190 tons CO2e. Model output sheets are included in Appendix C.

The BAAQMD does not have a numeric threshold to determine the significance of construction emissions. However, the project would be required to implement the construction exhaust control measures listed in Mitigation Measure AIR-1 of Section IV.I, Air Quality, including minimization of construction equipment idling and implementation of proper engine tuning and exhaust controls. The mitigation measure would also require contractors to use electric equipment when feasible. These measures would reduce GHG emissions during the construction period.

(2) Compliance with GHG Emission Reduction Strategies. The Cal/EPA CAT and the ARB have developed several reports to achieve the State’s GHG targets that rely on voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community groups, and State incentives and regula- tory programs. These include the CAT’s 2006 “Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legisla- ture,”
39 ARB’s 2007 “Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California,”40 and ARB’s “Climate Change Scoping Plan: a Framework for Change.”41 These

39 California Air Resources Board, 2006. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. 40 California Air Resources Board, 2007. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. October. 41 California Air Resources Board, 2008, op. cit.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

905

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 296 reports identify strategies to reduce California’s emissions to the levels proposed in Executive Order S-3-05 and AB 32. The adopted Scoping Plan includes proposed GHG reductions from direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as cap-and-trade systems.

In addition to reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, AB 32 directed ARB to identify a list of “discrete early action GHG reduction measures” that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. In June 2007, ARB approved a list of 37 early action measures, including three discrete early action measures (Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Restrictions on High Global Warming Potential Refrigerants,
42 and Landfill Methane Capture43). Discrete early action measures are measures that are required to be adopted as regulations and made effective no later than January 1, 2010, the date established by Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 38560.5. The ARB adopted additional early action measures in October 2007 that tripled the number of discrete early action measures. 44 ARB’s focus in identifying the 44 early action items was to recommend measures that ARB staff concluded were “expected to yield significant GHG emission reductions, [and] are likely to be cost- effective and technologically feasible.” The combination of early action measures is expected to reduce Statewide GHG emissions by nearly 16 MMT. Accordingly, the 44 early action items focus on industrial production processes, and the agriculture and transportation sectors. Early action items associated with industrial production and agriculture do not apply to the proposed project. The trans- portation sector early action items such as truck efficiency, low carbon fuel standard, proper tire inflation, truck stop electrification, and the strengthening of light duty vehicle standards are either not specifically applicable to the proposed project or would result in a reduction of GHG emissions associated with the project but are under the control of other regulatory agencies. State measures include emission reductions assumed as part of the Scoping Plan, including light-duty vehicle GHG standards (Pavley Standards), the low carbon fuel standard, and energy efficiency measures. Table IV.K-3 outlines the project’s compliance with specific emission reduction strategies.

42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

906

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 297 Table IV.K-3: Project Compliance with Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategies
Strategy Project Compliance
Energy Efficiency Measures
Energy Efficiency
Maximize energy efficiency building and appliance
standards, and pursue additional efficiency efforts
including new technologies, and new policy and
implementation mechanisms. Pursue comparable
investment in energy efficiency from all retail
providers of electricity in California (including both
investor-owned and publicly owned utilities).

Renewables Portfolio Standard
Achieve a 33 percent renewable energy mix
statewide.

Green Building Strategy
Expand the use of green building practices to reduce
the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing
inventor
y of buildings.

Compliant.

The proposed project would be required to comply
with the updated Title 24 (CalGreen) standards for
building construction. The updated code includes
targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual
plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water,
diversion of construction waste from landfills and the
use of environmentally sensitive materials in
construction and design, including eco-friendly
flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. Energy used on
the project site would be from the California grid,
which will be compliant with the renewable portfolio
standards.

Water Conservation and Efficiency Measures
Water Use Efficiency
Continue efficiency programs and use cleaner energy
sources to move and treat water. Approximately 19
percent of all electricity, 30 percent of all natural gas, and 88 million gallons of diesel are used to convey,
treat, distribute and use water and wastewater.

Increasing the efficiency of water transport and
reducin
g water use would reduce GHG emissions.

Compliant.

The project would comply with the latest Title 24
(CalGreen) standards, which include water efficiency
measures such as a 20 percent reduction in indoor
water use and separate water meters for indoor and
outdoor water use.

Solid Waste Reduction Measures
Increase Waste Diversion, Composting, and
Commercial Recycling, and Move Toward Zero-
Waste
Increase waste diversion from landfills beyond the 50
percent mandate to provide for additional recovery of
recyclable materials. Composting and commercial
recycling could have substantial GHG reduction
benefits. In the long term, zero-waste policies that
would require manufacturers to design products to be
fully recyclable may be necessary.

Compliant.

The proposed project would be required to comply
with Foster City’s Municipal Code, which requires
construction contractors to dispose of their
construction and demolition debris at a facility that
processes construction and demolition materials for
recycling. During project construction, 50 percent of
the demolition materials would be diverted to
recycling facilities. During the operational phase of
the project, Recology San Mateo County which
currently provides recycling services, would continue
to service the pro
ject site.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

907

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 298 Table IV.K-3 Continued
Strategy Project Compliance
Transportation and Motor Vehicle Measures
Vehicle Climate Change Standards
AB 1493 (Pavley) required the State to develop and
adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible
and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from
passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations
were adopted by the ARB in September 2004.

Light-Duty Vehicle Efficiency Measures
Implement additional measures that could reduce
light-duty GHG emissions. For example, measures to
ensure that tires are properly inflated can both reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency.

Adopt Heavy- and Medium-Duty Fuel and Engine
Efficiency Measures
Regulations to require retrofits to improve the fuel
efficiency of heavy-duty trucks that could include
devices that reduce aerodynamic drag and rolling
resistance. This measure could also include hybridi-
zation of and increased engine efficiency of vehicles.

Low Carbon Fuel Standard
ARB identified this measure as a Discrete Early
Action Measure. This measure would reduce the
carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels
by at least 10 percent by 2020.

Regional Transportation-Related Greenhouse
Gas Targets
Develop regional greenhouse gas emissions reduc-
tion targets for passenger vehicles. Local govern-
ments will play a significant role in the regional
planning process to reach passenger vehicle green-
house gas emissions reduction targets. Local govern-
ments have the ability to directly influence both the
siting and design of new residential and commercial
developments in a way that reduces greenhouse gases
associated with vehicle travel.

Compliant.

Specific regional emission targets for transportation
emissions do not directly apply to the proposed
project. However, the proposed project would be
required to continue an extensive Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program already in
place. The specific measures in the TDM Program
include a guaranteed ride home program (for all
carpool, vanpool, and transit participants), shuttle
service to the nearby rail station, carpool incentive
program, bike to work program, rebates for vanpool
participants, commuter checks, flexible work hours,
telecommuting option, vanpool program, bicycle racks
and lockers, and other on-site amenities.

The 2012 Master Plan does not involve the manufac-
ture, sale, or purchase of vehicles. However, newer
model vehicles that operate within and access the
project site would comply with any vehicle and fuel
standards that the ARB adopts.

Measures to Reduce High Global Warming
Potential (GWP) Gases
ARB has identified Discrete Early Action measures
to reduce GHG emissions from the refrigerants used
in car air conditioners, semiconductor manufacturing,
and consumer products. ARB has also identified
potential reduction opportunities for future
commercial and industrial refrigeration, changing the
refrigerants used in auto air conditioning systems,
and ensuring that existing car air conditioning
systems do not lea
k.

Compliant.

New products used, sold, or serviced in the project site would be required to comply with future ARB rules
and regulations as these new rules and regulations are
implemented by the agency.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

908

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 299 The proposed project would not conflict with the AB 32 Scoping Plan, or the early Statewide action measures. The proposed project would be compliant with the strategies developed by the State to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, the project would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would also reduce the GHG emissions of the project.

After application of regulatory requirements, the 2012 Master Plan would implement appropriate GHG reduction strategies and would not conflict with or impede implementation of reduction goals identified in AB 32, the Governor’s Executive Order S-3-05, or other strategies to help reduce GHGs.

c. Significant Impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in one significant impact related to global climate change.

Impact GCC-1: Operation of the proposed project would exceed applicable GHG emissions thresholds. (S)

The operational activities associated with the proposed project could directly or indirectly contribute to the generation of GHG emissions. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project would predominantly consist of CO2. In comparison to criteria air pollutants (see Section IV.I, Air Quality) such as ozone and PM10, CO2 emissions persist in the atmosphere for a substantially longer period of time. While emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4, are important with respect to global climate change, emission levels of other GHGs are less dependent on the land use and circulation patterns associated with the proposed project than are levels of CO2.

The starting point of the operational analysis of GHG emissions involves evaluating and quantifying existing emissions at the project site, in order to measure whether emissions from the proposed project would be significant. GHG emissions generated from the existing uses on the project site were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), which is the latest computer model for estimating air emissions from land use projects. CalEEMod was developed in cooperation with air districts throughout the State, and is designed as a uniform platform to quantify potential criteria pollutant and GHG emissions associated with construction and operation from a variety of land uses, such as residential and commercial facilities. CalEEMod utilizes widely-accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site-specific information is not available. These models and default estimates use sources from the U.S. EPA and ARB, as well as studies commissioned by California agencies such as the California Energy Commission and CalRecycle.

Site-specific inputs to CalEEMod for this analysis include trip estimates from the Transportation Impact Analysis of existing on-site uses.
45 All other model assumptions were based on CalEEMod
default rates for general office land uses. As shown in Table IV.K-4 (below), the total existing operational emissions at the site have been quantified as 13,394 metric tons per year of CO2e. These existing annual emissions will then be compared to the project’s annual operational emissions in reaching the significance determinations.

45 Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, 2012. Transportation Impact Analysis for the Gilead Sciences Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan. October.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

909

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 300 Project emissions were estimated for energy use, water use, waste generation, and mobile sources, as described below.

(1) Energy and Natural Gas Use. Buildings represent 39 percent of U.S. primary energy use and 70 percent of electricity consumption.
46 The proposed project would increase the demand for
electricity and natural gas due to the increased square footage and number of employees. The project would indirectly result in increased GHG emissions from off-site electricity generation at power plants.

(2) Water Use. Water-related energy use consumes 19 percent of California’s electricity every year.
47 Energy use and related GHG emissions are based on water supply and conveyance, water treatment, water distribution, and wastewater treatment. The additional water demand for the proposed project is projected to be approximately 206 acre-feet per year in 2020.48

(3) Solid Waste Disposal. The proposed project would also generate solid waste during the operation phase of the project. As described in Chapter IV.J Public Services, Utilities, and Recreation, the 3,700 employees resulting from buildout of the proposed 2012 Master Plan would generate approximately 10.36 tons per day of solid waste.

(4) Mobile Sources. Mobile sources (vehicle trips and associated miles traveled) would be the largest emission source of GHGs associated with the proposed project. Transportation is also the largest source of GHG emissions in California and represents approximately 38 percent of annual CO
2 emissions generated in the State. As with most development projects, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the most direct indicator of CO2 emissions from the proposed project and associated CO2 emissions function as the best indicator of total GHG emissions. The proposed project would generate an additional 15,768 daily trips over current conditions. The proposed project would be developed over an approximately 15- to 20-year period, with buildout anticipated to occur between 2028 and 2033. Vehicle emissions would decrease with time due to increased regulation of tailpipe emissions; therefore, to provide a conservative analysis of the estimated emissions, this analysis assumes a 2020 buildout date which, although not anticipated, would be the earliest feasible buildout date of the project.

Emissions associated with the existing on-site uses and those associated with the 2012 Master Plan are shown in Table IV.K-4.

46 United States Department of Energy. 2003. Buildings Energy Data Book. 47 California, State of, 2005. California Energy Commission. California’s Water-Energy Relationship. November. 48 Estero Municipal Improvement District, 2012. Water Supply Assessment Report for Gilead Integrated Corporate Campus Master Plan Project; 15-Acres Project; 400 Mariners Island Blvd., City of San Mateo (Tidelands Park) Residential Project; Chess Hotel Project; Chess/Hatch Drive Office Project; Bayside Towers III Project; Visa V Project; Marina Project. November 5.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

910

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 301 Table IV.K-4: Annual GHG Emissions (Metric Tons per Year) Emissions Source
Operational Emissions
CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Existing Emissions
Energy 4,734.32 0.19 0.08 4,763.82
Mobile 7,718.30 0.46 0.00 7,728.05
Water 174.95 10.34 0.00 392.08
Waste 363.92 5.04 0.13 510.42
Total Existing Emissions 12,991.49 16.03 0.21 13,394.37 Proposed Project Emissions
Energy 12,804.58 0.51 0.22 12,884.33
Mobile 17,379.69 0.74 0.00 17,395.33
Water 472.07 27.90 0.00 1,057.93
Waste 981.94 13.61 0.35 1,377.26
Total Project Emissions 32,714.85
Net New Emissions 19,320.48
Note: Column totals may vary slightly due to independent rounding of input data.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

According to the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, a project would have a less-than- significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would generate less than 1,100 metric tons per year CO2e or would result in emissions per employee of 4.6 metric tons per year CO2e or less. As discussed in Chapter IV.C, Population, Employment, and Housing, buildout of the project would result in up to 3,700 net new employees.

Model results indicate the total emissions from operation of the project under buildout conditions would be 32,715 metric tons per year CO
2e. Existing uses on the project site generate 13,394 metric tons per year CO2e, which means the proposed project would generate approximately19,321 net new metric tons of GHG emissions per year, resulting in a per service population emission rate of 5.22 metric tons per year. The annual emissions would therefore exceed both the 1,100 metric tons CO2e threshold as well as the threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year. Therefore, the proposed project would generate significant greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation would be required to reduce emissions to meet one of the BAAQMD’s thresholds. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level:

Mitigation Measure GCC-1: Gilead Sciences shall prepare and submit a Campus-wide Sustainability Plan, for approval by the Community Development Director, that identifies the specific design and operational measures that will be implemented to meet the 4.6 metric tons of CO
2e per employee per year standard. The Campus-wide Sustainability Plan may include a combination 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)

The potential effects of Mitigation Measure GCC-1 in reducing greenhouse gas emissions were quantified using CalEEMod, in order to verify that the measure would feasibly (using standard

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

911

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 302 building and design practices) reduce project greenhouse gas emissions to a less-than-significant level. The calculations were based on these assumptions:

 Reduce energy use by 15 percent from 2010 California Building Code standards;

 Reduce water use by 20 percent from 2010 California Building Code standards;

 Reduce waste generated by 15 percent below default employee waste generation rates for commercial and industrial uses in CalEEMod;

 Provide preferred parking for electric and alternative fuel vehicles; and

 Implement an enhanced transportation demand management (TDM) program that would reduce trip generation to the project site by a minimum of 8 percent (as required by Mitigation Measure TRANS-1).

As shown in Table IV.K-5, implementation of GCC-1 (based on the assumptions listed above) would reduce project emissions to 16,071 metric tons CO
2e per year, or 4.34 metric tons of CO2e per
employee per year, which is below the threshold of 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per employee per year.

Therefore, assuming a similar level of greenhouse gas reduction measures, the project’s contribution to cumulative GHG emissions would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. In accordance with Mitigation Measure GCC-1, the project sponsor may undertake a package of greenhouse gas reduction measures that is different in composition than that identified in the bullet points above.

However, the performance standard of 4.6 metric tons of CO 2e per employee per year must be
achieved, as specified in the mitigation measure.

Table IV.K-5: Annual Mitigated GHG Emissions (Metric Tons Per Year) Emissions Source
Operational Emissions
CO2 CH 4 N 2O CO 2e
Existing Emissions
Energy 4,734.32 0.19 0.08 4,763.82
Mobile 7,718.30 0.46 0.00 7,728.05
Water 174.95 10.34 0.00 392.08
Waste 363.92 5.04 0.13 510.42
Total Existing Emissions 12,991.49 16.03 0.21 13,394.37 Mitigated Proposed Project Emissions
Energy 11,290.02 0.44 0.20 11,360.28
Mobile 16,089.85 0.69 0.00 16,104.33
Water 785.55 10.89 0.28 1,101.80
Waste 401.26 23.71 0.00 899.24
Total Mitigated Project Emissions 29,465.65
Net New Emissions 16,071.28
Note: Column totals may vary slightly due to independent rounding of input data.

Source: LSA Associates, Inc., 2012.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

912

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 303 d. Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, that when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. Climate change is a global environmental problem in which: (a) any given develop- ment project contributes only a small portion of any net increase in GHGs; and (b) global growth is continuing to contribute large amounts of GHGs across the world. Development projects may contribute to the phenomenon of global climate change in ways that would be experienced world- wide, with some specific effects felt in California. However, no scientific study has established a direct causal link between individual development project impacts and global warming.

The combination of GHG emissions from past, present, and future projects contributes to the phe- nomenon of global climate change and its associated environmental impacts. No individual project would result in a measurable impact on global climate change. Therefore, this section has addressed climate change primarily as a cumulative impact. As noted above, in developing the threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the BAAQMD identified the emissions level for which a project would conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce Statewide GHG emissions.

According to the BAAQMD, if a project would generate GHG emissions above the threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact, and would be considered significant. As indicated in the analysis presented above, the proposed project, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GCC-1, would not exceed the project-level significance criteria established by the BAAQMD and therefore the proposed project would not have a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions and global climate change.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

913

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR IV. SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
K. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\4k-GCC.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 304 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

914

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 305 V. ALTERNATIVES
The CEQA Guidelines require the analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the proposed project, which would feasibly attain most of the proposed project’s basic objectives and avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.1 CEQA states that an EIR should not consider alternatives “whose effect cannot be ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.”

The proposed 2012 Master Plan and its objectives are described in detail in Chapter II, Project Description, and the potential environmental effects of implementing the proposed project are analyzed in Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, with an emphasis on significant impacts resulting from the project and mitigation measures recommended to avoid or substantially reduce these impacts to the extent feasible. For ease of reference, the 2012 Master Plan would include up to 2,500,600 square feet of building space comprising: 1,524,000 square feet of office space; 953,000 square feet of laboratory space; and 23,600 square feet of material storage/warehouse space.

The following discussion is intended to inform the public and decision-makers of the relative impacts of five potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed 2012 Master Plan. A discussion of the environmentally superior alternative is also provided.

The five alternatives to the proposed project that are discussed in this chapter include the following:
 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.
 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 a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory space and a maximum of 918,048 square feet of office space. Under this alterna- tive, the approximately 32-acre former EFI property would remain in approximately its existing condition.
2 That site would contain only Building 301, which contains 163,000 square feet of building space.

1 CEQA Guidelines, 2007, Section 15126.6.
2 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-

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

915

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 306  The Reduced Office alternative (identified as Alternate A in the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) in Appendix B) assumes that overall development within the project site would be reduced compared to the 2012 Master Plan, 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.
 The Reduced Laboratory alternative (identified as Alternate B in the TIA) 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.
 Lakeside Drive Open alternative assumes that the 2012 Master Plan would be imple- mented as currently proposed, but that Lakeside Drive would remain open between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive.

For each alternative, a brief discussion of its principal characteristics is followed by an analysis of anticipated environmental impacts. The emphasis of the analysis is on the alternative’s relative adverse effects compared to the proposed project and a determination of whether or not the alternative would reduce, eliminate, or create new significant impacts.

A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

1. Principal Characteristics
The No Project alternative assumes that the project site would not be subject to redevelopment, and would generally remain in its existing condition. Neither the 2010 Master Plan nor the 2012 Master Plan would be implemented.

The site would remain developed with 15 mostly one- and two-story buildings on the South Campus and one five-story building (Building 301) on the North Campus. In addition, is assumed that four- story NLB-1 (currently under construction) would be completed as part of the alternative. Certain existing uses in the project site could intensify over time, but the number of employees occupying the project site would not increase substantially and the Gilead Sciences employee count on the project site would remain at approximately 1,800 persons.

In the near-term, Lakeside Drive within the project site would remain open, even though the vacation and privatization of Lakeside Drive and Reef Drive has been approved by the City Council. The closure of Lakeside Drive from Reef Drive to Vintage Park Drive could be implemented by Gilead Sciences with a Use Permit. As part of the No Project alternative, Gilead Sciences would have ownership and maintenance responsibility for the remainder of Lakeside Drive and the segment of

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)

916

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 307 Reef Drive between Mariners Island Boulevard and Lakeside Drive. The change in ownership was effective starting in November 2012.

The No Project alternative would not achieve key objectives of the proposed project, including:
 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;
 Accommodate a total of 5,500 employees;
 Provide a safe pedestrian-oriented environment;
 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.

2. Analysis of the No Project Alternative
The potential impacts of the No Project alternative are described below.

a. Land Use and Planning Policy. Implementation of the No Project alternative would result in the continuation of existing land uses within the project site. New land uses would not be introduced and existing land uses would continue to be compatible with surrounding uses. Similarly, no changes to the existing circulation pattern would occur in the short-term. The No Project alternative would avoid the significant conflicts of the project with noise policies adopted for environmental protection, as no construction activities would take place and operational traffic would not increase noise levels on roadways in the vicinity of the site.

b. Visual Quality. Under the No Project alternative, the site would remain as it is today, with a combination of one- to five-story office and laboratory buildings. Like the proposed project, the alternative would not result in substantial impacts to existing scenic views. Unlike the proposed 2012 Master Plan, the No Project alternative would not alter any views to and from the campus and would not change the physical layout of the campus. In addition, the No Project alternative would not contribute additional light or glare to the area. Therefore, the No Project alternative would result in no impacts to the existing visual environment.

c. Population, Employment, and Housing. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not result in any significant population and housing impacts. Because the No Project alternative would not result in the redevelopment of the site, it would not substantially increase employment or induce population growth. The project site does not currently contain

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

917

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 308 residences, and neither the proposed project nor the No Project alternative would displace existing housing or residents. The No Project alternative would not change the City’s or County’s jobs/housing ratio.

d. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. The No Project alternative would not redevelop the project site and would not expose new employees or new structures to major geologic hazards. However, it should be noted that the existing structures on the project site, and their occupants, would be exposed to the same geologic hazards that would affect the proposed project – earthquake shaking, damage related to fill and unstable soils, and damage related to expansive and shrink-swell soils. Although no mitigation measures would be needed to reduce these geologic hazards for existing facilities, the hazards would pose a risk to the buildings and occupants of the No Project alternative.

e. Hydrology and Water Quality. The No Project alternative would not change the amount or configuration of impervious surfaces on the project site and would thus not contribute new contami- nated runoff to nearby water bodies. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not result in downstream flooding or expose on-site facilities to flooding. In addition, the No Project alternative would not result in substantial erosion or the modification of water bodies. Because no new construction would be undertaken as part of the No Project alternative, the alternative would avoid Impact HYD-1, which relates to the degradation of water quality during the project construction and operation periods. However, the No Project alternative would generate small amount of opera- tional vehicle- and landscaping-related contaminants (e.g., fuels, dust, and herbicides) that could adversely affect water quality. The No Project alternative would thus avoid construction-period impacts to water quality (e.g., impacts associated with erosion), but would not realize some of the operational water quality benefits of the proposed project, including the likely implementation of best management practices to treat runoff in swales and other landscape features.

f. Hazardous and Hazardous Materials. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not result in significant impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials during the operational phase of the alterna- tive. In addition, the alternative would not generate hazardous emissions or handle hazardous waste in a manner that would have the potential to affect schools within ¼-mile of the site. Unlike the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not result in the potential for upset of hazardous materials during the construction phase, or the release of previously unidentified contamination in soils and groundwater.

g. Transportation and Circulation. Implementation of this alternative would not cause a substantial increase in traffic or any changes to the transportation system. The traffic conditions for this alternative are as described in the existing conditions section of Section IV.G, Transportation and Circulation. Unlike the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not contribute to signifi- cant cumulative congestion at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue or the SR 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard. In addition, the alterative would avoid other impacts of the project, including disruption of the Lincoln Centre and North Foster City shuttle routes, the addition of capacity to already over-capacity shuttles, and interference with circulation during the construction period.

h. Noise. Construction activity would not take place as part of the No Project alternative.

Therefore, the No Project alternative would not expose surrounding land uses to significant noise

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

918

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 309 levels, as would occur under the proposed project. In addition, the alternative would not increase local traffic and would not increase roadway noise levels by more than 3 dBA, as would the project. No significant noise impacts would result from implementation of the No Project alternative.

i. Air Quality. Implementation of the No Project alternative would not result in construction activity within the project site and would not result in a substantial increase in vehicular trips in the City. Similar to the proposed project, the No Project alternative would not substantially increase odor concentrations or carbon monoxide concentrations. However, the alternative would avoid the signifi- cant impacts of the project on air quality, including impacts related to construction emissions, operational criteria pollutants, the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentra- tions, and violation of the Clean Air Act.

j. Public Services, Utilities and Recreation. As part of the No Project alternative, the existing use of the site would continue, with a total of approximately 926,735 square feet of office and labora- tory uses. As such, the alternative would not increase demand for public services, such as fire services, police services, schools, and open space and recreation facilities. Unlike the proposed 2012 Master Plan, the No Project alternative would not increase demand for utilities and infrastructure such as water and wastewater, or increase solid waste generation. However, all impacts to public services, utilities, and recreation associated with the proposed project would be less than significant.

k. Global Climate Change. The No Project alternative would not increase vehicle emissions, construction emissions, or operational emissions on the project site, and would thus avoid the signifi- cant contribution of the project to greenhouse gas emissions. However, the existing buildings on the site would likely be less energy efficient than new buildings that would be constructed as part of the Master Plan, and would continue to indirectly generate greenhouse gas emissions that would contribute to global climate change.

l. Summary. The No Project alternative would avoid each of the significant impacts associated with the proposed project. Because the alternative includes no major construction activities, it would not increase short-term ambient noise levels, degrade water quality, or generate dust associated with grading, demolition, and construction equipment. The alternative would also avoid the cumulative impact on the operation of the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue and the SR 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard. In addition, the No Project alternative would avoid the impact of the project on roadway noise levels, which would be a significant and unavoidable impact. The alternative would also avoid the significant unavoidable impacts of the project related to net increases in criteria pollutant emissions, and an associated conflict with the Clean Air Plan.

B. EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ALTERNATIVE

1. Principal Characteristics
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. Under this alterna- tive, the approximately 32-acre former EFI property would remain in approximately its existing condition. That site would contain only Building 301, which contains 163,000 square feet of building space.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

919

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 310 The approximately 40-acre South Campus – as defined under the 2010 Master Plan – would be developed in accordance with the 2010 Master Plan, as amended by Addendum #1 and Addendum #2. At buildout, the South Campus would contain a total of 1,200,480 square feet of building space, with a minimum of 445,432 square feet of laboratory uses and a maximum of 755,048 square feet of office uses. Taking into account development on the North and South Campuses, the Existing Entitlements alternative would comprise 1,363,480 square feet of building space.

The total square footage of the Existing Entitlements alternative would be 1,363,480 square feet less than that proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan. Compared to the 2012 Master Plan, office space would be reduced by 605,952 square feet, laboratory space would be reduced by 507,568 square feet, and material storage/warehouse space would be reduced by 23,600 square feet.

Up to six existing buildings would be demolished to allow for redevelopment of the South Campus, and up to seven new office and laboratory buildings would be developed, ranging in height from two to ten stories. The site would accommodate up to approximately 3,425 employees, including approxi- mately 325 employees in Building 301 on the North Campus (based on standard employee generation rates for office uses) and 3,100 employees on the South Campus. The Existing Entitlements alterna- tive would contain a total of approximately 4,900 parking spaces over the North and South Campuses.

Parking would be accommodated in surface lots on the North Campus and up to two four- to six-level parking garages on the South Campus.

Vintage Lake would function as a primary central open space amenity within the site, and the circula- tion system would be as envisioned in the 2010 Master Plan. The 40-foot-wide Lakeside Drive would remain open from East Third Avenue to the south of Reef Drive, 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 con- structed 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 would also remain open.

The Existing Entitlements alternative would not completely achieve key objectives of the proposed project, including:
 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;
 Accommodate a total of 5,500 employees;
 Provide a safe pedestrian-oriented environment;
 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; 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.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

920

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 311

2. Analysis of Existing Entitlements Alternative
For the following topical areas, the Existing Entitlements alternative would result in impacts that are similar or identical to those that would result from the proposed project: Land Use and Planning Policy; Population, Employment, and Housing; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Public Services and Utilities; and Global Climate Change.

With the exception of the topical areas of Population, Employment, and Housing; and Public Services and Utilities, impacts in the topical areas listed above are primarily a function of new development on the project site, regardless of size or scale (the significance of global climate change impacts is largely based on per capita emissions calculations). The 2012 Master Plan would result in less-than- significant population- and public services/utilities-related impacts; thus an alternative involving reduced development on the site (with less associated employment and population growth and reduced demand for services and utilities) would also be expected to result in less-than-significant impacts in these topical areas.

The Existing Entitlements alternative would reduce the level of development on the project site compared to the project, resulting in a lower level of employment growth, less intensive land uses on the site, reduced demand for public services, potentially reduced coverage of impervious surfaces, and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. These changes would all tend to slightly reduce the impacts of the project in the topical areas listed above. However, none of the significant impacts related to these environmental issues that would result from the project would be avoided by the alternative. Even though development intensity would be reduced, the land uses of the site would change (although they would be consistent with existing and surrounding uses), employment and associated population growth would occur, and new buildings would be exposed to seismic hazards.

Similarly, construction activities would generate polluted runoff and could expose persons to previously-unidentified contamination in soil and groundwater. The greenhouse gas emissions of the Existing Entitlements alternative would still exceed the threshold established by the BAAQMD and the City for identification of significant impacts to global climate change.

The topics for which the alternative would result in impacts that are clearly distinguishable from the proposed project are discussed below.

a. Visual Quality. Under the Existing Entitlements alternative, development would be concen- trated in the South Campus in accordance with the 2010 Master Plan. Therefore, the alternative would further reduce already less-than-significant impacts of the project on views of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and Santa Cruz Mountains. Similar to the project, the alternative would be visually compati- ble with surrounding development and would be designed in accordance with the Vintage Park Design Guidelines. Also, similar to the project, the alternative would increase light and glare. Because exten- sive surface parking lots would remain in the North Campus (with associated nighttime lighting), levels of light and glare would likely be similar to the proposed project or slightly increased under this alternative.

b. Transportation and Circulation. The Existing Entitlements alternative would avoid the significant contribution of the project to congestion under cumulative conditions. Specifically, the alternative would increase the average delay at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue by less than 5 seconds during the AM peak hour, and would not cause the SR 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard to degrade to unacceptable hours during the AM peak hour. Similar to the proposed project, the Existing Entitlements alternative

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

921

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 312 would disrupt the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and North Foster City shuttle (due to the closure of Lakeside Drive) and would add ridership demand to shuttles that are over-capacity. In addition, the alternative could disrupt circulation patterns during the construction period, requiring the preparation and implementation of a construction management plan.

c. Noise. Although the Existing Entitlements alternative would result in a smaller construction footprint than the proposed project, and reduced roadway traffic, it would not avoid the significant noise effects of the proposed project. Construction could still take place near the periphery of the site, temporarily raising ambient noise levels. In addition, the project would cause noise levels along Marsh Drive between Vintage Park Drive and East Third Avenue to increase by more than 3 dBA.

Also, stationary mechanical equipment installed near proposed buildings could increase ambient noise levels, adversely affecting interior uses.

d. Air Quality. The Existing Entitlements alternative, due to reduced generation of vehicle trips and associated tailpipe emissions, would avoid two of the significant impacts of the project on air quality, including: the generation of air pollutants that could exceed BAAQMD criteria and violate air quality standards; and the generation of a significant net increase in criteria air pollutants. In addition, the alternative would not conflict with the Clean Air Act, because regional emissions would be below threshold levels. However, the Existing Entitlements alternative would result in similar construction- period impacts as the proposed project, including the generation of construction emissions that could contribute to a violation of air quality standards and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. In addition, similar to the project, the alternative could result in the installation of back-up emergency generators that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen- trations during the operation of the project.

e. Summary. The Existing Entitlements alternative, which would result in reduced construction activities and vehicle trips compared to the proposed project, would avoid significant contributions to cumulative traffic congestion and operational air quality impacts related to vehicle emissions. However, similar to the proposed project, the alternative would substantially increase noise levels on local roadways in the vicinity of the project site. Other impacts would be similar to those that would result from the project.

C. REDUCED OFFICE ALTERNATIVE

1. Principal Characteristics
The Reduced Office alternative (also known as Alternate A in the TIA) is designed in conceptual form, and is primarily intended to reduce the effects of the 2012 Master Plan on traffic, noise, and air quality while allowing for substantial redevelopment of the 73-acre site with primarily office uses.

The alternative would reduce overall development in the site from 2,500,600 square feet of building space (as proposed under the 2012 Master Plan) to a total of 1,905,480 square feet of building space.

The alternative would contain primarily office uses, with 1,460,048 square feet of office uses and 445,432 square feet of laboratory uses.

The total square footage of the Reduced Office alternative would be 595,120 square feet less than that proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan. Compared to the 2012 Master Plan, office space would be

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

922

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 313 reduced by 63,952 square feet, laboratory space would be reduced by 507,568 square feet, and material storage/warehouse space would be reduced by 23,600 square feet.

No building footprints or maximum heights have been identified for this alterative, but the configura- tion of buildings would likely resemble that proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan, with taller buildings positioned near Vintage Lake and the interior of the site, and smaller laboratory and parking buildings located closer to the periphery of the site. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that buildings could range up to 10 stories and 192 feet in height at the roof screen, but the total number of structures would likely be reduced compared to the proposed project.

The circulation system of the Reduced Office alternative would resemble that of the proposed project, with a segment of Lakeside Drive closed between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive.

The Reduced Office alternative would not completely achieve key objectives of the proposed project, including:
 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; and
 Accommodate a total of 5,500 employees.

2. Analysis of Reduced Office Alternative
For the following topical areas (similar to the Existing Entitlements alternative), the Reduced Office alternative would result in impacts that are similar or identical to those that would result from the proposed project: Land Use and Planning Policy; Population, Employment, and Housing; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Public Services and Utilities; and Global Climate Change. With the exception of the topical areas of Popula- tion, Employment, and Housing; and Public Services and Utilities, impacts in the topical areas listed above are primarily a function of new development on the project site, regardless of size or scale (the significance of global climate change impacts is largely based on per capita emissions calculations).

The 2012 Master Plan would result in less-than-significant population- and public services/utilities- related impacts; thus an alternative involving reduced development on the site (with less associated employment and population growth and reduced demand for services and utilities) would also be expected to result in less-than-significant impacts in these topical areas.

Please refer to the preceding discussion of these topics under the Existing Entitlements alternative, and Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

The topics for which the alternative would result in unique impacts compared to the proposed project are discussed below.

a. Visual Quality. Under the Reduced Office alternative, the total number of buildings developed on the site would be reduced slightly compared to the proposed project, but structures would range up to 10 stories in height. Therefore, the alternative could result in a slightly more open campus plan, with additional open space, but would contribute to increased development near the San Francisco Bay shoreline and partial obstructions of mountain views. However, similar to the proposed project, this impact would not be significant. Similar to the project, the alternative would be visually

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

923

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 314 compatible with surrounding development and would be designed in accordance with the Vintage Park Design Guidelines. Also, similar to the project, the alternative would increase light and glare (although light and glare could be reduced incrementally depending on the configuration of surface parking lots on the site).

b. Transportation and Circulation. The Reduced Office alternative would avoid the significant contribution of the project to congestion under cumulative conditions. Specifically, the alternative would increase the average delay at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue by less than 5 seconds during the AM peak hour, and would not cause the SR 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard to degrade to unacceptable levels during the AM peak hour. Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Office alternative would disrupt the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and North Foster City shuttle (due to the closure of Lakeside Drive) and would add ridership demand to shuttles that are over-capacity. In addition, the alternative could disrupt circulation patterns during the construction period, requiring the preparation and implementation of a construction management plan.

c. Noise. Although the Reduced Office alternative would result in reduced roadway traffic compared to the proposed project, it would not avoid the significant noise effects of the proposed project. Construction could still take place near the periphery of the site, temporarily raising ambient noise levels. In addition, the project would cause noise levels along Marsh Drive between Vintage Park Drive and East Third Avenue to increase by more than 3 dBA. Also, stationary mechanical equipment installed near proposed buildings could increase ambient noise levels, adversely affecting interior uses.

d. Air Quality. The Reduced Office alternative would result in reduced trips compared to the proposed project, but the reduction would not be sufficient to avoid the impacts of the project related to tailpipe emissions. In addition, similar to the project, the alternative could result in the installation of back-up emergency generators that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concen- trations during the operation of the project. Also, the impacts of the alternative on construction period emissions would be similar to those that would result from the project. Although construction emissions would be reduced slightly due to the lower level of development on the site, construction activities would contribute to a violation of air quality standards and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

e. Summary. The Reduced Office alternative, which would result in reduced vehicle trips compared to the proposed project, would avoid the significant contribution of the project to conges- tion under cumulative conditions. However, other significant impacts, including construction and operational air pollutant emissions, and increases in ambient and roadway noise levels, would be similar to those associated with the project.

D. REDUCED LABORATORY ALTERNATIVE

1. Principal Characteristics
The Reduced Laboratory alternative (also known as Alternate B in the TIA), like the Reduced Office alternative, is designed at a conceptual level, and is primarily intended to reduce the effects of the 2012 Master Plan on traffic, noise, and air quality while allowing for substantial redevelopment of the 73-

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

924

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 315 acre site. Unlike the Reduced Office alternative, the Reduced Laboratory alternative reduces overall development on the site compared to the 2012 Master Plan while providing almost the same amount of laboratory space.

The alternative would only slightly reduce overall development on the site from that anticipated in the 2012 Master Plan. Overall development would be reduced from 2,500,600 square feet of building space (as proposed under the 2012 Master Plan) to a total of 2,244,240 square feet of building space.

Almost 40 percent of building space would comprise laboratory uses, with 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.

The total square footage of the Reduced Laboratory alternative would be 256,180 square feet less than that proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan. Compared to the 2012 Master Plan, office space would be reduced by 255,952 square feet and laboratory space would be reduced by 408 square feet.

The amount of material storage/warehouse space provided would be the same as under the 2012 Master Plan.

No building footprints or maximum heights have been identified for this alterative, but the configura- tion of buildings would likely resemble that proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan, with taller buildings positioned near Vintage Lake and the interior of the site, and smaller laboratory and parking buildings located closer to the periphery of the site. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that buildings could range up to 10 stories and 192 feet in height at the roof screen, and the total number and massing of buildings would likely be similar to that proposed as part of the 2012 Master Plan, with the possible reduction of one or two of the office buildings.

The circulation system of the Reduced Laboratory alternative would resemble that of the proposed project, with a segment of Lakeside Drive closed between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive.

The Reduced Laboratory alternative would not completely achieve key objectives of the proposed project, including:
 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; and
 Accommodate a total of 5,500 employees.

2. Analysis of Reduced Laboratory Alternative
For the following topical areas (similar to the Existing Entitlements and Reduced Office alternatives), the Reduced Laboratory alternative would result in impacts that are similar or identical to those that would result from the proposed project: Land Use and Planning Policy; Population, Employment, and Housing; Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Hydrology and Water Quality; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Public Services and Utilities; and Global Climate Change. With the exception of the topical areas of Population, Employment, and Housing; and Public Services and Utilities, impacts in the topical areas listed above are primarily a function of new development on the project site, regardless of size or scale (the significance of global climate change impacts is largely based on per capita emissions calculations). The 2012 Master Plan would result in less-than-significant population- and public services/utilities-related impacts; thus an alternative involving reduced development on the

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

925

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 316 site (with less associated employment and population growth and reduced demand for services and utilities) would also be expected to result in less-than-significant impacts in these topical areas.

Please refer to the preceding discussion of these topics under the Existing Entitlements alternative, and Chapter IV, Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.

The topics for which the alternative would result in unique impacts compared to the proposed project are discussed below.

a. Visual Quality. Under the Reduced Laboratory alternative, the total number of buildings developed on the site would be approximately the same as the proposed project, and structures would range up to 10 stories in height. Therefore, the alternative would result in impacts to views and visual quality that are almost identical to project impacts. Also, similar to the project, the alternative would increase light and glare.

b. Transportation and Circulation. The Reduced Laboratory alternative would avoid the significant contribution of the project to congestion under cumulative conditions at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue. However, the alterative would make a significant contribution to congestion on the SR 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard during the AM peak hour (an impact that would not occur under the Reduced Office alternative). Similar to the proposed project, the Reduced Laboratory alternative would disrupt the routes of the Lincoln Centre shuttle and North Foster City shuttle (due to the closure of Lakeside Drive) and would add ridership demand to shuttles that are over-capacity. In addition, the alternative could disrupt circulation patterns during the construction period, requiring the preparation and imple- mentation of a construction management plan.

c. Noise. The Reduced Laboratory alternative would result in slightly reduced roadway traffic compared to the proposed project and would not avoid the significant noise effects of the proposed project. Construction would take place near the periphery of the site, temporarily raising ambient noise levels. In addition, the project would cause noise levels along Marsh Drive between Vintage Park Drive and East Third Avenue to increase by more than 3 dBA. Also, stationary mechanical equipment installed near proposed buildings could increase ambient noise levels, adversely affecting interior uses.

d. Air Quality. The Reduced Laboratory alternative would result in slightly reduced trips compared to the proposed project, but the reduction would not be sufficient to avoid the impacts of the project related to tailpipe emissions. In addition, similar to the project, the alternative could result in the installation of back-up emergency generators that could expose sensitive receptors to substan- tial pollutant concentrations during the operation of the project. Also, the impacts of the alternative on construction period emissions would be almost identical to those that would result from the project.

Although construction emissions would be reduced slightly compared to the proposed project if fewer buildings are constructed, construction activities would violate air quality standards and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations

e. Summary. The Reduced Laboratory alternative, which would result in slightly reduced vehicle trips compared to the proposed project, would avoid the significant contribution of the project to cumulative congestion at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue. However, other

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

926

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 317 significant impacts, including the significant contribution to cumulative congestion on the SR 92 freeway segment between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard during the AM peak hour, construction and operational air pollutant emissions, and increases in ambient and roadway noise levels, would be similar to those associated with the project.

E. LAKESIDE DRIVE OPEN ALTERNATIVE

1. Principal Characteristics
Under the Lakeside Drive Open alternative, the 2012 Master Plan would be developed as proposed, except that Lakeside Drive would remain open between Reef Drive and Vintage Park Drive and would not be converted into a thoroughfare open only to pedestrians and emergency vehicles.

Vehicles would be able to drive along the entire segment of Lakeside Drive within the project site, although security gates may be installed to restrict access. The configuration of buildings and other infrastructure would remain the same as under the project, with up to 2,500,600 square feet of building space comprising: 1,524,000 square feet of office space; 953,000 square feet of laboratory space; and 23,600 square feet of material storage/warehouse space.

The alternative would be consistent with most, but not all objectives of the project. The Lakeside Drive Open alternative would not completely achieve the following objectives of the proposed project:
 Allow for the development of a unified corporate campus;  Provide a safe pedestrian-oriented environment; and
 Develop the campus in a manner that promotes walkability and with buildings that conserve energy and water.

2. Analysis of Lakeside Drive Open Alternative
For all topical areas except for Transportation and Circulation, the Lakeside Drive Open alternative would result in impacts that are similar or identical to those that would result from the proposed project. The alternative would primarily affect vehicle trip distribution (and associated traffic patterns). Although traffic patterns are also closely related to roadway noise and pollution levels, the changes in traffic that would result from the Lakeside Drive Open alternative compared to the project would not have a significant effect on area noise levels or air pollutant concentrations. Therefore, Transportation and Circulation is the only topic discussed below.

As discussed in the Transportation Impact Analysis (Appendix B), the Lakeside Drive Open alternative would result in similar traffic conditions to those associated with the project in all three analysis scenarios. However, three impacts of the alternative would be different from the project, as summarized in the following bullet points:
 The alternative would slightly increase (by 1 second) delays at the intersection of Norfolk Street/East Third Avenue during the AM peak period under Cumulative Conditions.

However, the level of service (LOS) of the intersection would remain the same as under the proposed project.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

927

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 318  The alternative would avoid impacts to the freeway segment of eastbound SR 92 between US 101 and Mariners Island Boulevard/Edgewater Boulevard during the AM peak period under Cumulative Conditions. The alternative would contribute 16 fewer trips to that freeway segment compared to the proposed project.
 The alternative would avoid impacts to the routes of the Lincoln Centre and North Foster City Shuttles (but would contribute ridership to shuttle services, similar to the proposed project).

F. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ULTIMATELY REJECTED
No off-site alternative to the proposed project was considered because the Gilead Sciences campus is already currently established in its existing location, and because there are no other sites of compara- ble size (73 acres) that are assembled and would accommodate the proposed 2012 Master Plan. An alternative consisting of multiple satellite campuses was also rejected because such an alternative would likely result in more substantial congestion impacts than the proposed project as employees travel between the various campuses. It would also fail to meet most of the project objectives.

In addition, an alternative which assumed that the same amount of interior square footage would be constructed on the project site as the proposed 2012 Master Plan, but in a smaller number of buildings, was also rejected. The tall buildings that would be required as part of this alternative would be out-of-scale with existing development in the area.

Other alternatives that were considered but ultimately rejected include an alternative containing housing and retail uses. This alternative was rejected because it would result in substantial conflicts with the City’s General Plan. In addition, an all-office alternative was also rejected because it would result in more traffic congestion (and greater air quality and noise impacts) compared to the proposed project.

G. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of the environmentally superior alternative in an EIR. 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). The No Project alternative would avoid each of the significant impacts that would result from the proposed project. However, while this alternative would be environmentally superior in the technical sense that contribution to these aforementioned impacts would not occur, the No Project alternative would also fail to achieve any of the project’s objectives.

In cases like this, where the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the second most environmentally superior alternative be identified. The Existing Entitle- ments alternative would generally represent the next-best alternative in terms of the fewest environ- mental impacts. In particular, the Existing Entitlements alternative would result in reduced construc- tion activities and vehicle trips compared to the proposed project, and would avoid significant contributions to cumulative traffic congestion and operational air quality impacts related to vehicle emissions. However, the alternative would not avoid a significant increase in roadway noise levels

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

928

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 319 along Marsh Drive between Vintage Park Drive and East Third Avenue. In addition, the alternative would only partially achieve the objectives of the project. Objectives that would not be achieved include those related to: the development of a unified campus; allowing Gilead Sciences to flexibly respond to business needs; accommodating 5,500 employees; providing a pedestrian-oriented and energy-efficient environment; reducing administrative burdens via a flexible General Development Plan; and maintaining development flexibility. Therefore, adoption of this alternative would compromise many of the project objectives.

The Lakeside Drive Open alternative would be the third most environmentally superior alternative because it would not cause the 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.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

929

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR V. ALTERNATIVES

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\5-Alternatives.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 320 This page intentionally left blank.

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

930

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-OtherCEQA.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 321 VI. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
As required by CEQA, this chapter discusses the following types of impacts that could result from implementation of the 2012 Master Plan: growth-inducing impacts; significant irreversible changes; effects found not to be significant; and unavoidable significant effects.

A. GROWTH INDUCEMENT
A project is considered growth-inducing if it would directly or indirectly foster substantial economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing.1 Examples of projects likely to have significant growth-inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project-specific demand, and development of new residential subdivi- sions or industrial parks in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped.

Typically, redevelopment projects on infill sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses are not considered growth-inducing because redevelopment by itself usually does not facilitate development intensification on adjacent sites.

Implementation of the proposed 2012 Master Plan would not result in direct population growth because new housing units are not included in the Master Plan. The proposed project would likely result in indirect population growth, but it would not be substantial in the context of population growth projected to occur in Foster City. Project-associated indirect population growth would occur as a result of the construction of up to 2,500,600 square feet of office and laboratory space and the creation of up to 3,700 new jobs on the project site. As described in Section IV.B, Population, Employment and Housing, the creation of these jobs could cause new employees to move to Foster City, thereby increasing the City’s population. The creation of 3,700 new jobs on the project site would cause approximately 384 employees to relocate to Foster City (based on the residential location pattern of existing Gilead employees), and would require 384 housing units to meet this increased demand (assuming new employees live in separate households and do not currently live in Foster City). The projected housing units expected to be constructed in Foster City in the near term would more than satisfy the demand associated with the proposed project. As such, the proposed 2012 Master Plan would not induce substantial growth in Foster City.

In addition, the proposed project would occur on an infill site in an existing urbanized area in Foster City (and the site of the existing Gilead Sciences campus), and as such would not require the exten- sion of utilities or roads into undeveloped areas, and would not directly or indirectly lead to the development of greenfield sites on the San Francisco Peninsula. Because the project site is located within an existing urbanized area and is served by transit, anticipated employment growth could reduce adverse impacts associated with automobile use, such as air pollution. The intensification of employment on the project site could allow for efficiencies in future transit expansions, thereby

1 CEQA Guidelines, 2007. §15126.2(d).

7.1 Attachment 6 - 2012 Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR)

931

LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.

DECEMBER 2012

GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CORPORATE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN SUBSEQUENT EIR VI. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

P:\CFS1201 Gilead North EIR\PRODUCTS\DEIR\Public\6-OtherCEQA.doc (12/12/12) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT 322 increasing the per capita utilization of transit. Therefore, the growth that would occur as a result of 2012 Master Plan implementation would not be considered substantial or adverse.

B. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could result from imple- mentation of a proposed project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. CEQA dictates that irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.2 The CEQA Guidelines describe three categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use that would commit future generations; 2) irreversible changes from environmental actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources.

1. Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations The 2012 Master Plan would be implemented on a site that already contains a biopharmaceutical campus, and the mix of uses that would be developed in the 2012 Master Plan area would reflect land uses that currently exist on the site. The land use pattern that would be developed by the 2012 Master Plan is one that would allow for change as business conditions for Gilead Sciences evolve. In addi- tion, it is conceivable that after 2012 Master Plan buildout the project site could be used for a range of land uses (i.e., the proposed buildings, which would generally have large floor plates, could accom- modate uses other than biopharmaceutical office and laboratory uses, such as light manufacturing and storage, back-of-office administrative, and research and development uses). The buildings and open space areas that are anticipated as part of the 2012 Master Plan would be suitable candidates for eventual adaptive reuse or further redevelopment. For instance, the proposed configuration of office and laboratory buildings, interspersed with open space and surface parking lots, could allow for future integration of residential uses, if desired by the City. Therefore, the 2012 Master Plan would not result in changes in land use that would commit future generations to a poor use of resources. The conversion of surface parking lots into multi-story buildings would represent a more efficient use of land compared to existing conditions.