HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 24-2005RESOLUTION NO. 24-2005
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE 333 OYSTER POINT BOULEVAND
SLOUGH ESTATES PROJECT
WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Slough Estates to approve 315,444 square foot
Office/Research and Development Campus including above grade parking garage ("Project") at 333
Oyster Point Boulevard, in the P-I Planned Industrial Zone District; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to
evaluate the impacts of the proposed project; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Project consists of the EIR and response to
comments made on the EIR, and Mitigation and Monitoring Program; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day public/agency review
period from September 20, 2004 through November 4, 2004; and
WHEREAS, notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was published in the San Mateo
Times, mailed to property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, noticed to local agencies and
cities, and circulated through the State Clearinghouse; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed meeting during the review period
on October 21, 2004 to take public testimony on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed the following
potential environmental impacts:
· Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development
allowed by the General Plan;
· Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to
freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections and
restrictions on parking to reduce congestion;
· Air Quality, including construction dust;
· Earth, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading,
liquefaction and expansive soils;
· Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation and potential off-
site storm water backup in the parking lots;
Cultural Resources, including potential to damage unknown cultural sites and
artifacts;
Utilities, including water availability, impacts to aging wastewater collection
facilities, a potential shortfall in existing on-site wastewater collection facilities, and
cumulative demand for wastewater treatment capacity;
· Cumulative impacts; and,
WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the
Draft EIR, and sent to agencies and individuals from whom comments on the Draft EIR were
received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the DEIR and the Final EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on Feb. 17, 2005, and recommends
their certification as objective and accurate documents that reflect the independent judgment of the
City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project's environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to reduce identified
impacts to a level of less than significant for all but three impacts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed mitigation measures for three transportation impacts cannot reduce
the impacts to acceptable levels; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt the required findings of Section 15091 of the State
CEQA Guidelines for the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be
reduced to an acceptable level, with regard to transportation impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations
is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable transportation
impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and applies to
the Project as follows:
The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report in October, 1999. The City Council made a statement
of overriding considerations in its approval of the General Plan update, because the
measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 and regional air
pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
o
The 333 Oyster Point Project would impact some of the same freeway segments that
were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic effects could only be
partially mitigated.
Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of
the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the 333 Oyster Point
Project by the City.
Additionally, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations adopted for the Project, as found in the Findings of Fact
and Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein.
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on October 21,2004 and February 17, 2005 to consider the Environmental Impact Report
and the proposed Project, including the Use Permit, Design Review minutes, Preliminary
Transportation Demand Management plan (TDM) and Development Agreement and recommended
certification of the EIR and approval of the Use Permit and Preliminary TDM plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on March 9, 2005, to
consider the Environmental Impact Report and the proposed Project, including the Use Permit,
Design Review, Preliminary TDM plan and Development Agreement and after hearing all testimony
and reviewing all evidence in the record finds that:
The EIR was independently reviewed and analyzed by the City and reflects the
independent judgement of the City as lead agency; and
The documents, including, but not limited to, the 1999 General Plan, the 1999
Certified Environmental Impact Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations,
Draft EIR for the Project, Final EIR, Response to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, Finding and Analysis for Impacts identified in the EIR,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, staff reports
and testimony received at public heatings on the environmental documents and other
materials constitute the record of proceedings on the EIR and the Planning
Commission and City Council's review thereof. Said documents are located at the
Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco.
Certain specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the three
Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, with the exception of the proposed
Project, in that:
mo
The "No Project" Alternative, required for analysis under the California
Environmental Act, involves maintaining the site in its existing condition and
denying the City of the following opportunities: to improve and make use of
an under-utilized site, to provide long-term employment, to receive additional
tax revenues, and to enjoy site amenities which are proposed to be financed
by the Project.
Bo
The "Base FAR Alternative", would allow the same mix of office and R&D
facilities as in the proposed Project, but in reduced quantity according to
incentive-based FAR bonuses and standards in the General Plan. The
reduction in Project square footage would help to reduce traffic congestion,
water demand and wastewater treatment capacity, but not in a substantial
way, for any of the categories of significant impact discussed in the EIR.
Co
The "R&D/TDM Alternative" would limit employment to R&D facilities,
which would reduce traffic and parking lower than the Project. However, the
Alternative would not improve upon the overall Project in a substantial way,
for any of the categories of significant impact discussed in the EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby certifies EIR-03-
0001, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon
its passage and adoption.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council, City of South San
Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 9~ day of March, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Councilmembers Richard A. Garbarino, Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl Matsumoto,
and Mayor Pro Tem Joseph A. Fernekes and Mayor Raymond L. Green
None.
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT: None.
S:\Current Reso'sh'eport.program.333oyster.pt.res. DOC
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A to Reso 24-2005
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT 03-0001 FOR THE 333 OYSTER POINT BOULEVARD PROJECT
Findings must be made by the City prior to approval of the Project, pursuant to Sections
15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code.
Under CEQA, the City is required to make written findings explaining how it has dealt with
each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)., September 2004. The DEIR and responses to
comments in the DEIR comprises the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). All
mitigation measures are required and may not be substituted except in accordance with state
law.
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT
No impacts are associated with the No-Project Alternative because the Project site would
remain vacant. Therefore, none of the impacts identified for the proposed Project would
Occur.
Finding: No-Project Alternative Infeasible
The City finds the No-Project Alternative to be infeasible because it would not support the
General Plan in improving vacant and underutilized properties in the East of 101 Area of the
City. The No-Project Alternative also would not achieve the social, environmental and
economic goals of the Project to convert the site to a campus-planned office/R&D
commercial project; to increase employment opportunities in the community, and to increase
tax and other revenues to the City and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
ALTERNATIVE 2: BASE FAR ALTERNATIVE
The Base FAR Alternative would allow the same mix of facilities as the proposed Project,
but in reduced quantity. The alternative would reduce the allowed square footage of gross
office/R&D space by about 50%. The reduction in Project square footage would help to
reduce traffic congestion.
Compared to the proposed Project, the Base FAR Alternative would result in the following
types of impacts:
· Land Use and Planning: The Base FAR Alternative would not avoid any significant
land use and planning impacts of the proposed Project.
· Transportation and Circulation: Levels of service at study intersections would be
proportionally lower than the proposed Project, but not low enough to result in less
than significant traffic impacts. Mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the
Base FAR Alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project.
· Air Quality. Construction dust generated by the Alternative would be same as those
generated by the Project.
Earth: The Reduced Development Alternative would be developed on the same
underlying fill and Bay Mud soils and the same geotechnical conditions as the
proposed Project. However, accepted structural design practices required by the City
should mitigate the danger of earthquake-related instability and expansive soils to less
than significant levels.
Drainage and Water Quality: The Project and the Base FAR Alternative would have
the same potential to degrade surface water quality during construction and
operations and to potentially cause localized off-site parking lot flooding.
Cultural Resources: Excavation for the Project or the Base FAR Alternative would
have the same potential to unearth cultural remains, and the same requirement to
protect such sites from damage.
Utilities: The Base FAR Alternative would use about 70% of the water and
wastewater generated by the Project (based upon employment). Both would also
have the same significant impacts to utility systems: water quality degradation,
failure of aging wastewater collection facilities, and cumulative impacts to the
wastewater treatment system. They would also have essentially the same mitigation
measures.
Cumulative and Unavoidable Impacts: The Base FAR Alternative would have the
same cumulative impacts to transportation, water quality and wastewater treatment
capacity as the proposed Project. Both would also create unavoidable impacts to
cumulative traffic conditions.
Finding: Reduced Base FAR Not Beneficial
The City finds the Base FAR Altemative inappropriate because it does not significantly
reduce the impacts of the Project. As discussed above, impacts of the alternative would be
similar to the impacts of the proposed Project, and mitigation measures would not change.
ALTERNATIVE 3: R&D / TDM ALTERNATIVE
The R&D / TDM Alternative would limit employment to R&D facilities only, which would
generate less traffic and parking than the proposed Project. Compared with the proposed
Project, this alternative would result in the following types of impacts:
Land Use and Planning: The altemative would have the same site plan and mix of
uses as the proposed Project, although with smaller or shorter buildings. The
alternative would not cause any new, unmitigated land use impacts.
Transportation and Circulation: The R&D / TDM Altemative would have the same
transportation and circulation impacts as the Project, with respect to trip generation,
traffic effects on CMP freeway segments, and declines in LOS at specific
intersections. Mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the R&D / TDM
Alternative would be essentially the same as for the proposed Project.
· Air Quality: The R&D / TDM Alternative would have the same kind of exposure to
construction dust as the Project.
Earth: The R&D / TDM Alternative would avoid potential geologic and seismic
safety risks as would the Project. Both the Project and the Alternative would be
subject to compliance with East of 101 Area Plan Policies dealing with geotechnical
investigations and engineering design of particular buildings throughout the
Alternative.
Drainage and Water Quality: The Project and the R&D / TDM Altemative would
have the same potential to degrade water quality during construction and operations,
and would be subject to the same measures to mitigate it.
Cultural Resources: Excavation for the Project or the R&D / TDM Alternative would
have the same potential to unearth cultural remains, and the same requirement to
protect such sites from damage.
Utilities: The R&D / TDM Alternative would use about 50% less water or generate
50% less wastewater than the Project. Both would also have the same significant
impacts to utility systems: water quality degradation, failure of aging wastewater
collection facilities, and cumulative impacts to the wastewater treatment system.
They would also have essentially the same mitigation measures.
Cumulative and Unavoidable Impacts: The R&D / TDM Alternative would have the
same cumulative impacts to transportation, water quality and wastewater treatment
capacity as the proposed Project. Both would also create unavoidable impacts to
traffic conditions.
Finding: R&D / TDM Alternative Not Beneficial
The City finds that the R&D / TDM Alternative would have the same or very similar impacts
and mitigation measures as the proposed Project, without benefit of the Project. Therefore,
the City will not pursue this alternative.
Findings for Certification of the EIR with Preferred Project:
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.2.2: Project square footage. The square footage of proposed development
exceeds the maximum square footage allowed in the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Additional square footage is allowed by General Plan floor
area bonuses, provided that the Project includes programs for off-site improvements and
special design standards. Granting of square footage bonuses will reduce the impact to a
less than significant level.
Finding 4.2.2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 is feasible and allowed by
the General Plan, subject to developer commitments to feasible vehicular trip reduction
and other Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, consistent with C/CAG
Guidelines, established in an adopted Development Agreement.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 6.3.3: Unmitigated vehicular trips. The Project would exceed 100 trips during
peak hours. The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires
that local jurisdictions ensure that the developer will mitigate all new peak hour trips
generated by the Project.
Mitigation Measure 6.3.3: The DEIR requires implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management Plan using programs acceptable to C/CAG to reduce vehicular
trips.
Finding 6.3.3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.4.3 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level. The TDM program must be implemented by
the Project sponsors as a condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and once
implemented, will be an on-going for the occupied life of the development.
Impact 6.3.4: Traffic impacts to two CMP freeway segments. The addition of traffic
generated by approved development in the year 2005 Baseline Without Project would
cause four freeway segments to operate at LOS F, in addition to four that currently
operate at LOS F. The Project would also contribute more than one percent of traffic to
two segments of US 101 that are projected to have traffic volumes that exceed the
standard capacities of the freeway segment.
Mitigation Measure 6.3.4: The DEIR requires the Project to implement a TDM program
to minimize potential increases in freeway traffic.
Finding 6.3.4: Implementation of the TDM measures would not reduce impacts to less
than significant levels, so the impact remains significant and unavoidable and will require
a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval (see Section
5).
Impact 6.3.5: Decline in LOS at one intersection, year 2005. The Project would cause
a decline in LOS below level "D" at the following intersection:
· Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S.NB Flyover Off-Ramp.
Mitigation Measure 6.3.5: The Project shall implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program consistent with the proposed City of South San Francisco
TDM Ordinance. Project developers shall also participate in the funding of physical
transportation improvements in the East of 101 Area, as approved by the City of South
San Francisco. The Project shall contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of
improvements at the intersection specifically impacted by Project traffic.
Finding 6.3.5: Implementation of the TDM measures would not reduce impacts to less
than significant levels, so the impact remains significant and unavoidable and will require
a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval (see Section
5).
Impact 6.3.6: Decline in LOS at one intersection, year 2005. The Project would cause
a decline in LOS at one intersection below level "E" at the following intersection, for
year 2005 + Baseline + Project:
West Project Driveway and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Mitigation Measures 6.3.6: The Project shall install a traffic signal at the West project
Driveway/Oyster Point Boulevard in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program consistent with the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. The Project
shall contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at the intersection
specifically impacted by Project traffic.
Finding 6.3.6: Implementation of mitigation measure 6.3.6 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 6.3.7: Decline in LOS below "D" at two signalized intersections for year
2020+baseline plus Project traffic. Traffic generated by approved and probable future
projects plus the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Project would cause LOS to exceed
standards at two signalized intersections:
Dubuque Avenue/US 101 NB On-Ramp and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard /U.S. 101 NB Flyover Off-
Ramp.
Mitigation Measures 6.3.7: The Project shall implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program consistent with the proposed City of South San Francisco
TDM Ordinance. Project developers shall also participate in the funding of physical
transportation improvements in the East of 101 Area, as approved by the City of South
San Francisco. The TDM measures would be expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the
level of service issues at the study intersections.
Finding 6.3.7: Implementation of the TDM measures would not reduce impacts to less
than significant levels, so the impact remains significant and unavoidable and will require
a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval (see Section
5).
Impact 6.3.8: Decline in LOS Below "E" at one unsignalized intersection for year
2020+ plus Project traffic. Traffic generated by approved and Probable Future Projects
plus the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Project would cause LOS to exceed standards at one
unsignalized intersection:
· West Project Driveway and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Mitigation Measures 6.3.8: The Project shall install a traffic signal at the intersection of
the West Project Driveway and Oyster Point Boulevard. The Project shall contribute a
proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at the intersection specifically
impacted by Project traffic.
Finding 6.3.8: Implementation of mitigation measure 6.3.8 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 6.3.9: Parking shortfall. Using standard City parking standards, the proposed
Project would have a shortfall of 170 parking spaces. The shortfall could vary, depending
on the balance of developed office and R&D space, since R&D requires less parking than
offices for the same amount of floor area.
Mitigation Measure 6.3.9: The City of South San Francisco shall apply reduced parking
standards of one parking space per 360 gross square feet of office space (2.78 parking
spaces per 1,000 square feet), consistent with General Plan policies for projects that have
agreed to implement trip reduction methods. The reduced parking standards will help to
support the TDM program and will be consistent with the proposed parking supply.
Finding 6.3.9: Providing a range of reduced parking standards is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. The reduction in parking spaces is allowed by the
zoning ordinance, subject to a use permit and compliance with applicable regulations. In
addition, the TDM Ordinance allows for a reduction in parking if supported by the Project's
TDM Plan.
Impact 6.3.10: Increase in traffic at one unsignalized intersection where Base Case
traffic volume levels meet the signal warrant criteria. There would be a 2-percent or
more increase in traffic entering an intersection due to the proposed Project, when the
base case traffic volume levels at an unsignalized intersection would already exceed
signal warrant criteria levels for the Year 2005 Baseline Plus Project Traffic and 2020+
Baseline Plus Project Traffic scenario.
Mitigation Measure 6.3.10: Expand the signal at the intersection of Oyster Point
Boulevard and Eccles Avenue to include the signalization of the East Project Driveway.
The two intersections would operate as an offset "T" intersection. In addition, update the
signal coordination plan along Oyster Point Boulevard. The Project would contribute 3
percent of the total additional P.M. peak hour traffic on all approaches at this intersection.
Finding 6.3.10: Implementation of mitigation measure 6.3.10 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
AIR QUALITY
Impact 7.2.2: Construction dust. Fugitive dust emitted during construction could be a
nuisance to nearby properties and a hazard for persons with respiratory problems.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.2: The applicant shall incorporate dust control measures
recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in a Soils
Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan.
Finding: 7.2.2 Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7.2.2 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
EARTH
Impact 9.2.2: The site is covered with fill soil consisting of silt and clay with potentially
large pieces of waste slag. This material could be classified as a landfill material, and
may be underlain by Bay Mud. The fill could be unstable and settlement of structures or
other improvements could result.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.2: Conduct a geotechnical investigation of fill soils at each
proposed building location as the basis for foundation design and site grading and
preparation pursuant to East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEt-1, -2, -3, -5, and -6.
Finding 9.2.2: Implementation of mitigation measure 9.2.2 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.3: Potential for static or seismically-induced landslides: Landslides may
occur where there are zones of weak fill, numerous voids, or seepage of water within a
slope, causing damage to down-slope persons or property.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.3: Conduct the geotechnical investigation to determine the
stability of existing and proposed slopes and the stability of all proposed excavations.
Determine the potential for slope failure if seepage occurs and provide methods to
minimize seepage, where necessary. Recommend appropriate shoring systems. Comply
with East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEt-7 and GEt-8.
Finding 9.2.3: Implementation of mitigation measure 9.2.3 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.4: Potential for strong ground shaking, potential for strong ground
shaking, liquefaction, lateral spreading, and other seismic hazards. The site is in a
seismically active area, and strong ground shaking will be felt at the site. This shaking
could result in liquefaction, lateral spreading, or other seismic hazards.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.4: Conduct a geotechnical investigation to evaluate the
potential for seismic hazards to occur at the site, and mitigate any such hazards if they
exist. Incorporate geotechnical investigation findings into the design of structures in
accordance with the requirements of the 2001 Uniform Building Code. Comply with
East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEt-2, - 10, - 11, and -12.
Finding 9.2.4: Implementation of mitigation measure 9.2.4 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.5: Potential presence of expansive soil. The potential for shrinking and
swelling of expansive clay soils may cause differential movement or cracking and
structural damage to foundations. Expansive soils are typically corrosive to buried steel
in concrete or metal pipelines.
Mitigation Measures 9.2.5: Conduct a ge.technical investigation to determine if
expansive and/or corrosive soils are present beneath the site. Provide appropriate
mitigation measures, including but not limited to implementation of the 2001 Uniform
Building Code, to address potential hazards related to expansive or corrosive soils.
Comply with East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-2 and -12.
Finding 9.2.5: Implementation of mitigation measure 9.2.5 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.6: Potential presence of oversize slag in fill. Large pieces of slag in the fill
may interfere with foundation construction, excavation, or underground utility
installation. Off-site disposal of slag may be required.
Mitigation Measures 9.2.6: Conduct a ge. technical investigation to evaluate the
properties of the slag within the fill, and provide recommendations for foundation
construction, excavation, and utility installation that consider the potential presence of the
oversize material. Carry out East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-2 and GEO-6.
Finding 9.2.6: Implementation of mitigation measure 9.2.6 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 11.2.2: The Project could cause potential offsite storm drainage impacts.
The adjacent project, "Alexandria Center", was designed to accommodate runoff from
the proposed Project. If Project drainage lines were modified, one or more of the
Alexandria Center pipelines could be overloaded and potentially cause localized flooding
in the Center parking lots.
Mitigation Measure 11.2.2: Design the storm drainage system and grading plan to
accommodate runoff from both properties during a design storm event. Require the
project engineer to confirm that a system back-up would not create a hazard or cause
excessive damage on the Alexandria Center site.
Finding 11.2.2: Implementation of mitigation measure 11.2.2 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 12.2.2. Storm drainage could adversely affect the quality of water and bay
habitats. Runoff from construction and post construction areas could increase turbidity,
laden with sediments as well as oil, gasoline and lubricants from vehicles and
construction equipment and litter and dust that could degrade water quality and mudflats
in the bay. Summer irrigation is likely to contain such contaminants as heavy metals,
lawn-care chemicals, oils and greases and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) - all
of which can adverse downstream habitats.
Mitigation Measure 12.2.2:. Comply with the requirements of the San Francisco Bay
Basin Water Quality Control Plan, 1986, prepared by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The Basin Plan's related water quality objectives specify that the
presence or concentration of potentially deleterious constituents of surface water runoff
shall not cause a nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Comply with Chapter 11
and prepare an NPDES general construction permit from the State Water Quality Control
Board, and a City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Finding 12.2.2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 12.2.2 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 13.2.2: Potential to damage unknown cultural sites and artifacts during
Project construction. Excavation could potentially encounter and damage unknown
cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure 13.2.2: Upon contact with potential buried resources, a qualified
cultural resource consultant should evaluate the importance of the find, pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines. A mitigation plan and monitoring program should be prepared by a
qualified archaeologist if resources are uncovered. Work should be stopped and the
county coroner notified if human remains are found, and the native American Heritage
Commission should be contacted if the remains appear to be of Native American origin.
Finding 13.2.2: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 13.2.2 is feasible and required,
and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
UTILITIES
Impact 14.1.4: Water shortage within the California Water Service Company
service area. While there is currently sufficient water to supply the Project, cumulative
projects would use up the limited excess capacity and make it difficult for CWSC to meet
its long range demands. This is particularly so, if a significant number of R&D industries
that locate on the site have high process water demands.
Mitigation Measure 14.1.4: Request CWSC to provide the City with a demand
assessment and certification of water supply for the Project as well as for all approved
and probable future projects in the East of 101 Area. Incorporate water conservation
measures set forth in the City's General Plan and East o£ 101 Area Plan, pursuant to
California Assembly Bill 325, which requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and
drought-tolerant landscaping in new development. Encourage recycling water used in
R&D processes, whenever feasible.
Finding: 14.1.4: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.1.4 is feasible and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 14.2.5: Potential failure of aging wastewater collection facilities.
Development of the proposed Project would increase thc rate and volume of wastcwatcr
through the pumps and controls that have been identified as in need of replacement at
pumping station #4. This creates a potential for more serious wastcwater backups if
pumping station #4 experiences an operational failure.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.5: The City should complete the planned upgrade of Pump
Station ~4 as part of the phase 2 wet weather program. The Project would pay its fair
share of pump station improvement costs, as determined by the City Public Works
Department, as part of its sewer connection fee, in accordance with General Plan policies
for the equitable sharing of costs associated with upgrade and expansion of the sewer
collection system. The connection fee would also include a fair share payment for the
costs associated with the recent replacement of the Harbor Way sewer main, which was
initially funded by the Point Grand development on Harbor Way, Genentech, and the
Gateway Assessment District.
Finding 14.2.5: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.2.5 is feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 14.2.6: Potential capacity shortfall in existing wastewater collection facilities.
Increased wastewater flows from the Project site, in combination with flows from
existing and already approved new development in the Project vicinity, would be
expected to exceed the capacity of both pumping station #2 and the existing Oyster Point
Blvd. gravity sewer, between Eccles Avenue and Gateway Blvd.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.6: The Project should make a fair share contribution (based on
wastewater production rates) to the costs of pump replacement at pumping station #2 and
replacement of the Oyster Point gravity sewer. The City Engineer would calculate the
required contribution for each item of work, and determine which improvements must be
completed before the Project is occupied.
Finding 14.2.6: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.2.6 is required and feasible
and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 14.2.7: Cumulative impacts to the wastewater treatment and collection
systems. Neither thc design of the City's Water Quality Control Plant nor thc projections
contained in the East of 101 Area Plan fully account for thc high wastcwater production
rates associated with the projected square footage of R&D and high-
technology/biotechnology industries. If these types of development continue to bc
developed in the East of 101 Area, their higher-than-anticipated wastewater flows could
eventually result in a capacity shortfall at the WQCP that would constrain furore growth if
additional capacity is not provided in a timely manner.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.7: The City could include incentives to implement recycling
and/or pretreatment and, to encourage high volume dischargers to release process wastes
during off-peak periods (typically, nighttime).
Finding 14.2.7: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 14.2.7 is feasible and required,
and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Exhibit B to Resolution 24-2005
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental
risks in determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15093[a]). To approve the project, decision makers must make a
"statement of overriding considerations," setting forth reasons why the particular benefits of
a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effect. A decision-making agency's
determination must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record (State
CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]).
The City of South San Francisco has prepared and certified an FEIR for the proposed 333
Oyster Point Project that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts
of the Project in the South San Francisco area are considered significant and unavoidable,
based on the DEIR, FEIR, and the findings discussed previously in Exhibit A:
Impact 6.3.4: Traffic impacts to two CMP freeway segments. The
addition of traffic generated by approved development in the year 2005
Baseline without Project would contribute to more than one percent of traffic
to two segments of U.S. 101 that are projected to have traffic volumes that
exceed standard capacities. The Project would also cause traffic volumes to
exceed capacity on another freeway segment.
Mitigation Measure 6.3.4: The Final Environmental Impact Report, which
includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report, requires the Project to
implement an aggressive Transportation Demand Management Program
designed to achieve thirty five percent alternative mode use in the Project.
The TDM Plan shall contain all Required Measures and Additional Measures
contained in the City of South San Francisco's TDM Ordinance, South San
Francisco Municipal Code section 20.120. The Project applicant is subject to
penalties for non-compliance. Implementation and achievement of thirty five
percent alternative mode use would lessen the impact but not fully mitigate it
to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact remains significant and
unavoidable.
Impact 6.3.5: Decline in LOS Below "D" at one signalized intersection:
Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB Flyover
Off-Ramp
Mitigation Measure 6.3.5: The Project shall implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the proposed City of
South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Project developers shall also participate
in the funding of physical transportation improvements in the East of 101
Area, as approved by the City of South San Francisco. The Project shall
contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at the
intersection specifically impacted by Project traffic.
o
Impact 6.3.7: Decline in LOS below "D" at two signalized intersections
for year 2020+baseline plus Project traffic. Traffic generated by approved
and probable future projects plus the 333 Oyster Point Boulevard Project
would cause LOS to exceed standards at two signalized intersections:
Dubuque Avenue/ US 101 NB On-Ramp and Oyster Point Boulevard and
Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard/U.S. 101 NB Flyover Off-
Ramp.
Mitigation Measures 6.3.7: The Project shall implement a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with the proposed City of
South San Francisco TDM Ordinance. Project developers shall also participate
in the funding of physical transportation improvements in the East of 101
Area, as approved by the City of South San Francisco. The TDM measures
would be expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the level of service issues at
the study intersections.
Because of the Project's overriding benefits, the City is approving the Project despite the
above significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In deciding to approve the
Project, the City has considered both unavoidable and unmitigated significant environmental
impacts and, although the City believes that unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR
will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, the
City recognizes that approval of the Project will result in certain unavoidable and potentially
irreversible effects.
The City finds that, to the extent the adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above
have not been mitigated to a less than significant level, specific economic, social, legal,
environmental, technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh its significant effects
on the environment. The City finds that any and each of the following considerations, in and
of itself, is sufficient to approve the Project despite any one or more of the unavoidable
impacts identified, and that each of the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to
each of the impacts individually, and that each consideration is severable from any other
consideration should one consideration be shown to be legally insufficient for any reason.
The following benefits of the 333 Oyster Point Project outweigh the foregoing, unavoidable
environmental impacts and support approval of the Project:
Implementation of General Plan Goals and Policies. The Project implements the
City's vision to redevelop former industrial property into higher and more
economically sustainable uses. The existing site contains a vacant warehouse
formerly used by a trucking and storage business. Construction of the Project will
demolish the under-used facility and result in a total of approximately 315,444 gross
square feet of mixed office/research and development and biotechnology industries,
in three buildings. Redevelopment of the site will 1) facilitate construction of a
viable biotechnology research campus with fully landscaped pedestrian trails and
open space 2) make the site more aesthetically pleasing and 3) result in a higher and
better use of existing land within the East of 101 Area; and
Consistency with the General Plan: The South San Francisco General Plan,
adopted in 1999 and as amended thereafter, encourages biotechnology uses in the
East of 101 Plan Area. The proposed Project is a campus style research and
development/office project that implements the City's goals of revitalizing
underutilized properties and growing a highly educated work force; and
Employment Benefits: The Project would be a source of office/R&DPoiotechnical
industries in South San Francisco, generating jobs within 315,444 gross square feet of
office/R&D space; and
Campus Development: The Project site plans include generous open space areas,
and pedestrian plazas and paths inter-linking the buildings containing research and
development, offices and parking structures; and
5. Economic Benefits: The Project would increase property and other tax revenues from
the Project site to the City; and
Transportation Demand Management. Although the Project will create
unavoidable traffic impacts, the FEIR includes innovative mitigation measures to
reduce vehicular trips and air pollution. The measures take the form of a
"Transportation Demand Management" program which includes a broad range of
incentives for employees to fide-share, vanpool, fide BART, Caltrain, shuttles, and
other transit, ride bicycles, or work from home. The Program would be aggressively
managed on an ongoing and monitoring basis by "transportation coordinators" to
facilitate wide participation; and
Best Use of Existing Property. The Project would provide a beneficial mix of
office, R&D and biotechnical industries, redevelopment of a former warehouse site
and develop a project that is more aesthetically suitable for the surrounding uses and
will generate increased property and use taxes for the City which outweighs the
unavoidable environmental impacts.
The City Council therefore adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 333
Oyster Point Project. Additionally, because the City has previously made a Statement of
Overriding Considerations to approve the South San Francisco General Plan Update (Dyett &
Bhatia, June, 1999) which caused some of the same unavoidable impacts as the proposed
Project, that previous Statement of Overriding Considerations would support approval of this
Project. In particular, the General Plan EIR (Dyett & Bhatia, September, 1999) identified
measures to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101 but found that such impacts could
not be reduced to less than significant levels. The 333 Oyster Point Project would impact
some of the same freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose
traffic and air quality effects could only be partially mitigated. Therefore, the statement of
overriding considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan Update would also
apply to action on the 333 Oyster Point Project by the City and the findings related thereto
re-adopted to supplement the record for this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the
333 Oyster Point Project.