HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting 07-17-08 (Reso 2672-2008) - Tbay 2008 Addendum #2.DOC1
RESOLUTION NO. 2672-2008
PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING
ADOPTION OF THE 2008 ADDENDUM TO THE 2005 SEIR AND
2006 ADDENDUM, AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF
THE RELATED STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
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 2006 Addendum and certified the 2005
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), which build 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 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 2006 Final Terrabay Specific
Plan, precise plan, and a zoning text amendment, to allow as a permitted use, a Product Design
Studio (“Studio”) as a support use to the approved office use on the site, and to be located above the
approved ground floor retail concourse attached to the site’s North Tower (“2008 Project”); and,
WHEREAS, an Initial Study, included as Exhibit A to this resolution and incorporated by
reference, was prepared to determine if additional environmental review was required for the 2008
Project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Based on the Initial Study, the City
determined that the potentially significant effects of the project were adequately addressed in the
previous CEQA documents, including the 2006 Addendum, 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
2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no subsequent EIR shall be
prepared for the 2008 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 (“2008 Addendum”), was prepared for
the 2008 Project, which identifies the project changes and their relationship to the analysis in the
previous Addendum, SEIRs, and EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on July 17,
2008, at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard, to review the Initial Study and
draft 2008 Addendum, as well as supporting documents, prior to making a recommendation on the
2008 Project; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report dated July 17, 2008, was submitted to the Planning Commission
analyzing the 2008 Project and recommending approval of the 2008 Addendum and the project
applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did use its independent judgment and analysis, and
considered all reports, recommendations and testimony before taking action on the 2008 Addendum
and the 2008 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 and proposed in 2008; (3)
The 2005 Certified Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and 2006 Addendum 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 and Addendum; (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:
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this resolution.
2. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed 2008 Project will not result in any
of the conditions identified in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 because the addition of a Product
3. Design Studio will not create any new significant impacts or substantially more
severe impacts as compared to those identified and analyzed in the 2006 Addendum 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 2008 Project.
3
4. The Planning Commission finds that some of the significant and unavoidable impacts
identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations would apply to the 2008 Project, but as
detailed in the Statement, the benefits of the project continue to outweigh the adverse impacts.
5. 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 2008 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 2008
Addendum, including the related Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as
described in Exhibit A [included as Attachment IV to the Staff Report] and incorporated herein by
reference.
2. Recommend that the City Council adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations .
* * * * * * *
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 17th day of July , 2008, by the
following vote:
Ayes: Commissioner Zemke, Commissioner Moore, Commissioner Oborne, Commissioner
Sim, Commissioner Prouty and Vice Chairperson Teglia
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Chairperson Giusti
Attest: /s/ Susy Kalkin_____________________
Susy Kalkin
Secretary to the Planning Commission
4
Exhibit A
2008 Addendum, Initial Study and MMRP
[Included as a separate bound document –
Attachment IV to the July 17, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report]
5
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 proposed Product Design
Studio (“2008 Project”). The 2005 SEIR and 2006 Addendum (supplementing the 1998/99
SEIR, 1996 SEIR and 1982 EIR) analyzed Phase III impacts on a project EIR level which is
a much greater level than required for cumulative impacts under CEQA.
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the 2008 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 2008 Project as demonstrated by the 2008 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: (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 2006 Addendum, and reviewed the 2008 Initial Study and 2008 Addendum in
reaching its decision to approve the 2008 Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable
and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts resulting from the 2008 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 2008 Project as conditions of approval, it recognizes that the
implementation of the 2008 Project carries with it these four potentially unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts.
6
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 2008 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 2008
Project.
2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impacts and Required Mitigation Measures
The following impacts cannot be fully mitigated by changes or alterations to the 2008 Project
or the imposition of further mitigation measures.
The impacts associated with the 2008 Project are similar to those associated with the
approved 2006 Project. The 2008 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 2008 Project. These impacts are:
Traffic Impact 4.4.1: Year 2000 Base Case Plus Phases II and III Freeway Impacts:
The 2006 Project would result in the same impact associated with the 2000 Project 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 2006 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.
Feasible mitigation measures identified for the 2006 Project will be incorporated as part of
the 2008 Project. The 2006 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 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 2006 Project would result in the same impact associated with the 2000 Project on certain
7
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 2006 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 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.
Feasible mitigation measures identified for the 2006 Project will be incorporated as part of
the 2008 Project. The 2006 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 Project was been 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 2006 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.
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. A 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
significance thresholds for ozone precursors and PM10. This is the same impact identified
in the 1998/99 SEIR and remains the same for the 2006 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.
8
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 2008 Project will not create any significant and unavoidable impacts, however,
significant and unavoidable impacts identified in connection with previously approved
development, including the 2006 Project, will continue. Pursuant to approval of the 2006
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
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
9
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.
(4) 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.
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.
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.
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
parcel has been significantly reduced (from 47 to 10 acres).
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.
10
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;
• Provide a tax benefit to the City by increasing tax base and revenues to the City
through property and sales tax revenues;
• Provide below market rate housing;
• 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;
• 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;
• Develop the “Buffer Parcel” with roads and landscaping pursuant to the Mutual
Release and Settlement Agreement between the City, Myers Development Company,
San Bruno Mountain Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity;
• Create a transition area between the urbanized potion of the City and San Bruno
Mountain Park;
The City Council finds that the benefits of the 2006 Project continue to outweigh the
project’s significant and unavoidable impacts. The 2008 Project will enhance many of the
benefits of the 2006 Project and make the overall commercial development more marketable.
Additionally, as a support use for the adjoining office use, and because the Product Design
Studio will require conversion of some of the retail space to a circulation area, the 2008
Project 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 2008 Project will not be substantial. For the reasons stated, the
City Council finds that the benefits of the 2008 Project, in conjunction with previously
approved development of the site, outweigh the continuing significant and unavoidable
impacts.
11