Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 11-01-12 (Reso 2725-2012) - Terrabay 2012 PC Reso with CEQA Addendum - Final1 RESOLUTION NO. 2725-2012 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2012 ADDENDUM TO THE 1996, 1998/99 AND 2005 SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS AND 2006 AND 2008 ADDENDA TO THOSE REPORTS, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE CENTENNIAL TOWERS PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Terrabay lands have an extensive planning history dating to the early 1980s; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted the 2008 Addendum which builds upon the certified 2005 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Reports (SEIRs) and 1982 Environmental Impact Report, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for Terrabay Phase III by Resolution 88-2008, all of which remain in effect; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of South San Francisco, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted the 2006 Addendum and certified the 2005 SEIR, which builds upon the certified 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 Environmental Impact Report, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for Terrabay Phase III by Resolution 81-2006, all of which remain in effect; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the 2008 Plan Amendment to the 2008 Final Terrabay Specific Plan, in October of 2006 by Resolution 88-2009; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved the 2006 Plan Amendment to the 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan, in October of 2006 by Resolution 82-2006; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to adoption of the 2006 Addendum and certification of the 2005 SEIR, for those impacts of the 2006 Plan Amendment and Final Terrabay Specific Plan that would remain significant and unavoidable, the City adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, included as Exhibit B to this resolution and incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the applicant now requests an amendment to the 2012 Final Terrabay Specific Plan and Precise Plan to allow a Terrabay permitted retail as a support use to the office component on the second floor of the South Tower where the day care center was programmed and approved, and payment of a child care impact fee of approximately $410,000 (“2012 Project”); and, WHEREAS, environmental analysis was conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, included as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated by reference, to determine if 2 additional environmental review was required for the 2012 Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the analysis, the City determined that the potentially significant effects of the 2012 Project were adequately addressed in the previous CEQA documents, including the 2000, 2006 and 2008 Addenda, the 2005 SEIR, the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures applicable to the project and project site; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the 2012 Project, as no substantial changes have been proposed to the project or the conditions under which the project will be carried out that require major revisions to the previous EIRs. No new significant environmental impacts have been identified and no substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts has been discovered. The project remains subject to all previously adopted mitigation measures, as applicable; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an Addendum, included as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated by reference (“2012 Addendum”), was prepared for the 2012 Project, which identifies the project changes and their relationship to the analysis in the previous Addenda, SEIRs, and EIR; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on November 1, 2012, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the 2012 Project including the environmental findings, as well as supporting documents, prior to making a recommendation on the 2012 Project; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated November 1, 2012, was submitted to the Planning Commission analyzing the 2012 Project and recommending approval of the 2012 Addendum and the project applications; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission exercised its independent judgment and analysis, and considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action on the 2012 Addendum and the 2012 Project. NOW THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, (1) the South San Francisco General Plan, and General Plan Environmental Impact Report; (2) The Final Terrabay Specific Plan, as amended in 2000, 2006, 2008 and proposed amendment in 2012; (3) The 2005 Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2000, 2006 and 2008 Addenda and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, 1998-99 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which includes the 1982 Certified Terrabay Environmental Impact Report, the Certified 1996 Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addendum to the 1998-1999 Certified Terrabay Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; (4) All public hearings on the project, including minutes and reports prepared for such hearings, the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco, does hereby RESOLVE as follows: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution. 1. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed 2012 Project will not result in any of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 by permitting a retail use on 3 the second floor of the South Tower as defined herein. 2. Retail use in approximately 5,800 square feet of floor area on the second floor of the South Tower will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those identified and analyzed in the 2000, 2006 and 2008 Addenda and 2005 SEIR, which build upon the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR. Nor is there in any new information of substantial importance that demonstrates new or substantially more severe significant effects, as compared to those identified in the prior CEQA documents. Nor are any new or additional mitigation measures required to mitigate any impacts of the 2012 Project. 3. The Planning Commission finds that some of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would apply to the 2012 Project, but as detailed in the Statement, the benefits of the project continue to outweigh the adverse impacts. 4. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that CEQA Guidelines section 15162 does not require any further CEQA review, and that an addendum, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, is the appropriate environmental document for approval of the 2012 Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby: 1. Recommend that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopt the 2012 Addendum, including the related Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as described in Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, as described in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. * * * * * * * 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 1st day of November, 2012 by the following vote: Ayes: Chairperson Zemke, Vice-Chairperson Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Gupta, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Prouty and Commissioner Sim Noes: Abstain: Absent: Attest:/s/Susy Kalkin Susy Kalkin Secretary to the Planning Commission 4 EXHIBIT A 2012 ADDENDUM BACKGROUND 1982-2012 Planning for the Terrabay project began in the early 1980’s encompassing a three phased development on the east and southeast slopes of San Bruno Mountain fronted by Airport and Sister Cities Boulevards. An environmental impact report (EIR) for the project was certified by the City in 19821. The Terrabay Zoning District (Chapter 20.240 South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)-Zoning) was also created in 1982 accompanied by both a specific and precise plan. Residential, retail commercial, commercial office, open space, habitat preservation and recreation are the permitted land uses. Various modifications and refinements to the original land use plan have been requested and conditionally approved since 1982. Three supplemental environmental impact reports (SEIRs) were prepared and certified in 1996, 1998/99 and 2005. Three addenda to the environmental documents have been prepared and adopted in 2000, 2006 and 2008. The approved project (2008 Project) consists of office and retail development in two towers, a shared use performing arts facility, child care center, structured and surface parking and a Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM Program) as shown in Table 1, below. TABLE 1 2008 APPROVED TERRABAY PROJECT Gross Square Feet SOUTH TOWER Office 313,002 Commercial 11,544 Child Care 5,794 Performing Arts 4,433 Sub Total 334,773 Parking 962 spaces NORTH TOWER Office 352,026 Commercial 12,465 Product Design Studio 15,007 Sub Total 379,486 Parking 990 spaces TOTALS Office 665,028 Commercial 24,009 Child Care 5,794 Performing Arts 4,433 Product Design Studio 15,007 Total 714,271 Total Parking 1,952 spaces 1 San Mateo County Board of Supervisors also certified the EIR as the 1982 project involved annexation of land into the City of South San Francisco. 5 2012 AMENDMENT (2012 PROJECT) Myers Development Company (“Sponsor”) is requesting an amendment to the Terrabay Phases II and III Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Precise Plan, Planning Conditions of Approval #21 and #22 to release the obligation to provide a child care facility within the 2012 Project and allow for fitness center or other retail use permitted by the Final Terrabay Phases II and III Specific Plan in its place. The space for the childcare center is located on the second floor of the South Tower as shown on the drawings in Attachment A. The area consists of 5,794 square feet of interior space and 7,502 square feet of exterior space. The interior and exterior shell for the facility was constructed in 2009 and tenant improvements would have ensued upon a majority of the building being leased and securing a day care provider. Sunlight and shadow studies were conducted in 2006 to identify and develop the optimum area on the site for the outdoor play area (see Figure 27, Terrabay Specific Plan). The outdoor area is surrounded by 42 inch high plaster wall and is largely void of the winds associated with San Bruno Mountain. Prevailing winds are west to east and the mountain and Phase II parking structure shields the outdoor area from excessive wind. Sponsor is seeking permission to utilize the space as a fitness center; a permitted retail use within the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District provided the center is “…associated with the office use as an office-worker support use and a TDM measure” (SSFMC 20.240.003.B.4). Sponsor is also seeking approvals to lease the space in the future to other Terrabay permitted retail uses. The center is proposed to be open to building occupants (the Centennial Towers project as a whole) and to the general public on a membership basis. The center is programmed to include cardio equipment, free weights, a lounge area and a studio for group exercise and yoga classes. The outdoor area is proposed to be improved as a public seating area for building tenants and members of the fitness center. TDM Program The proposed change of use requires a modification to the TDM Program. The child care center is identified in the Terrabay Specific Plan as an amenity to the development on the whole one that, “will favourably affect the trip-generation potential of the Terrabay project…trip-generation and traffic counts will be reduced given the elimination of the need to venture off site…” (page 1-48, Terrabay Specific Plan). Trip reduction associated with an on-site day care center was also included in the environmental analyses for the project since its inception in 2000. A TDM Program for the project was approved the City in October, 2006 and C/CAG in September, 2008. The 2012 TDM Program targets a 32 percent mode shift. The 2008 Project is required to mitigate 982 peak period trips (2006 Addendum, Attachment A Crane Transportation Group). The approved TDM Program mitigates 1,084 trips, 102 in excess of the C/CAG requirement. The day care center accounts for 100 points in the trip reduction calculations and without the center the trip reduction points would be reduced to two over that required by C/CAG, in absence of modifying the program. The stated purpose of the City’s TDM Program requirement is to reduce and mitigate traffic associated with nonresidential development, protect the public health and safety, reduce drive-alone commute trips and provide for monitoring and enforcement of the programs to ensure the targeted mode shift (SSFMC 20.400.001 A-E). There are additional benefits associated with a robust TDM Program which include a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), less overall degradation of air quality and potentially less noise impacts. For these reasons an adjustment to the TDM Program is being 6 considered to recapture the loss of the trip reduction afforded by the child care center. SuccessFactors would occupy three floors of the South Tower and iCIX currently occupies one floor constituting approximately 38 percent of the leasable office area2. High tech firms actively recruit employees that are the best in their field and offer incentive packages beyond those envisioned in the C/CAG TDM Guidelines3 which are criteria from which points are assigned. These incentive packages also improve the ability of the program to obtain the 30 percent mode shift required by the City. The following measures are standard incentives that are included in the proposed modification to the TDM Program (see Attachment B): ➢ Augmented subsidies for the existing shuttle service that connects Centennial Towers with South San Francisco Bart and Caltrain and expand the service to include the South San Francisco ferry. SuccessFactors will have a shuttle that picks up employees in Berkeley and Oakland in the morning and drop off in the afternoon and evening. ➢ Employers give incentives to employees for carpooling by giving carpoolers either cash or vouchers. ➢ Employers pay for a computer, printer, chair and phone to employees working from home. ➢ Approximately 30 percent of employees work from home two days a week. Telecommuting is encouraged. ➢ Employers encourage and promote working flex hours. Approximately 10 percent work from 6AM-3PM, 60 percent work from 8AM-6PM and 30 percent work from 10AM -7PM. ➢ Approximately 30 percent of employees take public transportation to work and the goal is to increase this number. ➢ Employers use video conferencing and “Go To Meeting” technology4. The trip credits would total 1,555 representing increase of 471 over the 2008 TDM Program. The increase is mainly due to tenants in the building giving their employees flexibility and opportunity to work from home and flexibility in staggering work schedules. Technology has also played a vital role in reducing trips. Many employers now use technology such as “Go To Meeting” and video conferencing in their daily routine and employers estimate that face-to-face meetings (i.e., getting into a car and driving to another location) has been reduced by at least 20 percent. There is a positive correlation between the use of technology in the workplace and trip reduction. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The 2012 Project involves a change of use from day care to fitness center or other permitted retail use. No additional square footage is proposed. The day care center was targeted in the 2008 Project as a public and private amenity, and one that would reduce vehicle trips. The change in use requires CEQA review in particular with respect to traffic and circulation and GHG issues. The following analysis uses the 2008 Addendum as baseline for 2012 Project impacts and mitigation measures. The 2008 Addendum is an accurate reflection of the project layout and permitted uses. The 2012 Project is evaluated in light of the analysis from 2008, which as noted builds from the 1996, 2 The South Tower is 12 stories. Rentable office area consists of 10.5 floors as the ground floor does not include office area and the half of the second floor is the subject of this amendment and is not permitted to be office but an amenity to the project and the community. 3 C/CAG TDM Guidelines provide a point system earned for various mode-shift measures. The Guidelines were last amended in 2004. 4 “go-to” meetings are computer application(s) that allow virtual face-to-face meetings. 7 1998/99 and 2005 SEIRs and the 2000 and 2006 addenda. The analysis includes the environmental topics identified in Appendix G, CEQA Guidelines. Analysis The 2012 Project would have no impact on aesthetics, agriculture and forest resources, air quality, GHG, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, human health risks, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic and utilities and service systems. Following are the findings that support this statement. Aesthetics The 2012 Project would not alter the approved land use plan with respect to the built environment. The 2012 Project would not introduce additional lighting beyond that envisioned in 2008. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Agriculture and Forest Resources There are no agricultural or forest resources on the Project site. There are no impacts to agricultural resources and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality The 2012 Project would not increase the amount of criteria air pollutants from those identified in the 2008 Addendum. Ozone and PM10 would remain a Significant and Unavoidable Impact as identified and analyzed in the 1998/99 SEIR, the 2005 SEIR and the 2006 and 2008 Addenda. The 2012 Project would not increase the severity of this impact; nonetheless, the 2012 Project will restate and re-adopt the Findings of Overriding Considerations for the following impact: ➢ Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. The 2012 Project is not anticipated to increase trips to the site and would through the revised TDM Program, mitigate 1,555 trips or 573 over 982 required by C/CAG (see the Traffic and Circulation section below). Annual monitoring and amendments to the TDM Program, if needed, is a requirement of Planning Condition of Approval #A-13 and City ordinance. Therefore this relationship to trip reduction can be reasonably assured. Greenhouse Gas The 2012 Project would not increase the amount of GHG from that calculated for the 2008 Project. GHG impacts would remain less than significant. Moreover, the TDM Program could result in a reduction of GHG from that analyzed in 2008 largely due to technological advances in telecommuting identified in the discussion of the TDM Program. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Biological Resources The 2012 Project would not affect biological resources. Wetlands on the Phase III site have been preserved and enhanced and Callippee Silverspot butterfly habitat has been preserved as part of the original 2000 Project which is carried over an implemented into the current as-built conditions. The requisite United States Army Corp of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game permits have been secured and the wetlands restoration is underway and being monitored by the City. No new 8 or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project as the change in use would not affect biological resources. Cultural and Historic Resources The 2012 Project would not affect cultural or historic resources. The proposed change of use would be located on the second floor of the South Tower and would not result in any new site disturbance. Site grading was monitored by Holman and Associates, Archaeologists as required by the 1998/99 SEIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). No archaeological or historic remnants were found. No burials or artifacts were discovered. Grading and development in archaeological sensitive areas was completely avoided. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Geology and Soils The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to geology and soils. The 2012 Project is a change of use in an area already constructed. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Hazards The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hazards. The change of use would not expose project occupants or people surrounding the site to hazardous or toxic substances. The proposed use would not introduce a hazardous use on the site. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Hydrology and Water Quality The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to hydrology. The City evaluated storm water/waste water capacity in 2008 and determined adequate capacity does exist in the existing infrastructure for the Project and cumulative development. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Land Use The 2012 Project would require text and diagram amendments to the Terrabay Specific and Precise Plans. The Project is consistent with the Terrabay Specific Plan Zoning District and the City’s General Plan. There is no land use impact associated with the 2012 Project. Mineral Resources There are no mineral resources on the Project site and no mineral resource impacts associated with the 2012 Project. Noise The 2012 Project would not increase traffic to the Project site which would not result in any new or increased impacts. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Population and Housing The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to population and housing. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Public Services and Recreation The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to public services. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. No impacts associated with parks and open space would be required. The Project constructed the Terrabay Recreation Center, 9 Fire Station and dedicated 400 acres of open space and recreational land including the Preservation Parcel (26 acres), the Recreation Parcel (6.3 acres) and Juncus Ravine and remaining parcels (400 acres). The 2012 Project proposed a fitness center, or other approved retail and contiguous outdoor space for passive outdoor enjoyment. The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to recreation and open space. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2008 Project. Traffic and Transportation The proposed change in use, from day care to a 5,794 square foot fitness center or high quality retail5 would generate similar vehicle trips and both uses would largely serve the Project. A 5,794 square foot fitness center is considered small and not a traffic generator (ITE, 8th Edition, and Mark Crane, Crane Transportation Group, October 1, 2012). The Institute of Traffic Engineers samples traffic data from larger facilities ranging from 15,000 to 65,000 square feet that include swimming pools and hand-and racket-ball courts, more destination bound facilities. The definition of retail use for Terrabay includes high end retail and specialty services largely to serve the office component (see footnote 5). Traffic impacts associated with the project as a whole do analyze approximately 30,000 square feet of destination bound retail. Much of the traffic associated with the retail use is anticipated to be internal capture, not destination bound, with the exception of a high quality restaurant with a demand largely off peak. The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to Transportation and Circulation (Mark Crane, Crane Transportation Group, October 1, 2012). No significant new or additional mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. Nonetheless, the 2012 Project will restate and re-adopt the Findings of Overriding Considerations for three significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR. ➢ Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. ➢ Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. ➢ Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. Utilities and Service Systems The 2012 Project would not result in any new or increased impacts with respect to utilities and service systems. No new or increased mitigation measures would be required for the 2012 Project. 5 High quality commercial and restaurant uses recognized nationally by their name are permitted commercial retail uses on the Phase III Commercial site. Businesses such as Baja Fresh, Starbucks, Peets Coffee and Tea, The Cheesecake Factory, Gordon Biersch, Jamba Juice, Pasta Pomodoro, Wolfgang Puck, Kulettos and Il Fornaio are higher end well-performing businesses appropriate for the Phase III site. Specialty services such as computer stores, office supply, bookstore stores, retail dry cleaner outlets, shoe repair, florists, specialty high-end grocery and/or deli uses, sundry shops, boutiques and similar uses are permitted support uses. These types of retailers or their equivalent are permitted. Significant deviations from these types of retail uses, as determined by the chief planner, may not be permitted or may require a conditional use permit. 10 2012 ADDENDUM 1991112.1 Lead agencies are required to evaluate impacts to the extent feasible, and in doing so are governed by the “rule of reason”, thereby evaluating potential impacts to the extent that it is reasonably feasible to do so (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15151). Determinations must be supported by “substantial evidence”, facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts and expert opinions predicated on facts rather than speculation or argument (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15384(a), Public Resources Code Section 21080(c)). Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might be reached”. Additionally, lead agencies may determine that an impact is too speculative. Therefore the lead agency is not required to analyze a speculative impact so long as it has conducted a thorough investigation before concluding that the impact is too speculative for further analysis. CEQA states that “if, after thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation; the agency should note its conclusion and terminate the discussion of the impact” (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Section 15145). Addenda to Environmental Documents When considering changes in a Project, and therefore changes or additions to a previously certified or adopted environmental document, the lead agency is required to evaluate if any of the following noted below has occurred pursuant to Section 15162, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3. An addendum may be prepared if none of the following have been triggered. An addendum does not require recirculation or public review. 1. Substantial changes are proposed in a project that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which a project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 3. New information of substantial importance becomes available and was not known at the time of the previous EIR that would result in one or more significant effects not identified previously, significant effects that would be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR, mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not feasible or considerably different from ones identified before and would substantially reduce the effects of the project are declined by the project applicant. CONCLUSION The 2012 Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts as compared to those identified in the 1996 and 1998/99 and 2005 SEIRs and the 2000, 2006 and 2008 Addenda. Significant and unavoidable impacts were identified, analyzed, and mitigated to the extent feasible. The 2012 Project would not increase the severity of any of those impacts. No new impacts are identified. Nonetheless, Findings of Overriding Considerations will be re-adopted for the four significant unavoidable impacts adopted by the City Council in 1999, 2000, 2006 and 2008 relating to air quality and traffic. The impacts are: ➢ Impact 4.5.2 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Long Term Air Quality. 11 ➢ Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. ➢ Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts. ➢ Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The Adopted 2006 MMRP (City Council Resolution # 82-2006) contains all the mitigation measures required of the Terrabay Phase III Project, including the 2008 and 2012 Projects. Attachments: A Site Plan B. 2012 TDM Program ATTACHMENT A SITE PLAN 12 ATTACHMENT B TO THE CEQA ADDENDUM –TDM PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PROGRAM FOR TERRABAY PHASE III (CENTENNIAL TOWERS) IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2012 MODIFICATION – October 8, 2012 The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for Terrabay Phase III includes on-site transportation coordination, expanded transit, improved bicycling and pedestrian facilities, coordination with the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance programs, incorporation of City conditions of approval and mitigation measures and support services designed to achieve a minimum 32% alternative use, as required by the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.400. Specifically there will be: 1. An on-site Transportation Coordinator who will oversee the TDM Program and perform audits, facilitate ridesharing matching, maintain and update bulletin board and kiosk for transit services, sponsor promotional programs; 2. Financial incentives for using transit that entail either expanded SamTrans services in combination with a Commuter Check Program or Private Shuttle with service to Caltrain, BART and adjacent Terrabay neighborhoods; 3. Integrated bicycle parking and support facilities to reduce trips within the Terrabay area; 4. Reduced supply of parking to discourage driving and preferential, designated and free parking for vanpool and carpool parking spaces; 5. Emergency Ride Home program; 6. Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options that allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite; 7. Project design that promotes walking and pathway connections to nearby neighborhoods; 8. Annual City Monitoring and Program Update to assure program success in achieving the required 32% alternative mode use goal, and amendment as necessary to meet that goal; 9. Traffic and circulation monitoring at full project buildout and occupancy as required by Traffic Mitigation 3.1-11 of the 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum and installation of an internal traffic light if needed; 10. Program Goals; and, 11. The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Project Guidelines. 13 The following is a detailed explanation of each of the strategies listed, including the projected trip reduction where a trip reduction will result from a particular strategy. 1. Transportation Coordinator A part-time on-site Transportation Coordinator will be provided in Terrabay Phase III project and will coordinate the transportation programs and provide information and marketing materials to employees at Terrabay Phase III. The Transportation Coordinator will have a small office in the project and may be an employee of the building property management organization. The office will include an area sufficient to display copies of transportation services and schedules, a bulletin board, a desk, a computer and a telephone. The use may be a shared facility such as in the lobby of a building, or a portion of the property management office. The office will be staffed at a minimum of ten (10) hours per week. (One (1) C/CAG credit is given for each hour the center is staffed.) C/CAG Points: 10 (for the number of hours the office is staffed) Multiple tenants occupy Terrabay Phase III. Lessee/tenant fees will offset the cost of the Transportation Coordinator service. Each lessee/tenant will be required to designate an employee to serve as a point of contact for the Transportation Coordinator. Each lessee/tenant will cooperate with the Transportation Coordinator to share information about their employees that will be useful to TDM programming (e.g. employee home zip codes and/or cross-streets). Compliance will be required through the lease agreements for office and commercial tenants. The City will be provided a standardized lease agreement for review and approval as to the form only for the implementation of this TDM Program. The Transportation Coordinator’s marketing efforts will include at a minimum the following features: A. Coordination with the services of The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (“Alliance”). (Ten (10) C/CAG credits are given for working with the Alliance to develop/implement a Transportation Action Plan.) The Transportation Coordinator will assure the availability of the following services of the Alliance (or equivalent services from successor or comparable organizations): C/CAG Points: 10 (for working with the Alliance) i. A web portal with descriptions of all TDM Programs, program forms, links to the regional rideshare agency’s on-line ride matching system, transit/shuttle schedule information, and links to transit providers. ii. “Stock” materials (i.e. materials prepared by other agencies) that will be provided to the tenants of Terrabay Phase III. The Terrabay Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for distributing them to employees. iii. Customized materials that explain the TDM Program at Terrabay Phase III. The Terrabay Transportation Coordinator will distribute the materials to Terrabay tenants who will in turn be responsible for distributing them to employees on an on-going 14 basis as well as at new employee orientations. iv. An annual transportation event, such as a transportation information fair or piggy- back on a regional transportation event sponsored by the Regional Rideshare Program or orchestrate an annual transportation fair coordinated through the Alliance (or its successor organization). v. A quarterly on-line newsletter which provides rideshare information. The Transportation Coordinator will assure that the newsletter is available to Phase III tenants, employees. B. The Transportation Coordinator will hold an annual carpool registration drive to get names into the rideshare matching database. C. The Transportation Coordinator will maintain a permanent information board or kiosk that displays information pertaining to transit and rideshare services, bicycle programs and facilities, and other relevant programs or services. The center will have at least five (5) features in the center that may include the following; a computer kiosk, brochure rack, telephone with transit information numbers, on-site transit ticket sales; and carpool / vanpool assistance. (One (1) C/CAG credit is given for each transit feature offered to tenants.) C/CAG Points: 5 (for each transit feature offered) D. The Transportation Coordinator will be responsible for and required to conduct annual audits of the tenants of Terrabay Phase III to insure that rideshare information and matching services are being provided to employees and tenants of Terrabay Phase III. All required audits will be submitted to the City Coordinator on an annual basis. E. The Transportation Coordinator will conduct annual transportation surveys (within a 95% confidence level) to identify the travel needs of the occupants of Terrabay Phase III, address the opinions of the transit service, and to document the effectiveness of the overall TDM plan in meeting the required 32% alternative mode use. These surveys and reports shall be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council through a City Coordinator who will be a designated contact at the City of South San Francisco. (Three (3) C/CAG credits are given for a survey developed to survey employees to examine use and best practices) C/CAG Points: 3 (to conduct annual survey) F. Centennial Towers is a member of the Alliance and will work to update and enhance transportation options for the Project. C/CAG Points: 5 (to participate in a TMA) 2. Financial Incentives for Using Transit Employees of Terrabay Phase III will be provided convenient access to transit and will receive a transit subsidy of at least $20 per month for one year. Programs like Commuter Check (www.commutercheck.com and www.commutercheckdirect.com) not only increase employee awareness 15 of transit options but also offer tax savings. Up to $110 a month ($1,320 a year) can be provided tax-free for transit and vanpools. Due to the tax savings, employees can save over $500 in annual commuting costs, while employers save approximately $96 per year per employee. Leases will be structured so that tenants will be required to implement this TDM measure necessary to meet the City’s TDM goal. This may include tenant/employer funded transit subsidies. A minimum of 125 employees (5% of the employee population) will be required to receive transit subsidy. The leases shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved as to form with respect to the requirements to the TDM Program. (One (1) C/CAG credit is given for each transit pass subsidy of at least $20 per month for one year) C/CAG Points: 125 (for providing a subsided transit) Transit and shuttle stops are secure and easily accessible to all tenants and employees. There is a designated bus stop on Southbound Airport Boulevard which is connected to the project via a sidewalk ramp. There will also be a designated shuttle stop inside the boundaries of the project to service both buildings. The expanded shuttle service and possible subsidy will begin with the “Primary Plan” identified below. An “Alternate Plan”, described below, may be substituted for the Primary Plan. The Alternate Plan shall not be implemented without verification by the City Coordinator that parameters outlined below (or substantially equivalent parameters) are being met. Primary Plan Required at Onset of Occupancy: A private shuttle will be provided. The shuttle program will be funded by tenant/employer subscriptions. The shuttle will be available to employees and visitors of the Terrabay Phase III development (with no additional usage charge) and would provide a direct connection to Caltrain and BART with frequent morning and evening peak hour service (30-minute headways). (One (1) C/CAG credit is given for each peak-hour seat on the shuttle). C/CAG Points: 24 (for providing shuttle service) Alternate Plan Based Upon SamTrans Bus Schedules and Services: The Alternate Plan would be for SamTrans to directly serve the site with its regular service and for the tenants of the Terrabay Phase III development to offer Commuter Checks to employees. Commuter Checks are vouchers that would be used to purchase transit passes from any transit agency. Such subsidy would provide employees at Terrabay Phase III with savings in the purchase of SamTrans monthly passes. The site is served by regional buses traveling along Airport Boulevard between the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco and points as far south as the Stanford Shopping Center. SamTrans Route 292 provides half-hourly service on Airport Boulevard connecting to downtown San Francisco, the South San Francisco Caltrain Station, and the San Francisco International Airport. SamTrans Route 297/397 provides one-hour headways connecting to downtown San Francisco, San Francisco International Airport and various Caltrain stations. SamTrans Routes 130 and 132 provide 10 to 15-minute headways (combination of both routes to the Airport Boulevard/Linden Avenue stop) local service within South San Francisco and connect to the South San Francisco BART Station. These routes could better serve the Terrabay Phase III development if a stop in front of the project (route traveling Southbound on Airport Blvd) was added. If possible, this service change should be negotiated with SamTrans upon project approval. 16 The Transportation Coordinator will administer the expanded transit program. Funding for the Primary Plan would be an employer-funded monthly subsidy to employees who ride transit three or more days per week. The employer-based subsidy (as described above) will be required as a part of any sale or leasing agreement in the commercial portion of the project. The transit subsidy would be provided as needed, to meet the City’s TDM goal per the TDM Ordinance. The Transportation Coordinator will administer any private shuttle to the Terrabay Phase III development. The shuttle would be funded through the same employer fees described above, however, under this Plan, the collected fees would be used to fund a private shuttle and, thus, might reduce the funding to provide Commuter Checks. Current employers (tenants) in the building (2012) have implemented transportation incentives for its employees including a program to provide cash or incentives for carpooling or vanpooling. It is assumed that at least ten (10) employees will opt for carpooling or vanpooling in the building population and free up 10 parking spaces. C/CAG Points: 10 (for providing a cash-out program) 3. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities To encourage bicycle commuting, Terrabay Phase III will offer the following: A. Terrabay Phase III is designed to foster a pedestrian-friendly environment, including generous sidewalk areas, attractive pedestrian plazas with seating areas and urban streetscape environments. There are sidewalks and pathways that directly connect the project to Airport Boulevard. There is also a walkway to a lookout and seating area that overlooks the project and the bay. B. The development provides covered and enclosed bicycle parking (a minimum of 40 bicycle racks as shown on the drawings) to accommodate 1.5% of the employee population commuting by bicycle. Bicycle parking conforms with the City’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section 20.400 Municipal Code) and is located in a controlled area, monitored by security cameras within the garage and is within 100 feet of the security guard in the loading dock area. (One (1) C/CAG credit is given for every 3 bicycle rack spaces) C/CAG Points: 13 (for providing bicycle racks) C. The South Tower (Phase I) of the development includes two (2) showers, four (4) toilets, four (4) lavatories and an adjoining changing facility for men, as well as three (3) showers, four (4) toilets) and four (4) lavatories and an adjoining changing facility for women. Showers and changing facilities shall be provided free of charge to the user. The entry doors to the changing facilities shall be located within 100 feet of an attendant or security guard station. (Ten (10) C/CAG credits are given for each shower and changing room). Five (5) additional C/CAG credits for each 5 bicycle racks are given if bicycle racks are available in combination with showers). C/CAG Points: 50 (for providing showers) C/CAG Points: 40 (for providing combination of bicycle racks and showers) D. The development provides the required minimum of 27 clothing lockers (One (1) clothing locker per 25,000 square feet of commercial building space - at least 13 clothing lockers for Phase I and the balance of 14 lockers added for Phase II). Per the drawings, all 38 lockers are located in the South Tower (Phase 1). The 38 lockers are equally dispersed between the 17 men’s and women’s changing facilities, at 20 and 18 respectively. Lockers are large enough to hold roller blades. 4. Parking Strategies The ground floor components of the project will employ shared parking concepts to reduce the total supply of on-site parking. Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools shall be provided where applicable. Approximately six percent of the parking spaces will be reserved for rideshare vehicles (100 carpool spaces and 5 vanpool space) and will be located in close proximity to favorable and secure access points. (Two (2) C/CAG credits are given for each carpool parking space and ten (10) C/CAG credits are given for each vanpool parking space that is in connection with the ERH Program). C/CAG Points: 5 (for providing shared parking concepts to reduce parking supply of on-site parking) C/CAG Points: 200 (for providing preferential carpool spaces) C/CAG Points: 50 (for providing preferential vanpool spaces) Marketing efforts by the Transportation Coordinator will target all site employees, regardless of their origins. Marketing efforts alone can increase the number of employees using transportation alternatives about one percent (1%). They also enhance the effectiveness of other measures. This enhancement becomes apparent when the remaining strategies in this plan achieve their high-end trip reduction estimates. Tenant-specific vanpool programs shall be implemented for employees that live in the East Bay. At least three (3) vanpools will be provided that shuttle employees from the East Bay to South San Francisco running at peak hours in the morning hours from 7:30 – 9:30am and in the afternoon hours running from 4:00 – 6:00pm. These vanpools will be coordinated with the Transportation Coordinator. C/CAG Points: 21 (for providing vanpools) Tenants have multiple job sites and are encouraged to work among sites and office-share. One (1) credit is given for each opportunity created to use multiple office sites. It is estimated that at least 100 opportunities are created for tenants that have multiple offices. C/CAG Points: 100 (for providing opportunities to work at multiple sites) 5. Emergency Ride Home The Transportation Coordinator will work with the Alliance to register tenants for the Emergency Ride Home Program (ERH). The registered tenants will accept a quantity of ERH vouchers equal to at least 8% of the total employee population (a minimum of 200 ERH vouchers). The program reassures those commuters who do not drive alone have timely and paid transportation – usually in the form of a free taxi ride – to leave work in the event of a personal or family emergency, illness and related doctor appointments, or unexpected employment-related delay, such as unscheduled overtime. The purpose of this program is to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation to work by removing the barrier of not having access to transportation in the event of an emergency. These types of programs have been identified as the number one incentive for employees to rideshare. (Two (2) C/CAG credits are given for every 2 ERH vouchers distributed to the tenants from the Alliance. One (1) additional C/CAG credit for each peak-hour seat will be given if a shuttle is available in addition to the Emergency Ride Home Program). C/CAG Points: 200 (for enrolling in the Emergency Ride Home Program) C/CAG Points: 24 (for combination of the Emergency Ride Home Program and shuttle 18 service) 6. Promotion of flextime, telecommuting and similar options The tenants will offer their employees the option of flextime, staggered work hours, telecommuting or similar options that will allow employees to fulfill their work requirements, but reduce the amount of vehicle trips to the worksite. At least 50% of the employee population (a minimum of 500 employees) will be given these opportunities. (One (1) C/CAG credit is given for each employee offered flextime and / or staggered work hours) C/CAG Points: 500 (for offering employees flextime, telecommuting and similar options) Tenants also provide incentives for employees to work from home. Employers have gone beyond providing employees with connecting high bandwidth connections in homes (as now most home connections are high-bandwidth) to providing computers, printers, phone line and furniture (ergonomic chairs, etc.). At least 300 employees work from home every week. C/CAG Points: 100 (for providing high bandwidth and other incentives to work at home) The building and its tenants provide video conferencing centers and video capabilities to lessen vehicles trips to sites for face-to-face meetings. Three (3) video conferencing capabilities now serve the building and it is anticipated that there will be a total of six (6) when the building is fully leased. In addition to video conferencing, tenants and their employees use web-based programs to host remote web-based meetings such as GoTo Meeting and Skype. It is estimated that the use of this technology reduces vehicles trips for face-to-face meetings by approximately 20%. C/CAG Points: 30 (for providing video conferencing capabilities) 7. Site Plan Connectivity The Site plan promotes walking and pathway connections to public transit. The Terrabay Phase III site plan includes internal walkways and walkways around the perimeter of the project. The internal walkways lead pedestrians to open space amenities and retail services. The combination of internal and external walkways leads pedestrians to a SamTrans bus stop directly in front of Terrabay Phase III on Airport Boulevard. The onsite amenities will include a restaurant, child care center, an ATM machine, performing arts center and most likely a dry cleaner, gym facility and other service related retail that will facilitate reductions in vehicle use. (Five (5) C/CAG credits are given for each onsite amenities / accommodation). C/CAG Points: 25 (for providing at least 5 onsite amenities) 8. Annual City Monitoring and Program Update The City will review the annual traffic data and surveys provided by the Transportation Coordinator. The TDM Program will be modified as necessary to become and remain effective in meeting the needs of the Terrabay Phase III project while continuing to meet the required 32% minimum alternative mode usage. This monitoring program shall be consistent with the methods and features that are described in Section 1 of this TDM program. 9. Traffic Circulation Monitoring (Mitigation 3.1-11 of 2005 SEIR) and 2006 Addendum The project will have an on-site circulation management program that will include signage for each driveway that will provide “real time” parking use information for entering drivers to quickly guide them to those levels of the parking garage with the most available parking. All levels of the garage will be well lighted and have visible security camera and patrol coverage to encourage drivers that all levels of the garage are equally desirable for parking. Signing will also be provided for exiting drivers to guide them 19 to most convenient driveway connection to Airport Boulevard. 10. Additional Elements This TDM Program combines 17 different C/CAG components in order to most effectively reach the City’s TDM goals and reduce the number of peak hour employee trips. (Five (5) additional C/CAG credits are given for this TDM program combining any ten TDM components.) C/CAG Points: 5 (for combining at least ten (10) TDM components) The TDM Program shall be memorialized in all tenant lease or sale agreements. 11. Program Goals Carpools 15% 375 Shuttles / SamTrans 13% 325 Vanpools 3% 75 Bicycles 1.5% 37.5 Flextime, Telecommuting etc. 1.5% 37.5 Totals 34% 850 Projected Employee Participation Goal: 34% Employee daily trips saved: 850 20 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco makes the following Re-Statement of Overriding Considerations relating to its recommendation of approval of the retail use on the second floor of the South Tower (“2012 Project”). The 2005 SEIR and 2000, 2006 and 2008 Addenda (supplementing the 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR) analyzed Phase III impacts on a project 2005 SEIR level which is a much greater level than required for cumulative impacts under CEQA for the approved 2008 Project and modified 2012 Project as the 2005 SEIR analyzed a project that included residential, office and more retail than the approved 2008 Project. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2012 Project to the City against the one adverse impact identified in the 2005 SEIR pertaining to air quality which is a re-statement of the 1998/99 SEIR identified impact and the three adverse impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR pertaining to traffic as significant which have not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. These impacts are: (1) Air Quality Impact 4.5-3 from the 1998/99 SEIR Changes in Regional Long-Term Air Quality; (2) Traffic Impact 4.4-1 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts; (2) Traffic Impact 4.4-4 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts; and (3) Traffic Impact 4.4-5 from the 1998/99 SEIR 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts. The following significant unavoidable impacts identified in the 2005 SEIR do not apply to the 2012 Project as demonstrated by the 2008 and 2012 traffic analysis prepared by Crane Transportation Group for the City of South San Francisco and incorporated into the 2008 Initial Study prepared for the 2008 Project and the 2012 Project addendum: (1) Traffic Impact 3.1.5: Year 2010 Vehicle Queuing Impacts; (2) Traffic Impact 3.1.6: Year 2020 Intersection Level of Service Impacts; and (3) Traffic Impact 3.1.9: Year 2020 Vehicle Queuing Impacts. The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified in the 2005 SEIR and the 200, 2006 and 2008 Addenda, and reviewed the 2012 Addendum in reaching its decision to approve the 2012 Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts resulting from the 2012 Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR, 1998/99 SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of insignificance potential impacts. Although the City Council believes that the three unavoidable traffic environmental impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the one air quality impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and re-stated in the 2005 SEIR will be substantially lessened by the mitigation measures identified in the 2005 SEIR and incorporated into the 2012 Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the implementation of the 2012 Project carries with it these four potentially unavoidable adverse 21 environmental impacts. With regard to each of the four significant unavoidable impacts, the City Council specifically makes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse impacts have not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the 2005, 1998/99 and 1996 SEIR’s and the 1982 EIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant; and (2) there are specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits of the 2012 Project which outweigh the four significant unavoidable effects on the environment. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter in subsection 4 is a sufficient basis to approve the 2012 Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures The following impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the 2012 Project or the imposition of further mitigation measures. The impacts associated with the 2012 Project are similar to those associated with the approved 2008 Project. The 2012 Project would not increase the severity of any impacts identified in the 1998/99 SEIR or the 2005 SEIR. Three significant and unavoidable impacts relating to traffic and one air quality would continue with implementation of the 2012 Project. These impacts are: Traffic Impact 4.4.1: Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts: The 2012 Project would result in the same impact associated with the 2000, 2006 and 2008 Projects on certain segments of US 101 freeway by either increasing traffic volumes by more than1% or changing the level of service from LOS E to F. Six of the eight identified impacted freeway segments are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the 2012 Project. Phase II and Phase III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along these segments of US 101 of approximately 1.25% to 2.76%. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of 1% or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of US 101 and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. The 2012 Project does not intensify this condition and may in fact reduce it somewhat. Feasible mitigation measures identified for the 2008 Project continue to be incorporated as part of the 2012 Project. The 2008 Project incorporates a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard and a Transportation Demand Management Program. The City has constructed the Oyster Point Interchange Improvements and the Applicant has contributed $8.5 million to these improvements. The 1998/99 SEIR notes that either a 64% reduction in the size of the 22 Project or widening of US101 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Both of these measures are infeasible. Traffic Impact 4.4.4: Year 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts: The 2012 Project would result in the same impact associated with the 2000 Project on certain segments of US 101 freeway by increasing traffic volumes by more than1% at segments already operating at LOS F. Six of the eight identified impacted freeway segments are already operating at LOS F in the year 2000 without the 2012 Project. Phase II and Phase III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips along these segments of US 101 of approximately 1.10% to 2.41%. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the roadway of 1% or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2012 Project will contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on these segments of US 101 and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. Feasible mitigation measures identified for the 2008 Project will be incorporated as part of the 2012 Project. The 2008 Project incorporates a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard and a Transportation Demand Management Program. The City has constructed the Oyster Point Interchange Improvements and the Applicant has contributed $8.5 million to these improvements. The 1998/99 SEIR notes that either a 59% reduction in the size of the Project or widening of US101 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Both of these measures are infeasible. The 2006 and 2008 Projects were reduced in size from that previously analyzed. Traffic Impact 4.4-5: 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramp Impacts: Development of Phase II and III in the year 2010 would cause a significant adverse cumulative impact on the PM peak hour operation on the Northbound US 101 on-ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard. This on ramp would already be operating at over-capacity and unacceptable levels in 2010 without the 2012 Project. Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase of vehicle trips by approximately 6.8% on this on-ramp. The 1998/99 SEIR established a standard that an increase in peak direction traffic on the on-ramp of 1% or more due to the Project would be considered a significant impact. The Phase II and III Cumulative Impacts will result in an increase that is considered significant. The 2006 Project will contribute over a 1% increase in peak direction traffic on this on-ramp and the 2006 Project cumulative is considered significant. The 2012 Project will not result in any increased over that identified in 2006. Feasible mitigation measures identified for the 2006 Project will be incorporated as part of the 2008 Project. The 2006 Project has contributed $8.5 million to traffic improvements in the area. The 2006 Project includes a bus stop and shelter along Airport Boulevard as well as and a Transportation Demand Management Program. An 85% reduction in the size of the Project would be required to reduce this impact to less-than-significant which in light of the whole of the record and the objectives of the Project is infeasible. Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD 23 significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PM10. This is the same impact identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2012 Project. Measures identified in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan incorporate the mitigation measures identified in the 1998/99 SEIR and the 2005 SEIR. These impacts could be reduced by the mitigation measures identified but not to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation measure 4.5-3 identified in the 1998/99 SEIR shall be implemented. In addition, the following mitigation measures have been applied to the project: 1) electric vehicle charging stations shall be provided, 2) the project will include sidewalks and/ or paths, connected to adjacent land uses, transit stops and/or a community-wide network, 3) provision of secure and conveniently located bicycle storage, 4) preferential parking for electric or alternatively-fueled vehicles. 5) implementation of feasible TDM measures including ride-sharing, coordination with regional ridesharing programs and provision of transit information, 6) the above-referenced bus turnouts and benches, and 7) direct, safe, attractive pedestrian access from project land uses to transit stops and adjacent development. 3. Findings of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For Unavoidable Impacts The 2012 Project will not create any significant and unavoidable impacts, however, significant and unavoidable impacts identified in connection with previously approved development, including the 2000, 2006 and 2008 Projects, will continue. Pursuant to approval of the 2012 Project, the City Council made the following findings, which are restated here for reference purposes: a. Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures Traffic Impacts 4.4.1 and 4: Year 2000 and 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts and Traffic Impact 4.4.5 2010 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Ramps An overall reduction in project size between 64% to 85% would be required in order to reach a less than significant impact. A reduction of this nature would render the project economically infeasible. The economic benefit realized through a critical mass of office and commercial retail uses in order to capitalize the 2006 Project and the tax return to the City would not be realized. Reductions in the 2006 Project is infeasible because of the extensive and costly public amenities and infrastructure improvements required for the 2006 Project and those already built for Phase I and II, the need for a critical mass of office and retail to finance the project and provide a tax benefit to the City and the fixed cost of constructing infrastructure necessary to serve the 2006 Project. The development of the Terrabay Project, including the 2006 Project is subject to extensive conditions of approval under the HCP, Development Agreement and Specific Plan as amended. These documents require 1) the restoration and dedication of over 400 acres of property to the County and the City as open space; 2) funding HCP maintenance and monitoring; 3) construction of a fire station (built as part of Phase I); 4) construction of a recreation center (built as part of 24 Phase I); 5) construction of a child-care facility; 6) construction of a 200 seat Performing Arts Center 7) construction of 32 moderate income housing units off-site at 120% of the median; 8) completion of the Hillside Boulevard extension (built as part of Phase I); 9) a $8.5 million financial contribution to the construction of the hook ramps; 10) construction of the water tank and distribution lines and the Terrabay pump station as a part of Phase I; 11) construction of the sound wall along Sister Cities Boulevard; 12) construction of recreational improvements to Hillside School; and , 13) and other improvements and fees. The costs of these improvements are spread throughout the entire project, including the 2006 Project. The construction of required infrastructure in the 2006 Project are fixed costs that must be spread over the amount of square footage constructed. A 60 -84% reduction in density to reduce impacts to a less than significant level could not support the development costs of the 2006 Project and would render the 2006 Project economically infeasible. Based on the foregoing and other information in the record, widening of US 101 or a reduction of the size of the 2006 Project are not feasible. The 2012 Project would not change these conditions or findings. Air Quality Impact 3.2.3: Regional emission increase that would exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PM10. Reduction of the 2006 Project as identified above (approximately by 75%) could potentially reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The 2006 Project would be economically infeasible, as noted above, with such a reduction. The benefits of the 2006 Project would then not be realized. The 2012 Project would not change these conditions or findings. b. Infeasibility of Alternatives Which Would Reduce Impacts Since the significant unavoidable impacts will be caused by buildout of the 2006 Project, the only alternative identified in the 2005, 1998/99, 1996 SEIR and the 1982 EIR that would reduce this impact to less than significant is the No Development Alternative. The 2012 Project would not change these conditions or findings. In light of the foregoing, the only alternative that would reduce the cumulative impacts of building out the project as proposed in the 2006 Project is the No Development Alternative for the remaining parcels of Phase III. The 2012 Project would not change these conditions or findings. This alternative is infeasible. The Terrabay Project already incorporates many of the alternatives proposed under the 1998-99 SEIR. First, the Project provides for a 25+ acre of preserve land (The Preservation Parcel) for the protection of endangered species habitat and a 6.3 acre parcel offered to the City for recreational purposes (The Recreation Parcel). Additionally, a buffer area is proposed to shield the archeological site from the proposed development. The project also incorporates more area into the HCP. The Project has contributed 8.5 million to transportation improvements the majority of which mitigates impacts associated with Phase III development. As a result of the foregoing, the developable footprint on the remaining 25 parcel has been significantly reduced (from 47 to 10 acres). The 2012 Project would not change these conditions or findings. Moreover, the benefits of the Project to the City are derived from the Project as a whole. The goals and objectives of the Project may only be met if each phase is built as proposed in the 2006 Project. Furthermore, the benefits under the HCP are based on the development of each phase. Therefore, since the No Development Alternative for Phase III does not accomplish most of the objectives of the Project, the City Council finds that this alternative is infeasible and, therefore, rejects this alternative as it relates to the remaining parcels of Phase III. The 2012 Project would not change these conditions or findings. 4. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council considered the public record of proceedings on the 2006 Project and found that the approval and implementation of the 2006 Project entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the four significant, unavoidable cumulative impacts of the Terrabay 2006 Project: • Provide economic growth and employment opportunities in the City and surrounding region, by the creation of new jobs on the site and in the construction - related industries. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; • Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City through property and sales tax revenues. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; • Provide below market rate housing. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; • Reduce overall environmental impacts and preserve open space by building on 10 acres of land out of the original 47 acres of Phase III most of which was previously disturbed by transportation and utility-related grading while preserving 26 plus acres as species habitat, wetlands and open space. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; • Further the goals of the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan by allowing the 2006 Project to be built within the developable area of the Mountain vested by the HCP, to continue to fund the HCP by the homeowner and commercial fees prescribed by the HCP, by the restoration and conveyance to the County of San Mateo the remainder parcels adjacent to the Phase III site, by the creation of a fire buffer around the perimeter of the site and the planting of a carefully planned landscape plan utilizing non-invasive and drought resistive plantings. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; • Develop the “Buffer Parcel” with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company, 26 San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; • Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno Mountain Park. The 2012 Project does not alter this finding; The City Council finds that the benefits of the 2006 Project continue to outweigh the project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The 2012 Project will enhance many of the benefits of the 2006 Project and make the overall commercial development more marketable. Additional retail largely as a support use for the office use, may result in fewer vehicle trips to the site. In any case, any increase in vehicle trips to the site as a result of the 2012 Project will not be substantial. For the reasons stated, the City Council finds that the benefits of the 2012 Project, in conjunction with previously approved development of the site, outweigh the continuing significant and unavoidable impacts.