Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 11-03-11 (Reso 2712-2011) - CEQA Resolution re Westborough Shopping CenterRESOLUTION NO. 2712-2011 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN RESOLUTION ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTBOROUGH SHOPPING CENTER AT 2220 AND 2288 WESTBOROUGH WHEREAS, American National Insurance Company (“Applicant”) seeks approval of a Use Permit, Variance, Master Sign Program and Design Review, to redevelop the Westborough Shopping Center located at 2220 and 2288 Westborough Boulevard (“Project”); and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, et seq. [“CEQA”]) and the CEQA Guidelines, the City prepared and circulated for public review, and Initial Study and Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”), which analyzed the environmental impacts of the Project, and concluded that the proposed Project could not have a significant effect on the environment, as more fully described and set forth therein; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the Record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report, including the 2001 updates to the General Plan and 2001 Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the Westborough Shopping Center Redevelopment, including all written comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly noticed public hearing on November 3, 2011; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco does hereby find as follows: I. General Findings A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. B. The IS/ND attached to this Resolution is hereby incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution. C. The Planning Commission, exercising its independent judgment and analysis, hereby finds that the IS/ND as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts. D. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin. II. CEQA Findings A. The Project would not have an impact on the aesthetics or scenic quality at the Project site or Project area. The Project would not block views to Sign Hill, San Bruno Mountain or the East Bay Hills. The Project would improve the architecture and landscaping and bring vitality to the pedestrian interface. Offsite glare would be less than significant. There would be no individual or cumulative impacts with respect to aesthetic or visual quality. B. The Project would not adversely affect any existing agricultural operations. The Project site is not planned or zoned for agricultural use and is not in agricultural use. The Project would not impact agricultural resources individually or cumulatively. C. The Project would not result in a significant impact to air quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria non-attainment pollutants (ozone precursors and PM10). The City’s building permit procedure captures the BAAQMD permitting regulations, as well as BAAQMD’s basic control measures. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. D. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact with respect to greenhouse gas emissions or global climate change. The Project proposes low VOC emitting finishes and measures to meet a LEED Silver design. E. The Project would not result in a significant impact or significant unavoidable impact to biological resources individually or cumulatively. The Project is not located on ecologically sensitive lands, does not contain habitat and would have no impact on General Plan policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The Project would remove 19 trees and replant 161 trees for an 8:1 replanting ratio. F. The Project is located on a previously graded parcel and in a developed area. The Project itself is located on fill up to 75 feet in depth emplaced in 1966-67. There are no known historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains located on the Project site. Moreover soil borings taken from the Project do not show evidence of soils associated with archaeological resources, such as shell bits. The Project would have no impact on cultural resources. G. The Project site is not underlain by an earthquake fault and as such the potential for ground rupture is very low. Conformance with the 2010 California Building Code would reduce seismic shaking impacts to less than significant. Site soils are slightly plastic. Ground acceleration would be strong to violent in a design level seismic event. The Project would be constructed to CBC Site Class D standards. Site soils are considered low impact with respect liquefaction. Subsidence would be considered negligible. The Project would not be connected to a septic system and as such would not contribute to ground failure. There is no threat of a major landslide on the site. Based on the analysis, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to Geology and Soils. H. The Project site is appropriate for continued commercial use. The Project would not introduce fire, safety or a hazardous material risk into the area beyond that normally anticipated with commercial land uses and as such is less than significant. Moreover, no accidents or spills have been recorded on the site (Phase I). The Project would not expose a school to the risk from hazardous materials; and would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact from hazardous materials exposure. The Project site is appropriate for continued manufacturing use. I. The City’s standard conditions of approval which implement state, federal and local regulations are required by law and are adequate to address any potential water quality impacts as a result of Project construction or occupation. No mitigation measures, above those required by the City as a matter of law, are identified in this Initial Study. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology or water quality resources. J. The Project would not physically divide an established community. The Project site is not in a conservation plan area, or under special study for conservation. The Project would not result in any individually or cumulatively considerable impacts. K. The Project site does not contain any local or regionally significant mineral resources. The Project would not result in an impact or contribute to a cumulative impact to mineral resources. L. The Project, existing, plus Project and cumulative noise environment is and would remain within the 65 to 70 dBA, CNEL within the acceptable 70 dBA, CNEL for commercial land uses. The Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to construction noise impacts M. The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan. The Project does not contain housing and would not displace housing units or residents. The Project would have no impact on population or housing. N. The Project would not exceed the development and growth assumptions contained in the General Plan. School impact fees are collected by the City’s Building Division based upon the square footage of residential, commercial and industrial construction. These fees are used by the school districts for school services. Additional development on the Project site would not increase the demand for public services individually or cumulatively. O. Parks and recreational needs within the City are derived from the development assumptions contained in the South San Francisco General Plan. The Project is proposing development consistent with the General Plan employment projections. Therefore, the Project would not result in an individual or cumulatively considerable impact on parks and recreation. P. The Project’s impact on local roadway traffic volumes would be de minimus; moreover removal of the existing and relocation of the Gellert Boulevard Project entrance would eliminate a significant unavoidable impact identified in 2001 (Marbella EIR). The Project would improve site access and as such would improve emergency access and reduce hazardous maneuvers and design features. The Project supports alternative transportation modes by adding bicycle racks and pedestrian seating areas in a newly landscaped area. The Project would have no impact on aircraft flyovers. Q. The City’s wastewater treatment plant was upgraded in 2000-01 and has adequate capacity to treat Project wastes. The Project as a matter of law would be required to pay wastewater improvement fees. The UWMP was adopted in 2006 and adequate water is available for the Project. New construction will be regulated by BMPs, an improvement over existing conditions. The Project would not contribute individually or cumulatively to water, wastewater, stormwater and utility impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the IS/ND based on the findings set forth in the IS/ND. 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 Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 3rd day of November, 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Giusti, Commissioner Martin, Commissioner Ochsenhirt, Commissioner Prouty, Commissioner Sim, Vice Chairperson Zemke and Chairperson Gupta NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: Commission Secretary Susy Kalkin Exhibit A Initial Study/Negative Declaration dated Sept 26, 2011