Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 131-2001RESOLUTION NO. 131-2001 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING THE 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MARBELLA HOUSING SUBDIVISION, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN WHEREAS, in August 2001, the Applicant applied to the City to proceed with development of a residential project near the intersection of Westborough and Gellert Boulevards, within the City of South San Francisco. The application is for: 1) a Vesting Tentative Map; 2) a PUD permit; 3) General Plan Amendments-text and map; 4) a Re-Zone; and, 5) a Development Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the entitlements provide for a 280 multi-family residential development on an approximately 14.9 acre site, with 70 units reserved for persons and families of low and moderate income ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared if development would result in potentially significant impacts to the environment; and, WHEREAS, the 2001 EIR analyzes the impacts of the Project and identifies mitigation measures that when implemented will reduce the majority of impacts to less than significant; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2001 EIR and other information in the record, there are certain significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project which could be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA §21081 and CEQA Guidelines §15091 upon Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2001 EIR and other information in the record, there are impacts of the Project which are not environmentally significant and which require no findings or mitigation upon Project approval; and, WHEREAS, based on the 2001 Final EIR, the May 24, 2001 Draft EIR, the October 5, 2001 Draft EIR and other information in the record, there are significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project which could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance, therefore the alternatives to the Project were examined to determine if they would avoid any of the unmitigated significant impacts; and, WHEREAS, based on the above referenced environmental documents, including the Final 2001 EIR and other information in the record, there are significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project which could not be reduced to a level of insignificance, therefore a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required upon Project approval; and, WHEREAS, CEQA §21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program shall be adopted upon Project approval to ensure compliance with the mitigations during project implementation; and, WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City's decision on entitlements relating to the 2002 EIR and documents related thereto is the City of South San Francisco Planning Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco; and, WHEREAS, the mitigation measures identified in the 2001 EIR will be applied as conditions of Project approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public heating on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on November 14, 2001, and on the Final Environmental Impact Report on December 6, 2001; and, WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing on December 6, 2001, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, and adopt findings, mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Ovemding Considerations related thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, that the City Council hereby certifies the 2001 EIR and adopts the following related to the Marbella Housing Subdivision: 1. The impact and mitigation findings, and mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C. The mitigation measures identified in Exhibits A and C are hereby adopted as conditions of Project approval. 2. The Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives in Exhibit B. 3. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan in Exhibit C. The following Exhibits, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated by reference. Exhibit A: Findings Concerning Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Less Than Significant Environmental Impacts Exhibit B: Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings Regarding Alternatives Exhibit C: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of December, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember Joseph A. Fernekes, Mayor Pro Tern Pedro Gonzalez and Mayor Eugene R. Mullin None. Councilmembers Raymond L. Green and Karyl Matsumoto NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: None. ' ' EXHIBIT A Marbella Housing Project Approvals Findings Concerning Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Less Than Significant Impacts Pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091, the following findings address the Marbella Housing Project ("Project") significant and potentially significant impacts and means for mitigating those impacts. The Project, as proposed by LBL-DUC II South San Francisco II, LLC, allows for development of 280 housing units to be constructed on 14.9 acres of land. In each case, the appropriate statutory finding is followed by a rationale statement explaining how identified mitigations lessen or avoid the related impact. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 1. Reliance on Record. The findings and determinations contained herein are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the October 5, 2001 Draft and the November 29, 2001 Final Environmental Impact Reports (referred to collectively as "EIR" or separately as "Draft EIR" or "Final EIR"). The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of this City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. 2. Nature of Findings. Any findings made herein by this City Council shall be deemed made, regardless of where it appears in this document. All of the language included in this document constitutes findings by this City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect. This City Council intends that if these findings fail to cross-reference or incorporate by reference any other part of these findings, that any finding required or permitted to be made by this City Council with respect to any particular subject matter of the Project, shall be deemed made if it appears in any portion of these findings, or findings elsewhere in the record. 3. Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the Project is based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that, in evaluating the Project, absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the Project is impossible. One of the major limitations on analysis of the Project is the City Council's lack of knowledge of future events, particularly those occurring outside the City. In some instances, the City Council's analysis has had to rely on assumptions about such factors as growth and traffic generation in areas outside of the political boundaries of the City. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework in which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework. Page I of 10 13937:6275964.2 4. Summaries of Facts, Impacts, Mitigation Measures, Alternatives and Other Matters. All summaries of information in the findings to follow are based on the EIR and/or other evidence in the record as a whole. Such summaries are not intended to be exhaustive recitations of all the facts in the record upon which they are based. Moreover, the summaries of impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives are only summaries. This document includes only as much detail as may be necessary to show the basis for the findings set forth below. Cross references to the EIR have been made where helpful. Conflicting interpretations of the language of the EIR and the language of mitigation conditions adopted by the City Council shall be resolved in favor of the latter as the most appropriate way to mitigate the impact in question. 5. Adoption of Mitigation Measures. These findings address the mitigation measures recommended in the EIR for impacts identified as significant or potentially significant. In its actions approving the Project, the City Council adopts those mitigation measures recommended in the EIR, as revised by the City Council, that have not already been incorporated into the Project, except with respect to those that are rejected by the City Council in the specific findings as being infeasible or unnecessary. Where multiple mitigation measures are adopted for a single impact, all of the identified measures are required to support the related mitigation finding, unless otherwise specified (example, if mitigation measures are identified as options or alternatives). This City Council finds that all the mitigation measures now or previously incorporated into the Project are desirable and feasible and shall be implemented in connection with the implementation of the Project in accordance with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project. 6. Effectiveness of Mitigation Measures. The EIR for the Project recommends mitigation measures to reduce all but one of the significant and potentially significant environmental effects to insignificant levels. The City Council reviewed the EIR and agrees with the EIR's conclusions. The City Council finds that to the extent any residual impact remains that has not been fully mitigated in those instances where the City Council finds that mitigation has occurred, the residual impact is overridden by the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 7. Description of the Record. For purposes of CEQA and these findings, the record before this City Council includes, without limitation, the following: All applications for approvals and development entitlements related to the Project submitted to the City, including without limitation, applications for the General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Vesting Tentative Map, Planned Unit Development and Development Agreement; B. The Draft EIR and the Final EIR; C. All staff reports on the Project and the EIR; D. All studies for the Project and EIR; Page 2 of 10 13937:6275964.2 E. All public reports and documents related to the Project prepared by City staff for the City Council and the Planning Commission; F. All documentary and oral evidence received and reviewed at public hearings and study sessions related to the Project and the EIR; G. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the EIR; H. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not limited to: 1. The City's general plan and zoning and other ordinances; 2. The City's fiscal status; 3. City policies and regulations; 4. Reports, Projections and correspondence related to development within and surrounding the City; and, 5. State laws and regulations and publications, including all reports and guidelines published by the California Office of Planning and Research. TRAFFIC Traffic Impact I The intersection of Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Drive operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour, under the existing and background conditions. The addition of Project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle. Mitigation Measure 1 A third eastbound through-lane should be added to the approach to the intersection. This would only require striping the roadway and adding botts dots for vehicle chanellization. No new right-of-way would be needed to implement this mitigation measure. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale Based on the traffic analysis described in the Draft EIR, the implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 would reduce the average delay per vehicle impacts to a less than significant level. Page 3 of 10 13937:6275964.2 Traffic Impact 2 The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the existing background conditions, and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service since it is already at LOS F. However, increased traffic would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle. Miti~,ation Measure 2 No mitigation measure is recommended. Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway is not recommended for reasons stated below in Rationale. Findinz Even with the described mitigation measures, the significant impact of the Project will not be reduced to a less than significant level. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. A Statement of Overriding Considerations, as set forth in Exhibit B, must be adopted upon approval of the Project. Rationale Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway is not recommended due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellert Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a significant and unavoidable impact Traffic Impact 3 Cumulative traffic would result in a significant impact at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard/King Drive. The PM peak hour intersection delay would increase by more than four seconds, and LOS E operations are expected in the PM peak hour. Mitigation Measure 3 A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard and King Drive. Implementation of this traffic measure would require the City of South San Francisco to coordinate with the City of Daly City regarding construction and operation of the traffic signal. If this does not occur, one of two other possible mitigation measures shall be implemented: (~) (2) Remove on-street parking on the northbound approach to the intersection and re-stripe the north bound approach to add a second northbound left- turn late within the existing right-of-way. The intersection would remain a four-way STOP controlled intersection. The northbound leg of the intersection is in the City of South San Francisco; o_E Remove on-street parking on the westbound approach to the intersection and re-stripe the westbound approach to have a separate through-lane and a separate right-turn hme within the existing right-of-way. The intersection would remain a four-way STOP controlled intersection. The westbound leg of the intersection is in the City of Daly City, and would require approval from the City of Daly City prior to implementation. Pagc 4 of I0 13937:6275964.2 Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale Based on the traffic analysis described in the Draft EIR, the implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce the impacts of the Project on this intersection to a less than significant level. Traffic Impact 4 Site distances for motorists are currently compromised due to the topography along Gellert Boulevard, particularly for motorists turning from the north Project site access. Parked cars along Gellert Boulevard exacerbate site distance inadequacies. Mitigation Measure 4 Parking will be prohibited adjacent to the Project site along Gellert Boulevard between the Project's north access and the Project's north boundary. Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 would result in improved site distances for motorists and would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Traffic Impact 5 Vehicles exiting the Westborough Shopping Center onto westbound Westborough Boulevard currently have a short merge distance if they want to turn left onto southbound Gellert Boulevard. As a result, these vehicles have to weave across three lanes of traffic in a relatively short distance, creating a safety hazard. The project may exacerbate this. Mitigation Measure 5 The westbound left-turn pocket on Westborough Boulevard at Gellert Boulevard should be lengthened so that it extends back to a point opposite the Westborough Shopping Center driveway. This mitigation measure would require the removal of a portion of the existing median island, but would not require any additional right-of-way. Project proponent should pay its fair share for this extension. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 would result in improved merge distances for vehicles turning left onto southbound Gellert Boulevard and would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Page 5 of I0 13937:6275964.2 VISUAL Visual Impact I The proposed Project could add a significant new source of light or glare to the area if the guidelines of the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan are not followed. The light from the streetlights or security lighting around the buildings could generate enough light to interfere with visibility for drivers on Westborough Boulevard or Gellert Boulevard, or shine into the homes in the surrounding residential areas. Mitigation Measure 1 Night lighting of buildings should be done in a selective fashion and should be indirect, with no light source visible. Any light source over 10 feet high should incorporate a cut-off shield to prevent light spill. Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale The EIR provides that full implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 would reduce glare and would prevent light spill and thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Visual Impact 2 The walls and windows of the buildings could create glare if the proper materials are not used. Mitigation Measure 2 The primary colors of the buildings should be neutral tones, and bright white tones should be avoided. Glass doors and windows should be of clear glass, rather than heavily tinted or reflective glass. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale The use of neutral tones and clear glass would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Visual Itnpact 3 According to the preliminary landscape plan for the proposed Project, some of the trees which would be planted on the hillside could grow tall enough to block the views from the houses above. Page 6 of 10 3937:6275964.2 Mitigation Measure 3 Taller trees such as the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), and Monterey cypress (Qvpressus macrocarpa) should be eliminated from the landscape plan. Shorter trees should be carefully chosen to avoid blocking views. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale The use of shorter trees will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Visual Impact 4 The placement of mechanical and storage areas to serve the proposed Project has not yet been determined. If the design of these areas is not consistent with the Westborough/Gellert Design Plan, a significant impact could result Mitigation Measure 4 The screenings necessary to hide the mechanical equipment from public areas will be part of the building. Trash collection and storage areas will be grouped and screened with wall materials that are similar to the buildings, preferably in areas that are away from direct street view. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale. The screening of the mechanical equipment, trash collection, and storage areas described in Mitigation Measure 5 will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. BIOLOGY There are no significant biological impacts. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL There are no significant hazardous material impacts. NOISE Noise Impact I Portions of the study area would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL due to existing noise generated by traffic on 1-280 Page 7 of 10 13937:6275964.2 Mitigation Measure 1 Detailed acoustical analyses will be prepared to specify the treatments necessary to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL on the northern part of the site. The acoustical analysis will be prepared and submitted with the building plans prior to issuance of building permits, and all recommendations should be implemented. Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale The detailed acoustical analysis and implementation of recommendations will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Noise Impact 2 Although the proposed Project site is not located within the 65 dB impact area for fly-over noise from SFIA, it is within the retrofit Project area, indicating that there is a significant impact to noise from the airport at this location. Mitigation Measure 2 The proposed Project will be designed to comply with the retrofit guidelines for the ALUC retrofit area. This may include the use of double-paned glass, insulation requirements or other noise-reduction measures. Findinz. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale. Compliance with the retrofit guidelines for the ALUC retrofit area will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Noise Impact 3 During the construction phase, construction-related noise could temporarily increase noise levels for residential receptors, particularly for residents located above Gellert Drive on the streets leading north from Galway Drive. Businesses along Westborough Boulevard between Gellert Boulevard and Interstate 280 may also be impacted Miti~,ation Measure 3 (a) Noise-generated construction activities, including vehicular and truck traffic, should be limited to the hours currently specified in the Noise Ordinance. Other hours may be authorized by permit if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: Page 8 o1' 10 13937:6275964.2 No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the Project shall not exceed 90 dB. (b) Construction truck traffic should use the routes which result in the least noise impact for existing developed residential receptors. (c) The construction schedule should be posted at public locations in the Project area. Findin~ As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale The Project will require adherence to the Noise Ordinance or will require a permit for other hours of construction to limit the hours during which noise-generating construction activity will occur which will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Adherence to these and the other measures described under Mitigation Measure 3 will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY There are no significant hydrology and water quality impacts. GEOLOGY Geoloeical Impact I The presence of an artificial cut slope coupled with the elevated level of groundwater could result in potential slope stability concerns over the lite of the Project. Mitigation Measure I The design-level geotechnical investigation will include recommendations for lowering ground water within the slope. One acceptable method to accomplish this will be to drill a line of wells vertically into a cut bench above the upper retaining walls. The wells could be backfilled with drain rock and connected to the lower slope surface by directionally drilling at the lines back into the slope to intersect the vertical wells near their bottoms. All recomlnendations in the design-level geotechnical investigation should be implemented. Page 9 of I0 13937:6275964.2 Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale The design-level geotechnical investigation will include recommendations for lowering ground water within the slope which will be implemented thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant level. Geological Impact 2 The City of South San Francisco is in a seismically-active region like the rest of the San Francisco Bay Area. Mitigation Measure 2 The structural design of the proposed houses shall conform with the Uniform Building Code. Specifically, the following criteria shall be used: · Seismic Zone: 4 · Seismic Source Type: A · Soil Profile Type Sc · Distance to fault: 3¼ mile Finding. As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale. Adherence to the Uniform Building Code will reduce the impact to a less than significant level. Geological Impact 3 Minor landslides have occurred within the limits of the proposed Project site. There is an earthflow landslide in the south portion of the site which is outside the area proposed for development. Construction on historic landslides would constitute a significant impact Mitigation Measure 3 Prior to construction of the proposed Project, areas of the site on which landslides or soil slumps have occurred shall be remediated as necessary to protect Project improvements, roadways and/or adjacent properties Finding As described in the above mitigation measure, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. With the incorporation of the specified mitigation measures, the impact of the Project is less than significant. Rationale hnplementation of remediation measures that will protect Project improvements reduces the impact to a less than significant level. ,l:\wpd\Mnrsw\405\100\Rcsos\Marbclla CEQA Findings_ dcc l5.doc Page I0 of I0 13937:6275964.2 EXHIBIT B STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES 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 Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of, and prior to, recommendation of approval of the entitlements for the Marbella Housing Project ("Project"). There is one significant unavoidable impact from the Project. The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project to the City against the one adverse impact identified in the Draft and Final EIR as significant which has not been eliminated or mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council has carefully considered each environmental impact identified in the EIR in reaching its decision to approve the Project. The Project sponsor has made reasonable and good faith efforts to mitigate all potential impacts resulting from the Project. The City Council has imposed mitigation measures identified in the EIR as conditions of approval to eliminate or mitigate to a level of insignificance potential impacts. The City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Project carries with it one potentially unavoidable adverse environmental impact. The City Council specifically makes the following findings to the extent that the identified adverse impact has not been mitigated to a level of insignificance: (1) specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impact to less than significant; and (2) there are specific economic, social, environmental, legal, land use and other benefits of the Project which outweigh the one significant unavoidable effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations identified hereinafter is a sufficient basis to approve the Project. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Impact The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the existing background conditions, and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of Project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service since it is already at LOS F. However, increased traffic would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle o Finding of Infeasibility of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives For the Unavoidable Impact a. Infeasibilit¥ of Mitigation Measures Page Iof3 13937:6276048. I Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway is not recommended and is infeasable due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellert Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a .¥igni/icant and unavoidable impact. b. Infeasibilit¥ of Alternatives Which Would Reduce Impacts Specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible alternatives identified in the EIR which may reduce the significant unavoidable impacts to less than significant. The EIR analyzes two Project alternatives: The "No Project Alternative" and the "Low Density Alternative." Under the No Project Alternative, if no development were to occur on the site, traffic conditions would be expected to remain relatively constant with volumes steadily increasing as a result of other approved development in the area. Three of the intersections in the Project are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS E or lower. Since the No Project Alternative would not increase traffic volumes, this alternative is considered better than development of the site. Also, visual resources, biology noise and geology would not be as impacted. However, as summarized in the Project Description in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, Project objectives are to develop a medium to high density residential subdivision which is aesthetically pleasing, designed to fit into the surrounding neighborhood and creates housing, which is in short supply in the San Francisco Bay Area. While the No Project Alternative would preserve existing views and retain the character of the residential neighborhood, it would not meet the Project objectives since no development would occur. Therefore this alternative is infeasible. The Low Density Alternative is comprised of a 74-unit subdivision comprised of detached single family homes. This alternative would still have significant impacts to traffic since three of the intersections in the Project area are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS E, or lower. Neither this alternative nor the Project would reduce the LOS at these intersection, but both increase delays at currently impacted intersections and have significant unavoidable impacts. This alternative would generate less traffic than the Project, therefore the significant unavoidable impact to traffic would be better under the alternative. Also, visual resources would be less impacted. There would be a greater amount of open space and there would be less impacts on views. Biological, hazardous materials, noise, and geology impacts would be the same under this alternative as it would under the Project. This alternative would meet a proportion the Project ob~jectives since it would provide housing which is aesthetically matched to the surrounding residential area and would preserve views for the residents west of the proposed Project site. However, this alternative would not meet the Project object of providing 280-units, nor would it maximize development on the site since it is a lower-density alternative. Therefore, this alternative is infeasible. Page 2 of 3 13937:627604-8.1 -- 4.. Statement of Overriding Considerations The City Council has considered the public record of proceedings on the Project and finds and determines that the approval and implementation of the Project entitlements would result in the following substantial public benefits that outweigh the one significant, unavoidable impact of the Project: 1. The Project's 70 units of below market rate housing would help substantially in meeting the City's obligation to provide 771 units of below market housing by the year 2006, which is the share of the regional housing need allocated to South San Francisco by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The Project's contribution addresses the City's concern about the inability of residents, particularly the younger and older citizens, to find affordable housing in the community. 2. The Project site represents one of very few remaining sites in the City which can contribute a meaningful number of units to the supply of housing. It is adjacent to commercial uses, has easy access to Interstate 280, and is served by two major arterial streets. The Project's provision of 280 residential units will assist the City in maintaining an appropriate housing to jobs balance. 3. The increased housing density of the Project helps lower the cost per unit to the consumer. Housing costs are acknowledged as one of the two most severe growth problems in the Bay Area. 4. The Project includes a marketing program providing South San Francisco residents the first opportunity to purchase units. 5. The Project retains over seven acres of permanent visual open space, including at least one outdoor children's play area, one outdoor passive recreation area and one active indoor recreation area, as well as payment of park fees. 6. The Project utilizes innovative traffic solutions such as the use of a shuttle system. 7. The Project provides needed parking to accommodate the units in a manner that is not visible ~¥om Gellert Boulevard and the neighborhood to the west of (uphill) the proposed Project site. 8. The Project preserves distance view from residences to the west of the proposed Pro. ject site. 9. The Project includes public art display for the benefit of the surrounding neighborhood. J :\W PD\M n rsw\4( )5\()35\AG R E E\PH A S E3\C EQA _c x B_N ov 17. d{/c 13937:6276048.1 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT C MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM I, Impact i Traffic Mitigation i TRAFFIC-1: The intersection of Westborough Boulevard/Olympic Drive operates at LOS F during the AM peak hour, under the existing and background conditions. The addition of project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service, since it is already at LOS F. However, it would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle. TRAFFIC-2: The intersection of Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center Driveway operates at LOS F during the PM peak hour under the existing background conditions, and would remain at LOS F during the PM peak hour. The addition of project traffic would not deteriorate the existing level of service since it is already at LOS F. However, increased traffic would result in an increase in the average delay per vehicle. TRAFFIC-3: Cumulative traffic would result in a significant impact at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard/King Drive. The PM peak hour intersection delay would increase by more than four seconds, and LOS E operations are expected in the PM peak hour. Mitigation TRAFFIC-I: A third eastbound through-lane should be added to the approach to the intersection. This would only require striping the roadway and adding botts dots for vehicle chanellization. No new right-of-way would be needed to implement this mitigation measure. With this mitigation measure, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. TRAFFIC-2: Signalization at Gellert Boulevard/Westborough Shopping Center driveway is not recommended due to its proximity to the Westborough Boulevard/Gellert Boulevard and Gellert Boulevard/McDonald's Driveway intersections. A third signal would have a negative impact for traffic flows along Gellert Boulevard. Therefore, the existing deficiency would remain and this would be a significant and unavoidable impact. TRAFFIC-3: A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Gellert Boulevard and King Drive. Implementation of this traffic measure would require the City of South San Francisco to coordinate with the City of Daiy City regarding construction and operation of the traffic signal. If this does not occur, one of two other possible mitigation measures should be implemented: (1) Remove on-street parking on the northbound approach to the intersection and re-stripe the north bound approach to add a second northbound left-turn late within the existing right-of-way. The intersection would remain a four-way STOP controlled intersection. The northbound leg of the intersection is in the City of South San Francisco; or (2) Remove on-street parking on the westbound approach to the intersection and re-stripe the westbound approach to have a separate through-lane and a separate right-turn lane within the existing right-of-way. The intersection would remain a four-way STOP controlled intersection. The westbound leg of the intersection is in the City of Daly City, and would require approval from the City of Daly City prior to implementation. Implemented By Project Sponsor and City. Marbella Housing Mitigation Monitoring and Re[~orting Plan When Implemented I Monitored By I Yerified by/Date Prior to completion of construction. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Project Sponsor and City. Prior to completion of construction. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. 13937:6275937.2 -1- TRAFFIC-4: Impact · Site distances for motorists are currently compromised due to the topography along Gellert Boulevard, lparticularly for motorists turning from the north project site access. iParked cars along Gellert Boulevard exacerbate site distance inadequacies. TRAFFIC-5: Vehicles exiting the Westborough Shopping Center onto westbound Westborough Boulevard currently have a short merge distance if they want to mm left onto southbound Gellert Boulevard. As a result, these vehicles have to weave across three lanes of traffic in a relatively short distance, creating a safety hazard. The project may exacerbate this. Mitigation TRAFFIC-4: Parking should be prohibited adjacent to the project site along Gellert Boulevard between the project's north access and the project's north boundary. With this mitigation measure, this potential impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. TRAFFIC-5: The westbound left-turn pocket on Westborough Boulevard at Gellert Boulevard should be lengthened so that it extends back to a point opposite the Westborough Shopping Center driveway. This mitigation measure would require the removal of a portion of the existing median island, but would not require any additional right-of-way. Project proponent should pay its fair share for this extension. Implemented By Project Sponsor. Project Sponsor When Implemented Details to be included in site plan submitted with building permit application. Details to be included in site plan submitted with building permit application. Monitored By City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Verified by/Date Visual Mitigation VISUAL-l: The proposed project could add a significant new source of light or glare to the area if the guidelines of the Westborouglg Gellert Design Plan are not followed. The light from the streetlights or security lighting around the buildings could generate enough light to interfere with visibility for drivers on Westborough Boulevard or Gellert Boulevard, or shine into the homes in the surrounding residential areas. VISUAL-Ia: Night lighting of buildings should be done in a selective fashion and should be indirect, with no light source visible. VISUAL-lb: Any light source over 10 feet high should incorporate a cut-off shield to prevent light spill. ProjectSponsor. Project Sponsor. Prior to occupancy. Prior to occupancy. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. VISUAL-2: The walls and windows of the buildings could create glare if the proper materials are not used. VISUAL-3: According to the preliminary landscape plan for the proposed project, some of the trees which would be planted on the hillside cbuld grow tall enough to block the views from the houses above. VISUAL-4: The placement of mechanical and storage areas to serve the proposed project has not yet been determined. If the 13937:6275937.2 VISUAL-lc: Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the building elements. VISUAL-2: The primary colors of the buildings should be neutral tones, and bright white tones should be avoided. Glass doors and windows should be of clear glass, rather than heavily tinted or reflective glass. VISUAL-3: Taller trees such as the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis), and Monterey cypress (Cypressus macrocarpa) should be eliminated from the landscape plan. Shorter trees should be carefully chosen to avoid blocking views. VISUAL-4: The screenings necessary to hide the mechanical equipment from public areas should be part of the building. Trash -2- Project Sponsor. Pr~ectSponsor. Project Sponsor. ProjectSponsor. Details to be included in landscape plan submitted with building permit application. Details to be included in plans submitted with building permit application. Details to be included in landscape plans submitted with building permit application. Details to be included in plans submitted with City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Impact design of these areas is not consistent with the Design Plan, a ~ignificant impact could result. Mitigation collection and storage areas should be grouped and screened with wall materials that are similar to the buildings, preferably in areas that are away from direct street view. Implemented By When Implemented building permit application. Monitored By Verified by/Date Noise Mitigation NOISE-1: Portions of the study area would be exposed to noise levels in excess of 65 dB CNEL due to existing noise generated by traffic on 1-280. NOISE-2: Although the proposed project site is not located within the 65 dB impact area for fly-over noise from SFIA, it is within the retrofit project area, indicating that there is a significant impact to noise from the airport at this location. NOISE-3: During the construction phase, construction-related noise could temporarily increase noise levels for residential receptors, particularly for residents located above Gellert Drive on the streets leading north from Galway Drive. Businesses along Westborough Boulevard between Gellert Boulevard and Interstate 280 may also be impacted. NOISE-l: Detailed acoustical analyses should be prepared to specify the treatments necessary to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dB CNEL on the northern part of the site. The acoustical analysis should be prepared and submitted with the building plans prior to issuance of building permits, and all recommendations should be implemented. NOISE-2: The proposed project should be designed to comply with the retrofit guidelines for the ALUC retrofit area. This may include the use of double-paned glass, insulation requirements or other noise-reduction measures. NOISE-3a: Noise-generated construction activities, including vehicular and truck traffic, should be limited to the hours currently specified in the Noise Ordinance. Other hours may be authorized by permit if they meet at least one of the following noise limitations: · No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding 90 dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. [] The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed 90 dB. NOISE-3b: Construction truck traffic should use the routes which result in the least noise impact for existing developed residential receptors. NOISE-3c: The construction schedule should be posted at public locations in the project area. Project Sponsor. Project Sponsor. Project Sponsor. Project Sponsor. Project Sponsor. Analysis to be included with plans submitted with building permit application. Details to be included with plans submitted with building permit application. Before and during construction. Before and during construction. Before and during construction. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Project Sponsor and City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Project Sponsor and City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Project Sponsor. Geology Mitigation GEO-I: The presence of an artificial cut slope coupled with the elevated level of groundwater could result in potential slope 13937:6275937.2 GEO-I: The design-level geotechnical investigation should include recommendations for lowering ground water within the -3- Project Sponsor. Prior to issuance ofthe grading permit. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Impact stability concerns over the life of the project. GEO-2: The City of South San Francisco is in a seismically-active region like the rest of the San Francisco Bay Are~ GEO-3: Minor landslides have occurred within the limits of the proposed project site. There is an earthflow landslide in the south portion of the site which is outside the area proposed for development. Construction on historic landslides would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation slope. One acceptable method to accomplish this would be to drill a line of wells vertically into a cut bench above the upper retaining walls. The wells could be backfilled with drain rock and connected to the lower slope surface by directionally drilling at the lines back into the slope to intersect the vertical wells near their bottoms. All recommendations in the design-level geotechnical investigation should be implemented. GEO-2: The structural design of the proposed houses shall conform with the Uniform Building Code. Specifically, the following criteria shall be used: DSeismic Zone: 4 ~Seismic Source Type: A DSoil Profile Type Sc []Distance to fault: aA mile GEO-3: Prior to construction of the proposed project, areas of the site on which landslides or soil slumps have occurred shall be remediated as necessary to protect project improvements, roadways and/or adjacent properties. Implemented By Project Sponsor. Project Sponsor. When Implemented Details to be included in plans submitted with building permit application. Prior to issuance of the building permit. Monitored By City Planning and Engineering Divisions. City Planning and Engineering Divisions. Verified by/Date 13937:6275937.2 -4-