Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 10-04-12 (Reso 2722-2012) - CEQA 494 ForbesRESOLUTION NO. 2722-2012 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 494 FORBES BOULEVARD WHEREAS, Slough Forbes, LLC (“Owner”) and HCP, Inc.(“Applicant”) have proposed to construct two new office/research and development buildings, one four stories and one five stores, totaling 326,020 square feet, a three-level parking structure, and surface parking areas (“Project”) on a 7.48 acre vacant site, located at 494 Forbes Boulevard (“Project Site”) in the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and WHEREAS, Applicant seeks approval of a Use Permit, Development Agreement, Preliminary Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan, and Design Review; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Applicant’s proposal is considered a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”); and, WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Project; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on September 8, 2006, a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated for public review beginning in April 2007, and a partial recirculated draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated for public review in August 2010; and, WHEREAS, conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site subsequently changed, and small changes were made to the Project description, affecting the environmental analysis of the Project, and accordingly, a second partial recirculated draft environmental impact report (“DEIR”) was circulated for public review on April 17, 2012 for a fifty-five (55) day comment period; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the Project at their meetings in 2007 and 2010, and held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on June 7, 2012 to take public comment on the revised and recirculated DEIR; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR (“FEIR”) for the Project consists of the DEIR, as well as all comments received on the revised and recirculated DEIR, written response to those comments, and minor revisions to the DEIR; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, “EIR”) at a duly noticed public hearing held on October 4, 2012, and makes the findings contained in this Resolution, and recommends certification of the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project’s environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Project; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Design Review Board meeting held on July 20, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s meeting held on October 4, 2012; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code § 21080(e) and § 21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The EIR for the 494 Forbes Project (EIR-06-0001), as well as the Exhibit attached to this Resolution, including the CEQA Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit A), are incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. The proposed Project is consistent with the City of South San Francisco General Plan because the land use, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures proposed are compatible with the goals, policies, and land use designations established in the General Plan (see Gov’t Code, § 65860), and none of the land uses, development standards, densities and intensities, buildings and structures will operate to conflict with or impede achievement of the any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. The General Plan includes policies and programs that are designed to encourage the development of research and development and office uses in the East of 101 Area. 5. In accordance with CEQA, the Planning Commission has considered the EIR for the Project. Based on the entirety of the record, as described above, the Planning Commission exercising its independent judgment and analysis, makes the findings regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and project alternatives, and the findings regarding a balancing of the Project’s unavoidable impacts and benefits, set forth in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution, including the CEQA findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit A, and recommends that the City Council certify EIR-06-0001. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 4th day of October, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Gupta, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Ochsenhirt and Chairperson Zemke NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: Attest: /s/Susy Kalkin SusyKalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission Exhibit A Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings I. Introduction The 494 Forbes Boulevard R&D Project (“proposed project”) would develop a research and development (“R&D”) complex on approximately 7.48 acres of land in the East of 101 area. The project site is located within the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District and therefore, would not require any changes to the existing R&D Overlay District. Additionally, the site is situated within the “Business and Technology Park” General Plan Land Use designation, which supports R&D projects. Project elements include two new R&D buildings totaling 326,020 square feet, parking for 978 vehicles, including a four-story parking garage built at grade level, and ornamental landscaping. The objectives of the proposed project are as follows: • Convert the under-utilized vacant lot to a higher and better use; • Permit campus-style office, high-quality office and R&D uses (General Plan Guiding Policy 3.5-G-3); • Capitalize and expand upon the high-quality office and R&D development recently built near the project site; • Retain the flexibility to develop more or less R&D space than office space to respond to market conditions and opportunities; • Build a project that has the potential to create quality jobs for residents of South San Francisco; • Build a project that is economically viable in the East of 101 Area based on market conditions and projected service requirements for the area; • Generate net property taxes, sales taxes and other fees from the project and enhance property values; • Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Business and Technology Park; and The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), states that if a project would result in significant environmental impacts, it may be approved if feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives are proposed which avoid or substantially lessen the impact or if there are specific economic, social, or other considerations which justify approval notwithstanding unmitigated impacts. When an environmental impact report (“EIR”) has been completed which identifies one or more potentially significant or significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings for each identified significant impact: 1. Changes or alternatives which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR have been required or incorporated into the project; or 2. Such changes or alternatives are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or 3. Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081). A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts that the EIR concludes are less than significant. (See ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 716.) As “lead agency” under California Code of Regulations, title 14, Section 15367, the City of South San Francisco (“City”) hereby adopts the following CEQA findings relating to the 494 Forbes Boulevard R&D Project environmental review documents, including the 2007 Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) the 2012 Recirculated Draft EIR, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) certified by the City on November 14, 2012. The Draft EIR, Recirculated Draft EIR, and the Final EIR are collectively referred to herein as the “EIR.” II. General Findings The EIR was prepared in accordance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000-21178, and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections 15000-15387, to address the environmental impacts associated with the project described above. As required by Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR assesses the potential environmental impacts resulting from approval, construction, and operation of the Project, and identifies feasible means of minimizing potential adverse environmental impacts. The City is the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project and the EIR was prepared under the direction and supervision of the City. Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an Environmental Impact Report is required. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(1).) The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(2).) The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations. (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 (Goleta II).) The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a), (b).) With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. (b).) The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” (Goleta II, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 576.) These Findings constitute the City Council members’ best efforts to set forth the evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the Project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted through project approval, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the EIR. Even with mitigation, however, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. III. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts The following significant impacts would not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, even with the implementation of the identified mitigation measures. No mitigation is feasible that would mitigate these impacts to a less-than-significant level. The City has determined that the impacts identified below are acceptable because of overriding economic, social or other considerations, as described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations presented below. Impact 4.8-11: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes which would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline at one off- ramp and result in operational impacts to one U.S. 101 flyover off-ramp under 2015 with Project conditions. Mitigation Measure 4.8-11a: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution for the following improvements. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection: All of the following improvements (other than measures to the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp, eastbound departure and southbound approach) are included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and will be funded via the proposed project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The proposed project shall also provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the TIP. • Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach (extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. • Adjust signal timing. • Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, two through lanes and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane. • Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from two through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP). Mitigation Measure 4.8-11b: There are no improvements feasible to mitigate the project impacts at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection. Finding: The improvements described under Mitigation Measure 4.8-11a are feasible and would reduce the project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level at the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection. Provision of a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline would not be feasible due to the existing limited distance between the flyover off- ramp diverge and the southbound off-ramp diverge to Airport Boulevard. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact to the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard intersection infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.8-15: Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle queuing at two intersections under 2035 with Project conditions above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans. This is a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-15a: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for the following improvements. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Restripe the Grand Avenue eastbound approach to provide a shared through/left turn lane and a shared through/right turn lane. Mitigation Measure 4.8-15b: There are no improvements feasible to mitigate the project impacts at the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp. Finding: The improvements described under Mitigation Measure 4.8-15a are feasible and would reduce the project’s impacts to a less-than-significant level at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection. Provision of additional lanes on any of the intersection approaches to increase capacity at the Oyster Point/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp, however, would require either widening of bridge structures across the U.S. 101 freeway and/or the Caltrain rail line and possibly roadway diversion around the supports for the Southbound Flyover off-ramp. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact to the Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue/U.S. 101 Northbound On-Ramp infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.8-16: Implementation of the proposed project would increase backups extending to the freeway mainline at four off-ramps, and result in operational impacts on one U.S. 101 off-ramp and one U.S. 101 on-ramp under 2035 with Project conditions. This is a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-16: There are no improvements feasible to mitigate the project impacts to the off-ramps identified below for the following reasons. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection: There are no feasible mitigation measures that would provide any increased capacity beyond those recommended for 2015 conditions that would reduce 95th percentile queues within available off-ramp storage. Additional measures would potentially include widening Oyster Point Boulevard an additional two to four lanes between Veterans Boulevard and Sister Cities Boulevard (through the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange) as well as widening the U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp by an additional lane on its approach to Oyster Point Boulevard. Widening Oyster Point Boulevard through part of the interchange area would be infeasible due to the limitations imposed by the location of the support columns for the southbound flyover off-ramp. Oyster Point Boulevard and off-ramp widening would also require expansion of bridge structures, which would be prohibitively expensive. Provision of additional lanes would also require acquisition of additional right-of-way along Oyster Point Boulevard. Also, provision of additional eastbound lanes on the Oyster Point and Flyover off-ramp intersection approaches would not be feasible due to the complexity of merging the departure lanes on the eastbound (departure leg) of the intersection. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard/Miller Avenue Intersection: There are no feasible mitigation measures at either the off- ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off-ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to South Airport Boulevard/Wondercolor Lane Intersection: There are no feasible mitigation measures at either the off-ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off-ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive Intersection: There are no feasible mitigation measures at either the off-ramp intersection with the surface street system or at adjacent surface street intersections that would provide enough increased capacity to prevent off-ramp queuing from backing up to the U.S. 101 freeway mainline. • U.S. 101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Flyover) Diverge to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard Intersection: There are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the impact. A second off-ramp lane connection from the freeway mainline to the Southbound Off-Ramp (flyover) to Oyster Point Boulevard would likely require moving the Southbound Off-Ramp connection to Airport Boulevard further north to provide more separation between the two southbound off-ramps. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of available space. This would be infeasible given the restrictions imposed by the location of the northbound off-ramp overpass connection to Bayshore Boulevard. There is no room for the provision of this lane. • U.S. 101 Northbound One-Lane On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue Intersection: Provision of a second on- ramp lane would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour. While this measure would accommodate the 2035 Future With Project volume of about 2, 563 vehicles per hour, it would require the approval of Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Finding: There are no feasible mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the impact to a level of less-than-significant. Existing geometry and adjacent development, described for each intersection above, preclude expansion of the roadway system in a manner sufficient to reduce the intersection levels of service to less-than-significant levels for Impact 4.8-16. Accordingly, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make mitigation of the impact infeasible. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. IV. Less-Than-Significant Impacts With Mitigation The Final EIR determined that the project has potentially significant environmental impacts in the areas discussed below. The Final EIR identified feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce some or all of the environmental impacts in these areas. Based on the information and analyses set forth in the Final EIR, and the entirety of the Record before it, including without limitation the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Conditions of Approval, the City finds that the for each of the following project impacts, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. As described in further detail below and the Final EIR, the following impacts will be less than significant with identified feasible mitigation measures. Impact 4.2-4: The project operations may or may not expose nearby sensitive receptors to concentrations of toxic air contaminants in excess of acceptable levels. This impact conclusion is speculative. Mitigation Measure 4.2-4: Under the plan review and permitting process for tenant improvements, tenants that propose wet laboratories shall be required to prepare a human health risk assessment demonstrating that the human health risk from wet lab operations will be less than significant or will be rendered less than significant with appropriate design elements and project refinements, including but not limited to location of fume hoods or other point sources as far away as possible from nearby receptors. The HRA will be submitted to the City by the tenant prior to occupancy. Finding: Although any potential impact related to toxic air contaminants is not expected, the exact impact of the future R&D facilities in the project buildings cannot be estimated. The mitigation measure above, however, will ensure that the risk is evaluated prior to occupancy by any tenant proposing a wet laboratory, and require that design elements are incorporated as necessary. This impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.3-1: Development of the project would expose people and/or structures to substantial adverse effects from strong seismic ground shaking. This would result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Foundation engineering and construction shall be in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Further geotechnical study will be required to provide final design recommendations for any new structures planned at the site. The design-level geotechnical study would require additional subsurface exploration and a geotechnical laboratory-testing program in order to develop final design recommendations for seismic concerns. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2: The project applicant shall obtain a building permit through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Final design review of planned buildings and structures shall be completed by a licensed structural engineer for adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial sites in the East of 101 Area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the East of 101 Area Plan Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and would allow egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake. Finding: Conformity with the mitigation measures above would reduce the impact of strong seismic ground shaking to a level of less-than-significant through compliance with applicable regulations and a design-level geotechnical investigation. Impact 4.3-2: Development of the site as envisioned by the project would possibly expose structures to substantial adverse effects of differential settlements. This would result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Further geotechnical study shall be conducted to determine the density, composition, and thickness of fill. Foundation engineering and construction shall be in accordance with the recommendations of a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Registered Structural Engineer. Further geotechnical study will be required to provide final design recommendations for any new structures planned at the site. The design-level geotechnical study will require additional subsurface exploration and a geotechnical laboratory testing program in order to develop final design recommendations. Finding: Conformity with the mitigation measures above would reduce the impact of differential settlements to a level of less than significant. Impact 4.3-3: The construction phase of the project would result in a substantial increase in erosion and would displace topsoil at the project site. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: The project applicant shall complete an Erosion Control Plan to be submitted to the City in conjunction with the Grading Permit Application. The plan shall include winterization, dust, erosion, and pollution control measures conforming to the ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. The Erosion Control Plan shall describe the best management practices (BMPs) to be used during and after construction to control pollution resulting from both storm and construction water runoff. The Plan shall include locations of vehicle and equipment staging, portable restrooms, mobilization areas, and planned construction access routes. Recommended soil stabilization techniques shall include placement of straw wattles, silt fences, berms, and gravel construction entrance areas or other control to prevent tracking sediment onto city streets and into storm drains. Public works staff or representatives shall visit the site during grading and construction to ensure compliance with the grading ordinance and plans, and note any violations, which shall be corrected immediately. Mitigation Measure 4.3-5: In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of construction. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs to reduce soil erosion. This plan is required to obtain coverage under the General Plan for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 2009-0009-DWQ). Finding: Conformity with the mitigation measures above would reduce the impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil to a level of less than significant. Impact 4.4-2: Accident conditions during the transportation or use of hazardous substances during project operation could create a spill of hazardous materials which could create a significant hazard to the public or environment. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a: All transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the site shall be in accordance with Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, US Department of Transportation regulations, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 31303 of the California Code of Regulations, hazardous materials transportation regulations established by the California Highway Patrol pursuant to the California Vehicle Code, the South San Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD), and all other state and local laws, ordinances and procedures including the posting of placards, signs and other identifying information. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: Tenants occupying the project shall complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan shall include the type and quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of hazardous materials and where they might be used and transported from, risks of using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. The Business Plan shall take into consideration the proximity of the nearby childcare facility in determining the location of hazardous materials storage areas (including gaseous substances such as ammonia) as well as contingency plans that specifically address emergencies that could be of significance to the nearby childcare facility. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measures above will reduce the potential impact related to accidental spill of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.5-2: Implementation of the project would increase the amount of runoff that flows from the site into the City’s stormwater facilities, which could introduce sediments and other pollutants into the surface water runoff and could potentially degrade water quality. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1: The project applicant shall develop an operational SWPPP prior to construction to protect water quality after construction. The project SWPPP shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following measures for project operation: • Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the project site. Industrial activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used at the proposed project site shall be described. This shall include a thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources. • Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the project site based on identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls uses as needed. • Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures, vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, regular sweeping of parking lots and other paced areas, etc. Wastes removed from BMPs may be hazardous; therefore, maintenance costs shall be budgeted to include disposal at a proper site. Parking lot areas shall be cleared daily of debris that may enter the storm drain system. • The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted at the frequency agreed upon by the RWQCB and/or City of South San Francisco. Monitoring and maintenance shall be recorded and submitted annually in coordination with the STOPPP. The SWPPP shall be adjusted, as necessary, to address any inadequacies of the BMPs. • The project applicant shall prepare informational literature and guidance on industrial and commercial BMPs to minimize pollutant contributions from the proposed development. This information shall be distributed to all employees at the project site. At a minimum, the information shall cover: (1) proper disposal of commercial cleaning chemicals; (2) proper use of landscaping chemicals; (3) clean-up and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials and chemicals; and (4) prohibition of any washing and dumping of materials and chemicals into storm drains. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2: The project applicant shall install a storm drain interceptor (also known as an oil/water or oil/grit separator) on site to remove oils and heavy particulates from stormwater, prior to draining to the storm water drainage system. Appropriate sizing of the unit relative to the impervious surface drainage area is important and shall be taken into consideration when choosing the interceptor unit model and size. Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: The project applicant shall incorporate, where feasible, alternative drainage solutions around surface parking lots and near large areas of impervious surfaces such as public plazas. Such solutions shall include, but are not limited to, vegetated swales, bioretention areas, planter/tree boxes, and ponds. Mitigation Measure 4.5-4: The project applicant shall incorporate downspout retention into all building plans. Mitigation Measure 4.5-5: The applicant shall ensure that all trash enclosure areas are covered. Mitigation Measure 4.5-6: The applicant shall design loading areas and docks with a roof or overhang, and a surrounding curb or berm. The area shall be graded to direct flow toward an inlet with a shutoff valve or dead-end sump. The sump shall be designed with enough capacity to hold a spill while the valve is closed. If the sump has a valve, it shall be kept in the closed position and require an action to open it. All sumps shall have a sealed bottom so they cannot infiltrate water. Contaminated accumulated waste and liquid must not be discharged to a storm drain and may be discharged to the sanitary sewer only with the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW’s) permission. If it does not receive approval for discharge to the sanitary sewer, it shall be conveyed to a hazardous waste (or other offsite disposal) facility, and may require pretreatment. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above, which requires preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan and associated design modifications, will reduce the impact related to runoff and water quality to a less- than-significant level. Impact 4.7-4: Project construction activities could generate groundborne vibration levels exceeding acceptable limits. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: The applicant shall coordinate with Genentech to identify times and days when construction activities on the project site involving high vibration levels can be conducted without affecting Genentech’s operations. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the potential impact related to vibration to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-1: Trips generated by the project would exceed 100 net new trips during AM and PM peak hours. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: The project sponsors shall implement a TDM program consistent with the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The C/CAG Guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM measure. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the potential impact related to vehicle trips to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-4: Implementation of the proposed project would increase existing peak hour traffic volumes resulting in a 95th percentile vehicle queuing impact at one intersection under Existing with Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact Mitigation Measure 4.8-4: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer to adjust signal timing at the Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue intersection, as shown in Figure 4.8-20. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the potential impact to vehicle queuing to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-5: Implementation of the proposed project would increase existing AM peak hour volumes resulting in volumes that exceed acceptable capacity at one off- ramp under Existing with Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-5: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S. 101 freeway at the US 101 Northbound Off-Ramp to East Grand Avenue/Executive Drive, as shown in Figure 4.8-20, Existing Mitigated Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the potential impact to off-ramp capacity to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-8: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes above acceptable limits at one study intersection under 2015 with Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-8: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer for widening the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach from one left, one combined through/right, and one right turn lane to provide one left, one through, one through/right and one exclusive right turn lane at the East Grand Avenue/Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way intersection. The full fair-share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the impact related to increased traffic volumes at one study intersection to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-9: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes, which would cause a signal warrant to be met at one intersection under 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-9: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards signalizing the intersection of East Grand Avenue and Allerton Avenue. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the impact related to increased traffic volumes at the East Grand Avenue/Allerton Avenue intersection to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-10: Implementation of the proposed project would increase vehicle queuing at three intersections above levels determined to be acceptable by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans under 2015 with Project conditions. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-10: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution for the following improvements. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. • Airport Boulevard/Grand Avenue: Restripe the Southbound Airport Boulevard approach to provide two exclusive left turn lanes, one exclusive through lane and one shared through/right turn lane. • Oyster Point Boulevard/Dubuque Avenue: Provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards adjusting signal timing. • Oyster Point Boulevard/ Sister Cities Boulevard/Airport Boulevard: Provide a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards adjusting signal timing. Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.8-10 will reduce the impact related to vehicle queuing at three intersections in 2015 with Project conditions to a less-than- significant level. Impact 4.8-14: Implementation of the proposed project would increase traffic volumes at an unsignalized intersection that would exceed signal warrant criteria levels under 2035 without Project conditions. This would be considered a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-14: The applicant shall be responsible for providing a fair share contribution as determined by the City Engineer towards improving the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection. The fair share contribution will be used to signalize the intersection when warranted and provide exclusive left turn lanes on the Forbes Boulevard intersection approaches. The full fair share payment shall be paid by the applicant prior to occupancy of the second building. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the impact to the Forbes Boulevard/Allerton Avenue intersection under 2035 conditions to a less- than-significant level. Impact 4.8-18: Project‐related traffic would turn from Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue into project driveways which would create safety impacts on Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue. This would result in a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-18: Along the project’s Forbes Boulevard frontage, at the discretion of the City Engineer, the applicant shall be responsible for either: a) Installing deceleration lanes in accordance with the design criteria provided by the City Engineer within the current pavement width; or b) Removing the existing medians and striping a continuous two-way left turn lane. Along the project’s Allerton Avenue frontage, the applicant shall be responsible for striping a continuous two-way left turn that would serve movements to/from both project driveways as well as to the businesses on the opposite side of the street. However, this would require removal of the Class II bike lanes recently striped along the street, or widening of the street by at least 8 feet. Alternatively, the Class II bike lanes could be replaced by a Class III signed bike route, which would allow striping of the continuous turn lane. The improvements along Forbes Boulevard shall be completed before any project occupancy. The improvements along Allerton Avenue shall be completed before occupancy of the second building. Finding: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-18 will reduce potential safety impacts along Forbes Boulevard and Allerton Avenue to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.9-1: The proposed project would increase demand for water services in the project area. The increased demand could require off-site improvements. This would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: The project applicant shall include methods of water conservation in the proposed project’s buildings and landscaping. These methods shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: • Install water-conserving appliances, such as such as water-efficient toilets, faucets, and showerheads. • Install water-efficient centralized cooling systems in all new buildings (this measure would not apply to process development or research development laboratory equipment). • Install water-conserving irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation and Evapotranspiration based irrigation controllers). • Gray water irrigation system (as detailed in General Plan Policy PF-7, but other elements of that policy do not apply here, such as wastewater treatment facilities). • Design landscaping with drought-resistant and other low-water-use plants. Finding: Implementation of the mitigation measure above will reduce the impact related to increased demand for water to a less-than-significant level. V. Findings Regarding Alternatives Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Where a lead agency has determined that, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, a project as proposed will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, the agency, prior to approving the project as mitigated, must first determine whether, with respect to such impacts, there remain any project alternatives that are both environmentally superior and feasible within the meaning of CEQA. Although an EIR must evaluate this range of potentially feasible alternatives, an alternative may ultimately be deemed by the lead agency to be “infeasible” if it fails to fully promote the lead agency’s underlying goals and objectives with respect to the project. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) Thus, even if a project alternative will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project, the decision-makers may reject the alternative if they determine that specific considerations make the alternative infeasible. Chapter 6 of the Draft EIR discussed several alternatives to the Project in order to present a reasonable range of options. The alternatives evaluated included: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative • Alternative 2: 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative • Alternative 3: 0.50 Floor Area Alternative The City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to evaluate all feasible alternatives in the EIR that are reasonable alternatives to the Project and could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, even when the alternatives might impede the attainment of the Project objectives and might be more costly. As a result, the scope of alternatives analyzed in the EIR is not unduly limited or narrow. The City Council also finds that all reasonable alternatives were reviewed, analyzed and discussed in the review process of the EIR and the ultimate decision on the Project. (See Draft EIR, Chapter 6.) A. No Project Alternative As required under the State CEQA Guidelines, the EIR’s alternatives analysis must include consideration of the No Project Alternative. The “No Project” analysis discusses the existing conditions as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (2) and (3) (A)). Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed R&D uses would not be established on the project site and it would remain a vacant industrial site formerly occupied by clothing manufacturing businesses. Because the site has already been cleared and some grading has occurred, it is assumed that under this alternative, the site would remain in its current undeveloped and un-vegetated condition. The No Project Alternative would decrease the diversity of businesses in the area and as a result, would not increase employment opportunities in the area, as would occur under the proposed project. Additionally, this alternative would not fulfill the East of 101 Area Plan’s stated purpose of maximizing the potential of underdeveloped or underused properties in the City’s East of 101 Area. This alternative would prevent the site from contributing to the development of R&D uses and the campus style character which is promoted by the City’s General Plan. Impacts: Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid or reduce environmental impacts in almost all categories to less-than-significant levels, as no development would occur under this alternative. Because the project site is currently vacant and un-vegetated, the project site would not be consistent with the aesthetic values of surrounding sites. However, all other significant and significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project would be avoided under this alternative. Finding: The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the project objectives, including increasing quality employment opportunities, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, generating net property taxes and sales taxes, or creating campus-style office and high-quality office and R&D uses. The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most basic project objectives, and is incapable of fully promoting the City’s underlying goals with respect to the Project. Accordingly, the City Council finds the No Project Alternative to be infeasible. B. 0.75 Floor Area Ratio Alternative Under this alternative, the project’s Floor Area Ratio (FAR) would be reduced from the current 1.0 FAR for the 326,020-square-foot project, to a FAR of 0.75 and building space of 244,550 square feet, a 25 percent reduction in project size. This reduced development intensity would result in fewer employees at the site. The estimated number of employees under this alternative would be 1,223. While the overall square footage would be reduced under this alternative, the footprint of the project would not change. In order to support optimal efficiency for Biotechnology/Research & Development businesses, a minimum standard floor plan is required for prospective tenants, which includes minimum floor to ceiling heights and desired floor plates. The desired footprint for Biotechnology/Research & Development is approximately 30,000 square feet. With the reduced building space of 244,550 square feet and a minimum floor plate of 30,000 square feet, Buildings A and B would each consist of four stories. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative would provide extensive landscaping and public areas on the site, as well as drainage improvements. Using the project’s parking ratio of 1 space/350 square feet of building space, Alternative 2 would require approximately 699 parking spaces, a reduction of 232 spaces (25 percent) from the proposed project. The proposed garage would therefore be reduced from a 4-level garage under the proposed project to a 3-level garage under this alternative. Impacts: Reducing the development intensity to 0.75 FAR would primarily reduce impacts related to vehicle trips and to some degree construction-period impacts, such as air quality emissions, traffic and noise, due to an anticipated reduction in the construction period. As a result of the fewer trips generated under this alternative, some traffic impacts would be reduced or avoided. However, similar to the proposed project, this alternative would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to future freeway mainline and intersection levels of service. Finding: Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would support the project objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, and creating campus-style office and high-quality office and R&D uses. This alternative would also support objectives to convert the under-utilized lot to a higher and better use, and would capitalize, and expand upon the high-quality R&D development recently built near the site. This alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage proposed. Alternative 2 would generate less revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically feasible. Alternative 2 would fail to meet most basic project objectives, and is incapable of fully promoting the City’s underlying goals with respect to the project. Accordingly, the City Council finds the 0.75 FAR Alternative to be infeasible. C. 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative This alternative would develop a smaller version of the proposed project within the project site. Under this alternative, the project’s FAR would be reduced from the current 1.0 FAR for the 326,020-square-foot project, to a FAR of 0.50 and building space of 163,035 square feet. As noted under Alternative 2, the desired footprint for Biotechnology/Research & Development is approximately 30,000 square feet. With the reduced building space of 163,035 square feet and a minimum floor plate of 30,000 square feet, this alternative would consist of two buildings, with each building involving about three stories (or a combination of a four-story building and a two- story building). Like the other alternatives, Alternative 3 would also result in extensive landscaping and public areas on the site, as well as drainage improvements. This reduced development intensity would result in fewer employees at the site. The estimated number of employees under this alternative would be 815. Due to the substantially decreased FAR under this alternative, parking facilities required for the project would be substantially reduced in size compared to the proposed project. Using the project-parking ratio of 1 space/350 square feet of space, Alternative 3 would require approximately 466 parking spaces, a reduction of 465 spaces (50 percent) over the proposed project. The proposed garage would therefore be reduced from a 4-level garage under the proposed project to a 2-level garage with a similar footprint under this alternative. Impacts: Reducing the allowable development to an FAR of 0.5 would primarily reduce impacts related to vehicle trips and to some degree construction-period impacts, such as air quality emissions, traffic and noise. However, while Alternative 3 would marginally reduce some impacts, and avoid some significant traffic impacts, it would not result in the avoidance or lessening of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts to future freeway mainline and intersection levels of service to a less-than-significant level. Finding: Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would support the project objectives of increasing quality employment opportunities in the area, providing quality research and development facilities for the East of 101 Area, and converting the under-utilized parcel to a higher and better use. This alternative would capitalize and expand upon the high-quality R&D development recently built near the site. While this alternative would result in campus-style R&D development, it would do so at a greatly reduced density compared to other alternatives. This alternative would also result in decreased property taxes and sales taxes due to the reduced square footage proposed. Alternative 3 would also generate substantially less revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically feasible. Alternative 3 would fail to meet most basic project objectives, and is incapable of fully promoting the City’s underlying goals with respect to the project. Accordingly, the City Council finds the 0.5 FAR Alternative to be infeasible. D. Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be selected. The State CEQA Guidelines also note “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City. The No Project Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of development under the proposed 494 Forbes Boulevard R&D Project. This alternative would avoid significant traffic impacts and potentially significant impacts on geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and utilities. Therefore, this alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the key objectives of the proposed project with respect to R&D development. The CEQA Guidelines also require that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Of the remaining alternatives, the 0.5 Floor Area Ratio Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would avoid some of the project’s significant impacts with regards to traffic, although all the significant and unavoidable impacts would remain. As the square footage of R&D space would be reduced by 50 percent as compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would accommodate a proportionally smaller project population, and would in turn result in decreased vehicle trips to the project site. This reduction in vehicle trips would result in fewer vehicle emissions, thereby resulting in improved air quality conditions compared to the other alternatives. V. Statement of Overriding Considerations Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the 494 Forbes Boulevard R&D Project EIR (SCH No. 2006092054; Certified November 14, 2012 by Resolution No. 2722-2012), as further identified and described in Section III of these Findings. The City Council has carefully considered each impact, has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, and has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the significant and unavoidable impact associated with the Project. The City Council has also examined potentially feasible alternatives to the Project, none of which would both meet most of the project objectives and result in substantial reduction or avoidance of the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The City Council hereby adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant and unavoidable impact of the Project and the anticipated economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project. • The Project is expected to generate a new source of significant tax revenue for City. Additionally, at full build out, the Project is expected to employ an additional 1,630 employees. • The existing physical environment consists of a primarily vacant lot, with limited sidewalks and minimal site improvements, and which lacks amenities. The Project will convert the property to uses consistent with research & development uses, including additional amenities and improvements. The proposed project will provide landscaping and lighting for the property and improve the overall aesthetic character of the site. • The Project is consistent with the General Plan Guiding Policies for the East of 101 Area, which provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses (3.5-G-1) and promotes high-technology, and research and development uses (3.5-G-3). • The Project is consistent with General Plan Implementing Policies, which generally promote research & development uses, to the exclusion of residential and more traditional industrial uses. (See 3.5-I- 3, 3.5-I-11.). • The Project is designed to take advantage of and promote the use of public transit by adopting a Transportation Demand Management Plan that provides incentives for employees to use alternative modes of transportation.