HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 30-2002RESOLUTION No. 30-2002
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORINA
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE BRITANNIA EAST GRAND PROJECT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAID PROJECT AND APPROVING A
MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR SAID PRQ|ECT
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City of
South San Francisco Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA; and,
WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared to address the environmental effects of the
Britannia East Grand Project Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement;
and Design Plans; and,
WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Britannia East Grand Project consists of the
Draft EIR, the Recirculation Draft EIR, the comments and responses to comments made on the
Draft EIR and the Recirculation Draft EIR, and the Mitigation and Monitoring Program; and,
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR and the Recirculation Draft EIR were each circulated for a 45-
day public review period and notices of their availability were published in a local newspaper;
and,
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report reviewed and analyzed impacts of
the following topics:
· Land Use and Planning, including the maximum square footage of development allowed
by the General Plan;
Transportation and Circulation, including trips generated in peak hours, impacts to
freeway segments, declines in Level of Service at nearby intersections, elimination of a
public street through the Project, and restrictions on parking to reduce congestion;
· Air Quality, including construction dust, and increases in regional air pollution;
· Earth, including ground shaking, soil stability, landslides, lateral spreading, liquefaction
and expansive soils;
Human Health, including the exposure of children in a proposed childcare facility and
construction workers to contaminated soils, potential water quality degradation during
operations;
· Hydrology and Water Quality, including water quality degradation;
Cultural Resources, including potential to damage unknown cultural sites and artifacts;
· Wetlands, including the loss and potential replacement of wetlands on-site, intrusion into
the coastal marsh;
Utilities, including impacts to aging wastewater collection facilities, a potential shortfall
in existing on-site wastewater collection facilities, cumulative demand for wastewater
treatment capacity;
· Cumulative impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the Recirculation Draft EIR reviewed and analyzed traffic impacts at two
locations, that were not reviewed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Final EIR was prepared, including responses to comments received on the
Draft EIR and the Recirculation Draft EIR, and sent to all state, regional, local and other
agencies and individuals from which comments on the Draft EIR and Recirculation Draft EIR
were received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, having reviewed and considered the information
considered in the Draft and Final EIRs, finds that certain specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible the three Project alternatives identified in the Draft EIR, with the
exception of the proposed Project, in that:
mo
The "No Project" Alternative, required for analysis under the California Environmental
Act, involves maintaining the site in its existing condition and denying the City the
following opportunities: to improve and make use of a degraded site, to allow public
access to the bayfront and the Bay Trail, to provide long-term employment, to receive
additional tax revenues, and to enjoy site amenities which are proposed to be financed by
the Project.
Bo
The "Reduced Development Alternative" would allow the same mix of facilities as in the
proposed Project, but in reduced quantity. The reduction in Project square footage would
help to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution, but not in a substantial way, for any of
the categories of significant impact discussed in the EIR.
Co
The "Site Plan Alternative" would modify the Project site plan to locate proposed
facilities, including the childcare facility, and restaurant/retail space where they would
improve upon the proposed site plan and avoid potential hazards. However, the Site Plan
Alternative would not improve upon the overall Project in a substantial way, for any of
the categories of significant impact discussed in the EIR.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and carefully considered the information in
the DEIR and the Recirculation Draft EIR at a duly noticed public hearing held on April 4, 2002,
and recommends their certification as objective and accurate documents that reflect the
independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Project's
environmental impacts; and
WHEREAS, the required findings, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof,
can be made for each of the significant effects, which effects have been mitigated to a level of
insignificance because changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Project, which avoid or lessen its significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan has been prepared in
accordance with Public Resources Code 21881.6; and
WHEREAS, the proposed mitigation measure for a regional air quality impact, and the
proposed mitigation measures for two transportation impacts cannot reduce the impacts to
acceptable levels; and
WHEREAS, the required findings of Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines are
made for two of the Project's significant environmental effects, which effects cannot be reduced
to an acceptable level, with regard to air quality and transportation impacts; and
WHEREAS, the Project cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is adopted which balances the benefits of the proposed Project against its
unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding
conditions that was made by the City would also apply to the Britannia East Grand Project as
follows:
o
The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report in October 1999. The City Council made a
Statement of Overriding Considerations in its approval of the General Plan
update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along
US 101 and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to
less than significant levels.
,
The Britannia East Grand Project would impact some of the same freeway
segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic and air
quality effects could only be partially mitigated.
o
Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval
of the General Plan, would also apply to decision-making on the Britannia East
Grand Project by the City.
,
Additionally, the Project offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations adopted for the Project, as stated in Section 5 of the
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations incorporated herein.
WHEREAS, the contribution of the Project in meeting or achieving the goals and
objectives of the General Plan, outweigh its unavoidable, adverse impacts; and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held duly noticed public
hearings on March 7, 2002 and April 4, 2002 to consider the Environmental Impact Report and
the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned Unit Development, Use Permit, Development
Agreement and Design Review Applications and recommended that the City Council certify EIR
No. 01-006 for the Britannia East Grand Project and adopt a Statement of Overriding
Considerations related thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 24, 2002, to
consider the Environmental Impact Report and the proposed General Plan Amendment, Planned
Unit Development, Use Permit, Development Agreement and Design Review Applications and
hereby finds that:
o
The EIR was independently reviewed and analyzed by the City and reflects the
independent judgment of the City as lead agency; and
,
The documents, including, but not limited to, the 1999 General Plan Update, the
1999 General Plan Update Certified Environmental Impact Report and Statement
of Overriding Considerations, Draft EIR for the Project, the Recirculation Draft
EIR, Final EIR, staff reports and testimony received at public hearings on the
environmental documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings
on the EIR and the City Council's and Planning Commission's review thereof.
Said documents are located at the Planning Division, City Hall Annex, 315 Maple
Avenue, South San Francisco
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby certifies the
Britannia East Grand Project Environmental Impact Report as adequate, based upon the required
findings attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, adopts a Statement of Overriding
Considerations and approves the associated Mitigation and Monitoring Program.
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 24th day of
April 2002 by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmember Raymond L. Green and Mayor Eugene R. Mullin
NOES:
Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto
ABSTAIN: None.
ABSENT:
Councilmember Joseph A. Femekes and Mayor Pro Tem Pedro Gonzalez
ATTEST: /~~.', ~'
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Britannia East Grand Project
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant,to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines and Section21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code
Related Environmental Documentation:
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports
(State Clearinghouse Number 2001052085)
Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report
by City of South San Francisco:
Date of Adoption by the City of South San Francisco
April 24, 2002
Project Files May Be Reviewed at:
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose
Project Description
The Britannia East Grand Project is planned on a 27 acre site, at the east terminus of East Grand
Avenue adjacent to San Francisco Bay, in the City of South San Francisco. The Project includes
about 805,000 gross square feet of mixed office/research and development and biotechnology
industries, in nine buildings that would be three-to-four floors in height. Auxiliary buildings
include parking in two, six-to-seven floor parking structures, and a day care facility. A retail
business and a restaurant/delicatessen and fitness center would be located within the parking
structures.
Purpose
The primary purposes of the Project include (i) facilitating a higher and better utilization of the site
through the development of a mixed employment project, (ii) increasing employment opportunities
in the community, (iii) making the site more aesthetically pleasing and facilitating completion of a
linear park and Bay Trail along the Project's Bay frontage, and (iv) increasing tax and other
revenues to the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
Findings
This document presents findings that must be made by the City prior to approval of the Project,
pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public
Resources Code. Under CEQA, the City is required to make written findings explaining how it has
dealt with each alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, October 2001 (DEIR) and the Recirculation Draft Environmental
Impact Report February, 2002. The DEIRs and responses to comments on them are collectively
referred to as the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).
The City shall make at least one of the following findings for each significant project impact:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project to
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the
EIR;
,
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency, and not the agency making the findings, and have been or can and
should be adopted by that other agency; or
o
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
Evidence from the DEIR, FEIR and City's General Plan is used to support these findings.
This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the Project and project
alternatives, and describes how these impacts are to be mitigated. No findings are made for impacts
identified as less than significant in the DEIR.
This document is divided into the five remaining sections:
· Section 2, "Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the DEIR";
· Section 3, "Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR
and Recirculation DEIR";
· Section 4, "Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting";
· Section 5, "Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and
· Section 6, "Citations".
Section 2, "Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the DEIR", presents alternatives
to the Project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of
the State CEQA Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result
in one or more significant environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be
infeasible because of specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations.
Section 3, "Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR and
in the Recirculation DEIR", presents significant impacts of the proposed Project that were
identified in the DEIR and the Recirculation DEIR, the findings for the impacts, and the
rationales for the findings.
Section 4, "Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting",
identifies mitigation measures adopted for significant impacts of the proposed project that were
identified in the DEIR.
Section 5, "Statement of Overriding Considerations", references the overriding considerations
for significant impacts related to the Project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or
resolved. These considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
which require the decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks
when determining whether to approve the Project.
Section 6, "Citations", identifies references cited in this document.
Other Approvals. While certification of this FEIR would constitute compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for such future development, that development
would remain subject to requirements for a future use permit and design review approvals.
Section 2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT
No impacts are associated with the No-Project Alternative because the Project site would remain
vacant. Therefore, none of the impacts identified for the proposed Project would occur.
Finding: No-Project Alternative Infeasible
The City finds the No-Project Alternative to be infeasible because it would not support the General
Plan in improving vacant and underutilized properties in the East of 101 Area of the City. The No-
Project Alternative also would not achieve the social, environmental and economic goals of the
Project to convert the site to a campus-planned office/R&D commercial project; to increase
employment opportunities in the community, to "cap" potentially contaminated soils over the whole
Project site, and to increase tax and other revenues to the City and the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency.
ALTERNATIVE 2: REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Development Alternative would allow the same mix of facilities as the proposed
Project, but in reduced quantity. The alternative would reduce the allowed square footage of gross
office/R&D space by 25%. The reduction in Project square footage would help to reduce traffic
congestion and regional air pollution.
Compared to the proposed Project, the Reduced Development Alternative would result in the
following types of impacts:
Land Use and Planning: The alternative would have the same site plan and a mix of uses as
the proposed Project, although with smaller buildings, or more 3-story buildings and fewer 4-
story buildings. The Reduced Development Alternative would not avoid any significant land
use and planning impacts of the proposed Project.
Transportation and Circulation: Levels of service at study intersections would be
proportionally lower than the proposed Project, but not low enough to result in less than
significant traffic impacts. Mitigation measures for the traffic impacts of the Reduced
Development Alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project.
Air Quality: The Reduced Development Alternative would have the same kind of exposure
to construction dust. Although the Reduced Development Alternative would generate fewer
automobile pollutants, it would - like the Project - still exceed the threshold for regional air
pollutants, established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
· Earth: The Reduced Development Alternative would be developed on the same underlying
fill and Bay Mud soils and the same geotechnical conditions as the proposed Project.
However, accepted structural design practices required by the City should mitigate the
danger of earthquake-related instability to less than significant levels.
Human Health: Both the Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would have the
potential to encounter contaminated soils and naturally-occurring asbestos in serpentinite
rock during excavation and construction. Both would also be subject to the requirements to
protect construction workers from exposure to contaminated soils, through implementation of
a Soils Management Plan approved by the Department of Toxics Substances Control
(DTSC). Both projects would potentially expose children to such materials when the
childcare center becomes operational and would require the same mitigations.
· Drainage and Water Quality: The Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would
have the same potential to degrade surface water quality during construction and operations.
Cultural Resources: Excavation for the Project or the Reduced Development Alternative
would have the same potential to unearth cultural remains, and the same requirement to
protect such sites from damage.
Utilities: The Reduced Development Alternative would use about 75% of the water and
wastewater generated by the Project. Both would also have the same significant impacts to
utility systems: water quality degradation, failure of aging wastewater collection facilities,
and cumulative impacts to the wastewater treatment system. They would also have
essentially the same mitigation measures.
Public Services: The Project and the Reduced Development Alternative would make similar
demands upon police and fire protection, and require essentially the same mitigation
measures.
Cumulative and Unavoidable Impacts: The Reduced Development Alternative would have
the same cumulative impacts to transportation, water quality and wastewater treatment
capacity as the proposed Project. Both would also create unavoidable impacts to cumulative
traffic conditions and regional air quality.
Finding: Reduced Development Alternative Not Beneficial
The City finds the No-Project Alternative inappropriate because it does not significantly reduce the
impacts of the Project. As discussed above, impacts of the alternative would be similar to the
impacts of the proposed Project, and mitigation measures would not change.
ALTERNATIVE 3: SITE PLAN ALTERNATIVE
The Site Plan Alternative relocates the childcare facility, retail/delicatessen and fitness center from
their locations along the perimeter of the Project to more centralized locations, as represented in
Figure 19-1 of the DEIR. The figure shows a variety of potential locations, none of which are
precisely defined. Relocation is intended to avoid problems with the childcare facility site, and
improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation associated with access to the other accessory uses. Only
relocation of the childcare center would mitigate for any significant Project impact. Compared with
the proposed Project, this alternative would result in the following types of impacts:
Land Use and Planning: The relocation of the childcare facility from a stand-alone building
in the northwest comer of the site to locations in other buildings, including the north parking
structure. The Site Plan Alternative would avoid potential constraints at the childcare center
site such as a freshwater wetland, soils and landslide hazards, the presence of naturally-
occurring asbestos in Serpentenite rock and contaminated soils. The alternative would not
cause any new, unmitigated land use impacts.
Transportation and Circulation: The Site Plan Alternative would have the same
transportation and circulation impacts as the Project. Internal circulation could change
slightly among the various sub-options represented on DEIR Figure 19-1. Mitigation
measures for the traffic impacts of the Site Plan Alternative would be the same as for the
proposed Project.
· Air Quality: The Site Plan Alternative would have the same kind of exposure to construction
dust and regional air pollution as the Project and the same mitigation measures.
Earth: The Site Plan Alternative would avoid potential geologic and seismic safety risks such
as landslides in the vicinity of the childcare facility site. However, both the Site Plan
Alternative and the Project would be subject to compliance with East of 101 Area Plan
Policies dealing with geotechnical investigations and engineering design of particular
buildings throughout the Project.
Human Health: The Site Plan Alternative would avoid the childcare facility site where
potential soil contamination and naturally occurring asbestos could affect children. By
developing the childcare center at another site, it could potentially be available sooner than at
the proposed childcare facility site. By contrast, the proposed Project would seek
authorization for use of the childcare site, based upon soil sampling and a health risk
assessment that would support approval of the site for childcare facilities by the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and implementation of other corrective measures or
modifications to the Project, as necessary.
Drainage and Water Quality: The Project and the Site Plan Alternative would have the same
potential to degrade water quality during construction and operations, and the same
mitigation measures.
Cultural Resources: Excavation for the Project or the Site Plan Alternative would have the
same potential to unearth cultural remains, and the same requirement to protect such sites
from damage.
Utilities: The Site Plan Alternative would not use more water or generate more wastewater
than the Project. Both would also have the same significant impacts to utility systems: water
quality degradation, failure of aging wastewater collection facilities, and cumulative impacts
to the wastewater treatment system. They would also have essentially the same mitigation
measures.
· Public Services: The Project and Site Plan Alternative would make the same demands upon
police and fire protection, and require the same mitigation measures.
Cumulative and Unavoidable Impacts: The alternative would have the same cumulative
impacts to transportation, water quality and wastewater treatment capacity as the proposed
Project. Both would also create unavoidable impacts to traffic conditions and regional air
quality.
Finding: Site Plan Alternative Not Beneficial
The City finds that the Site Plan Alternative would have the same or very similar impacts and
mitigation measures as the proposed Project. Project mitigation measures to allow development of
the proposed site for the childcare facility are reasonable and implementable. Therefore, the
alternative for relocating the childcare facility elsewhere does not appear to be necessary, except to
possibly develop childcare facilities in another building sooner than would be possible at the
proposed childcare center site. Therefore, the City will not pursue this alternative.
Section 3.
Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the DEIR
and the Recirculation DEIR
This section identifies the findings on significant impacts of the Project, as identified in the
DEIR/FEIR by issue topic. No findings are necessary for impacts found to be less than
significant.
Mitigation measures include agreements with the City which may apply to one or both of the
applicants or sponsors of the Project. Use of the singular (applicant, sponsor) to describe
responsibilities for such mitigation measures shall also include the plural (applicants, sponsors).
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impact 4.2.2: Project square footage. The square footage of proposed development exceeds
the maximum square footage allowed in the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure 4.2.2: Additional square footage would be allowed by General Plan floor
area bonuses, subject to programs for off-site improvements and special design standards.
Granting of square footage bonuses will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Finding 4.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 4.2.2 is feasible and allowed by the
General Plan, subject to developer commitments to feasible vehicular trip reduction and other
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures, consistent with C/CAG Guidelines,
established in an adopted Development Agreement.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 6.4.3: Unmitigated vehicular trips. The Project would exceed 100 trips during peak
hours. The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) requires that local
jurisdictions ensure that the developer will mitigate all new peak hour trips generated by the
Project.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.3: The DEIR requires implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan using programs acceptable to C/CAG to reduce vehicular trips.
Finding 6.4.3: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 6.4.3 is feasible and should reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. The TDM program must be implemented by the Project
sponsors as a condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and once implemented, must be
on-going for the occupied life of the development.
Impact 6.4.4: Traffic impacts to three CMP freeway segments. The addition of traffic
generated by approved development in the year 2003 Baseline Without Project would cause two
freeway segments to operate at LOS F. The Project would also cause traffic volumes to exceed
capacity on another freeway segment.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.4: The DEIR requires the Project to implement a TDM program to
minimize potential increases in freeway traffic.
Finding 6.4.4: The City finds that implementation of the TDM measures would not reduce
impacts to less than significant levels, so the impact remains significant and unavoidable and will
require a Statement of Overriding Considerations as a condition for Project approval (see Section
5).
Impact 6.4.5: Decline in LOS at four intersections, year 2003. The Project would cause a
decline in LOS below level "D" at the following four intersections:
· Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue
· Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue
· Allerton Avenue and East Brand Avenue
· South Airport Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard and Mitchell Avenue
Mitigation Measure 6.4.5: The Project shall implement a Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program consistent with the proposed City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance.
Project developers shall also participate in the funding of physical transportation improvements
in the East of 101 Area, as approved by the City of South San Francisco. The Project shall
contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at the four intersections
specifically impacted by Project traffic.
Finding 6.4.5: The City finds that the mitigation measure 6.4.5 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 6.4.6: Decline in LOS at eight intersections, year 2020. The Project would cause a
decline in LOS at eight intersections below level "D" at the following intersections, for year
2020 + Baseline + Project:
· Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue;
· Harbor Way/Forbes Boulevard and East Grand Avenue;
· Littlefield Avenue and East Grand Avenue;
· Allerton Avenue and East Grand Avenue;
· Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue;
· Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue;
· Gateway Boulevard and South Airport Boulevard; and
· South Airport Boulevard and U.S. 101 northbound ramps.
The italicized intersections above were analyzed in the Recirculation Draft EIR, February 2002.
Mitigation Measures 6.4.6: The Project shall implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program consistent with the City of South San Francisco TDM Ordinance.
Project developers shall also participate in the funding of physical transportation improvements
in the East of 101 Area, as approved by the City of South San Francisco. The Project shall
contribute a proportionate amount to the cost of improvements at the eight intersections
specifically impacted by Project traffic.
Finding 6.4.6: The City finds that the mitigation measure 6.4.6 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 6.4.7: Elimination of a public street. The Project would eliminate a public street
connection from the General Plan. The Project proposes to close off future public street access
between East Grand Avenue and Point San Bruno Boulevard, in conflict with the South San
Francisco General Plan that shows a future public street connection in this location.
Mitigation Measures 6.4.7: The City of South San Francisco shall implement an amendment to
the General Plan to delete the proposed public street connection between East Grand Avenue and
Point San Bruno Boulevard through the Project site. The Project shall provide an emergency
access road to the northeast comer of the Project site, where it may be connected to Point San
Bruno Boulevard and the Genentech research and development campus, by Genentech.
Finding 6.4.7: The City finds that the mitigation measure 6.4.7 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 6.4.8: Parking shortfall. Based on City parking standards, the proposed Project would
have a shortfall of 242 parking spaces. The shortfall could vary, depending on the balance of
developed office and R&D space, since R&D requires less parking than offices for the same
amount of floor area.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.8: The City of South San Francisco shall apply reduced parking
standards for office/R&D space, consistent with General Plan policies for projects that have
agreed to implement trip reduction methods. The reduced parking standards will help to support
the TDM program and will be consistent with the proposed parking supply.
Finding 6.4.8: The City finds that a range of reduced parking standards are feasible and will reduce
the impact to a less than significant level. The reduction in parking spaces is allowed by the zoning
ordinance, subject to a use permit and compliance with the PUD ordinance. In addition, the
TDM Ordinance allows for a reduction in parking if supported by the Project's TDM Plan.
AIR QUALITY
Impact7.2.2: Construction dust. Fugitive dust emitted during construction could be a
nuisance to nearby properties and persons with respiratory problems.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.2: The applicant shall incorporate dust control measures recommended
by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) in a Soils Management Plan and
Health and Safety Plan.
Finding: 7.2.2 The City finds that Mitigation Measure 7.2.2 is feasible and required and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 7.2.3: Regional air pollution emissions. Project traffic would emit hydrocarbons,
oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter over the Bay Area in amounts that exceed thresholds
established by the BAAQMD.
Mitigation Measure 7.2.3: Implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
designed to attain a 30% employee alternative mode usage. The TDM requirements would
reduce daily trip generation and regional emissions by 10 - 15%, but the impact to regional air
quality would still remain significant and unavoidable.
Finding 7.2.3: Mitigation measure 7.2.3 is feasible and required, but a significant impact is
unavoidable. The City finds that approval of the Project would require adoption of a Statement
of Overriding Considerations (see Section 5).
EARTH
Impact 9.2.1: Potential instability of fill soil and bay mud. The site contains a variety of fill
materials, including native soil, bedrock, Bay Mud, potential landfill and building materials that
can cause differential settlement of structures to be built on the site.
10
Mitigation Measure 9.2.1: A geotechnical investigation of fill soils at each proposed building
location shall be conducted as the basis for foundation design and recommendations for grading
and site preparation, pursuant to East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-1, -2, -3, -5, -6 and -12.
Finding 9.2.1: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.2 is feasible and will reduce the impact
to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.2: Potential for landslides: Landslides may occur where there is weak soil or
bedrock or seepage of water within a slope, causing damage to down-slope persons or property.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.2: The geotechnical investigations shall be conducted to determine the
stability of existing and proposed slopes, and the stability of all proposed excavations. The
potential for slope failure where seepage exists and methods to minimize it, particularly behind
the proposed childcare center, shall be determined. Appropriate shoring systems should be
recommended. The East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-7, -8, and -9 should be complied with.
Finding 9.2.2: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.2 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.3: Potential for strong ground shaking. The intensity of a large earthquake will
vary among proposed buildings depending upon soil and rock type, particularly where the site is
underlain by more than 10 feet of Bay Mud.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.3: Geotechnical investigation findings should be incorporated into the
design of structures in accordance with the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code.
East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-2, and -12 should be complied with.
Finding 9.2.3: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.3 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.4: Inconsistency between the Project and a policy minimizing grading. The
Project anticipates cuts in the northern slope to develop Building 1 and Parking Structure A on
existing slopes in excess of 30% grade. The impact is significant because development will
entail cut slopes generally ranging from 1.5:1 to 2:1 - steeper than existing slopes of 3:1, or 30%
- inconsistent with General Plan Policy 8.1-I-1 which requires retention of 30% slopes in their
'natural" state.
Mitigation Measure 9.2.4: The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted to reduce the
steepness of possible cut slopes, or demonstrate that cuts steeper than 30% would be necessary to
reduce potential damage to less than significant levels, pursuant to East of 101 Area Plan Policies
GEO- 1 through -12.
Finding 9.2.4: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.4 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
11
Impact 9.2.5: Potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. Strong ground shaking in
loose, saturated, cohesion-less soil can cause loss of bearing strength, lateral spreading in
liquefiable soil and differential settlement of structures.
Mitigation Measures 9.2.5: The potential for liquefaction at each proposed building site should
be evaluated during the geotechnical investigation, consistent with East of 101 Area Plan
Policies GEO-10 and-11.
Finding 9.2.5: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.5 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.6: Potential presence of expansive soils. The potential for shrinking and swelling
of clay soils may cause differential movement, cracking and structural damage to foundations.
Expansive soils are typically corrosive to buried steel in concrete or metal pipelines.
Mitigation Measures 9.2.6: Where expansive soils are identified in the geotechnical
Investigation, East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-2 and -12 should be implemented, and
comply with the basic provisions of the Uniform Building Code. Other measures including
application of lime to the expansive soils, replacement of expansive soils with imported select
fill, and application of corrosion-resistant coatings to buried steel elements should be
implemented.
Finding 9.26: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.6 is feasible and will reduce the impact
to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.7: Potential differential settlement. Foundations of unknown buildings that were
demolished in the past may remain buried and cause differential settlement of new buildings on
the same sites. Where existing pile foundations are encountered, they may obstruct the proposed
construction.
Mitigation Measures 9.2.7: The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted pursuant to East
of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-1 and-2, with recommendations for site grading, fill placement
and foundation construction in areas susceptible to differential settlement.
Finding 9.2.7: The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.7 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 9.2.8: Potential childcare facility exposure to geologic and seismic safety risks. The
Project may be inconsistent with General Plan 8.1-I-1 which restricts development of "special
occupancy buildings", possibly including the childcare center, in areas with geologic and seismic
hazards. The childcare facility site may be exposed to liquifaction, and landslides.
12
Mitigation Measures 9.2.8: East of 101 Area Plan Policies GEO-1, -2, -7, -9, -10 and -11
should be implemented, or relocate the childcare facility to a more central location in the Project,
free of the hazards that potentially exist at the proposed site.
Finding 9.2.8 The City finds that mitigation measure 9.2.8 is feasible and will reduce the impact
to a less than significant level.
HUMAN HEALTH
Impact 10.2.2: Exposure to contaminated soil and naturally-occurring asbestos. Exposure
to soil with contaminants that exceed clean-up standards may pose a significant adverse impact.
Also, excavation for utilities and building foundations could encounter naturally-occurring
asbestos in Serpentinite rock, and pose a health risk. The San Mateo County Health Services
Agency (SMCHSA) has jurisdiction over the potential exposure of construction workers to
contaminated soil during construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 10.2.2: A Soil Management Plan and Health and Safety Plan approved by
DTSC should be prepared prior to any construction or demolition within the currently capped
area of the site, which will occur during Phase 2. Dust shall be controlled. Construction workers
shall be trained. The Soil Management Plan shall be implemented to control disturbance of
Serpentinite soil during phase I. The entire site should be capped by paving, buildings and clean
soil.
Finding 10.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 10.2.2 is feasible and required.
Through compliance with the requirements of an approved Soil Management Plan, the exposure
to hazardous materials will be a less than significant impact of the Project.
Impact 10.2.3: Exposure of children to contaminated soil and naturally-occurring asbestos
when the childcare center is operation: Soil in the vicinity of the childcare center site may
contain naturally-occumng asbestos in serpentinite rock, although the levels of contaminants are
not known. Children could be exposed through ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation. San
Mateo County Health Services Agency (SMCHSA) has jurisdiction over the potential exposure
of children at the day care center to contaminated soil or naturally occurring asbestos at the
Project site. DTSC deed restrictions currently prohibit the use of the property for a childcare
center.
Mitigation Measure 10.2.3: The DTSC deed restriction should be broadened to allow the
childcare center based upon soil sampling at the site and a health risk assessment. However, if
the assessment determines that concentrations of contaminants in soil in the area of the childcare
center potentially result in unacceptable levels of risk, additional soil corrective measures or
modifications to the Project site plan would be necessary.
Finding 10.2.3: The City finds that mitigation measure 10.2.3 is feasible and will reduce the
impact to a less than significant level.
13
DRAINAGE, WATER QUALITY AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact 11.2.2: Potential water quality degradation. Additional runoff from the developed site
could increase the discharge of non-point pollutants, causing a small, but cumulatively significant
degradation of water quality in the bay. In industrial areas, pollutants consist of litter, paint, process
waste, landscape fertilizers and pesticides as well as heavy metals, oil and gas, and debris normally
deposited by vehicular traffic.
Mitigation Measure 11.2.2: A USEPA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit, administered by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) should be obtained. The terms of the permit require applicants to prepare a Storm
Water Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that demonstrates that Project development would not cause
any increase of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within
downstream receiving waters.
Finding 11.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 11.2.2 is feasible and required, and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 12.2.2. Loss of possible perennial marsh habitat. Development could cause the
removal of a possible low quality perennial marsh in the northwest corner of the site.
Mitigation Measure 12.2.2: A wetland delineation should be prepared using the Corps of
Engineers methodology. The applicant should demonstrate why avoidance of some or all of the
wetlands is not practicable, based upon cost, logistics and/or technology criteria. A permit
should be obtained from the Corps for filling wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Existing wetland should be replaced with new wetland habitat, preferably on-site -
possibly at the upland margins of the tidal slough that runs east/west along the site's southern
boundary. Wetlands should be replaced on a minimum 1:1 basis (FEIR response to comment #55
by William Rogalla). If it is not practicable, the applicant will be required to demonstrate why
on-site mitigation is not feasible. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board should be obtained.
Finding 12.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 12.2.2 is feasible and required and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 12.2.3: Potential disturbance of tidal marsh habitat from human activities. Users of
the Bay Trail could have off-leash dogs that would disturb waterfowl. The trail bridge could
disturb wildlife because it is located in the marsh. The Parking Structure B lighting could disturb
marsh wildlife in the area suggested for wetland mitigation in Impact 12.2.2.
Mitigation Measure 12.2.3: Parking Structure B and Buildings 8 and 9 shall shield light from
extending off-site. The area upstream of the slough bridge shall be fenced to keep humans and
their pets from entering this habitat area. The trail bridge crossing shall minimize fill from
14
intruding into the marsh. A California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration
Agreement under Sectionl603 of the State Code may be required for the bridge crossing.
Signage and waste receptacles shall be employed to protect the tidal marsh.
Finding 12.2.3: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 11.2.3 is feasible and required and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 12.2.4: Construction could degrade biological resources. Runoff from the
construction area could increase turbidity, laden with sediments as well as oil, gasoline and
lubricants from construction equipment and litter and dust that could degrade water quality and
mudflat areas in the tidal marsh habitat and in the bay.
Mitigation Measure 12.2.4: Construction fencing with signage should be placed between the
construction zone and the tidal marsh. A qualified biologist should be retained to conduct a
training session with supervisory construction personnel and to monitor compliance with the
mitigation measures.
Finding 12.2.4: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 12.2.4 is feasible and required and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 12.2.5: Stormwater and landscape irrigation degradation of water quality.
Impervious surfaces will increase runoff and discharge into the tidal marsh and bay at the storm
drain outfall proposed in the concrete rip-rap along the shoreline. Contaminants could include
heavy metals, lawn-care chemicals, and oils and greases.
Mitigation Measure 12.2.5: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be
prepared in accordance with RWQCB guidelines and rules. The plan shall provide best
management practices (BMPs) to treat runoff. Regulatory approval may be required for the
outfall. The SWPPP must demonstrate that Project development would not cause any increase of
sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials concentrations within downstream receiving
waters.
Finding 12.2.5: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 12.2.5 is feasible and required and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 12.2.6: Potential invasion of exotic plants into buffer areas and the tidal marsh. The
Project has the potential to promote the spread of invasive exotic plant species into buffer zones
and the tidal marsh. The expansion of current areas of exotic plants will damage habitat values.
Mitigation Measure 12.2.6: An exotic vegetation management plan should be prepared, to be
supervised by a qualified biologist over an unrestricted period of time. Exotic plants shall be
removed annually in accordance with recommendations in the plan.
Finding 12.2.6: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 12.2.6 is feasible and required and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
15
" CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact 13.2.2: Potential to damage unknown cultural resources. Excavation could
potentially encounter and damage unknown cultural resources.
Mitigation Measure 13.2.2: Upon contact with potential buried resources, a qualified cultural
resource consultant should evaluate the importance of the find, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. A
mitigation plan and monitoring program should be prepared by a qualified archaeologist, if
resources are uncovered. Work should be stopped and the county coroner notified if human
remains are found, and the native American Heritage Commission should be contacted if the
remains appear to be of Native American origin.
Finding 13.2.2: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 13.2.2 is feasible and required, and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
UTILITIES
Impact 14.1.5: Wasteful use of limited water supplies. The Project's water demand could
contribute to worsening water shortages throughout the Bay Area and California, particularly if a
significant number of R&D industries that locate on the site have high process water demands.
Mitigation Measurel4.1.5: Water conservation measures should be followed as set forth in the
City's General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan, pursuant to California Assembly Bill 325, which
requires the use of low flow plumbing fixtures and drought-tolerant landscaping in new
development. Recycled water from R&D processes should be used, whenever feasible.
Finding: 14.1.5: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 14.1.5 is feasible and required, and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 14.2.6: Potential failure of aging wastewater pumping facilities: The Project could
increase the rate and flow of wastewater beyond the existing reliable capacity of Pump Station
No. 4, and cause a potential operational failure. Peak flows could also create the potential for
wastewater back-ups if there is a power failure or equipment breakdown at aging Pump Station
No. 3.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.6: The City should complete the planned upgrade of Pump Station No.
4. The Project sponsors would pay a proportionate share of the costs to increase the capacity of
the pump station, the recently replaced sewer on Harbor Way, and additional sewer lines in the
East of 101 Area. Pumps and controls and an emergency power generator should be installed at
Pump Station No. 3. The Project's fair share of development costs would be determined by the
Public Works Dept., based on an East of 101 Sewer Master Plan study that is currently underway
by the City's wastewater consultant, Carollo Engineers.
16
Finding 14.2.6: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 14.2.6 is feasible and required, and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The City finds that 13.2.4, On-site Wastewater
Collection describes applicable Uniform Building Code requirements for design of the on-site
system - a less than significant impact (see FEIR response to comment #63 by William Rogalla.
Impact 14.2.7: Potential structural problems in aging sewer lines. The Project would increase
wastewater flows in segments of the gravity sewer system that are subsiding or that may have
leaking joints or other forms of deterioration. A major blockage or pipe failure could cause
backups or surface discharges. Peak flow rates exceeding allowable pipe capacities would not be
acceptable to the City.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.7: The sponsor should reconstruct the subsiding portion of the 15 inch
Swift Avenue sewer to establish constant pipe slope, inspect the entire system downstream to
Station No. 3 and make additional repairs at the direction of the City Engineer, prior to Project
completion. If the City Engineer confirms that future peak flow rates would exceed the
allowable capacity of any portion of the existing collection system, repairs would include
additional collection system capacity. If it could not be confirmed that this capacity would be
needed (owing to uncertainties regarding the site's long term development mix and average
wastewater generation rates), the sponsor could commit to the construction of the necessary
offsite improvements at such time that the Project's measured wastewater flows exceed a
predetermined level to be established by the Sewer Master Plan, currently being prepared. Such
an arrangement would be contingent upon the City's development and implementation of a
reliable wastewater flow monitoring program.
Finding 14.2.7: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 14.2.7 is required and feasible based on
coordination by the City Engineer, and will reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 14.2.8: Cumulative impacts to the wastewater treatment and collection systems.
The Project's estimated average dry weather wastewater flow equals 26% of the increase in flow
projected for "planned industrial" land uses in the East .of 101 Area Plan, but its developed
square footage represents only about 10.5% of this designation's total area. If this trend
continues for other projects, peak wet weather flows could eventually exceed the capacity of the
Harbor Way 27 inch gravity sewer and other existing sewers in the East of 101 Area, potentially
constraining future development, and additional treatment capacity may be needed sooner than
anticipated at the WQCP.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.8: A sewer collection model should be developed to identify,
prioritize and correct wastewater problems, and to ensure future orderly development throughout
the East of 101 area. Benefiting property owners or development sponsors would make fair share
contributions as needed to pay all associated modeling and construction costs. In accordance
with General Plan policy 5.3-1-7, the City should develop a program that encourages R&D
facilities and pharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce wastewater discharged into the collection
system. The City should use incentives for recycling and/or pretreatment, and provide assistance
in planning these facilities. The City should encourage high volume dischargers to release
process wastes over longer periods of time, or during off-peak periods (typically, nighttime).
17
Finding 14.2.8: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 14.2.8 is feasible and required, and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Impact 14.2.9: Potential collapse of abandoned on-site wastewater collection, water
distribution and storm drain facilities. Any lines left in place underneath planned buildings
and parking lots could collapse in the future, causing a safety hazard.
Mitigation Measure 14.2.9: Conduct A geotechnical investigation should be conducted
pursuant to East of 101 Plan Area policies GEO-2 and GEO-12, prior to development of each
building, to identify if buried utilities, foundations and other fill could cause differential
settlement. If manholes, catch basins and the outfall in the upper reaches of the tidal slough are
left in place, they should be plugged in accordance with City Engineering Department criteria.
Finding 14.2.9: The City finds that Mitigation Measure 14.2.9 is feasible and required, and will
reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Section 4. Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
A complete description of each mitigation measure is contained in Section 3, "Findings on
Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR and the Recirculation DEIR."
This section lists each mitigation measure in checklist format. The mitigation measures to be
implemented by the Project applicants or successors in interest are separated into the following
phases:
prior to issuance of a grading permit,
prior to issuance of a building permit,
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, and
ongoing requirements.
The City-implemented mitigation measures are contained at the end of the following table. The
checklist is consistent with the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City of South San
Francisco.
18
TIMING OF VERIFICATION
Prior to issuance of a grading permit
Prior to issuance of a building permit
Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy
Ongoing requirements (annual review TDM)
City-implemented measures (Review wastewater)
MITIGATION MEASURES
6.4.7
6.4.8
7.2.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
9.2.3
9.2.4
9.2.5
9.2.6
9.2.7
9.2.8
10.2.2
10.2.3
11.2.2
12.2.2
12.2.4
12.2.5
14.1.5
4.2.2
6.4.2
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.4.6
7.2.3
12.2.3
6.4.3
6.4.4
6.4.5
6.4.6
6.4.7
6.4.8
7.2.3
1.2.2.6
14.2.6
14.2.7
14.2.8
14.2.9
Gen Plan compliance
Parking standard
Dust control
Gen Plan compliance
Gen. Plan compliance
Gen. Plan compliance
Gen. Plan compliance
Gen Plan compliance
Gen Plan compliance
Gen Plan compliance
Gen Plan compliance
Soil Sampling
Soil Mgmt. Plan
SWPPP
Corps coordination
Marsh runoff
SWPPP
Water conservation
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
Marsh protect
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
TDM program
Exotic plants
Pump Station #4
Pump Station #3
Wastewater
Wastewater
19
- Section 5. Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the Project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse effects, those effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section
15093[a]). To approve the project, decision makers must make a "statement of overriding
considerations," setting forth reasons why the particular benefits of a project outweigh the
unavoidable adverse effect. A decision-making agency's determination must be supported by
substantial evidence in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]).
The City of South San Francisco has prepared and certified an FEIR for the proposed Britannia East
Grand Project that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following adverse impacts of the
Project in the South San Francisco area are considered significant and unavoidable, based on the
DEIR, FEIR, and the findings discussed previously in Sections 2 and 3 of Exhibit A:
Impact 6.4.4: Traffic impacts to three CMP freeway segments. The addition of
traffic generated by approved development in the year 2003 Baseline without Project
would cause two freeway segments to operate at LOS F. The Project would also
cause traffic volumes to exceed capacity on another freeway segment.
Mitigation Measure 6.4.4: The Final Environmental Impact Report, which includes
the Draft Environmental Impact Report, requires the Project to implement an
aggressive Transportation Demand Management Program designed to achieve thirty
percent alternative mode use in the Project. The TDM Plan shall contain all Required
Measures and Additional Measures contained in the City of South San Francisco's
TDM Ordinance, South San Francisco Municipal Code section 20.120. The Project
applicant is subject to penalties for non-compliance. Implementation and
achievement of thirty percent alternative mode use would lessen the impact but not
fully mitigate it to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
o
Impact 7.2.3 Significant Increase in Regional Air Pollution Emissions. Project
vehicular traffic would emit hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter
over the Bay Area that exceed thresholds established by the BAAQMD.
Mitigation Measures 7.2.3: The Project is subject to the City of South San
Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.120. Chapter 20.120 requires projects
requesting an FAR bonus or those generating in excess of 100 vehicle trips daily to
prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management Program designed to
obtain a thirty percent (30%) alternative mode usage. However, even if the Project
obtained a thirty percent alternative mode usage, the impact to regional air quality
would not be reduced to a level of less than significant as indicated in the Project
Draft EIR, citing the General Plan Draft EIR 4-73, 4-78 to 4-87, 5-1 and 5-9.
Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
20
Because of the Project's overriding benefits, the City is approving the Project despite the above
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. In deciding to approve the Project, the City
has considered both unavoidable and unmitigated significant environmental impact and, although
the City believes that both unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR will be substantially
lessened by the mitigation measures incorporated into the Project, the City recognizes that
approval of the Project will result in certain unavoidable and potentially irreversible effects.
The City finds that, to the extent the adverse or potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not
been mitigated to a less than significant level, specific economic, social, legal, environmental,
technological, or other benefits of the Project outweigh its significant effects on the environment.
The City finds that any and each of the following considerations, in and of itself, is sufficient to
approve the Project despite any one or more of the unavoidable impacts identified, and that each of
the overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the impacts individually, and that
each consideration is severable from any other consideration should one consideration be shown to
be legally insufficient for any reason.
The following benefits of the Proposed Britannia East Grand Project outweigh the foregoing,
unavoidable environmental impacts and support approval of the Project:
Implementation of General Plan Goals and Policies. The Project implements the
City's vision to redevelop former industrial property into higher and more
economically sustainable uses. The existing site, largely vacant and contaminated
with both asbestos and lead, will be remediated in accordance with state and federal
laws governing environmental remediation. Thereafter, construction of the Project
will result in a total of approximately 800,000 gross square feet of mixed
office/research and development and biotechnology industries, in nine buildings.
Retail and restaurant uses are included as well as an approximately 8,000 square foot
childcare facility. Redevelopment of the site will 1) facilitate construction of a mixed
employment project resulting in increased employment opportunities in the
community and 2) make the site more aesthetically pleasing and facilitate completion
of a linear park and Bay Trail; and,
o
Employment Benefits: The Project would be a source of office/R&D/biotechnical
industries in South San Francisco, generating jobs within nearly 800,000 gross square
feet of office/R&D space; and,
.
Community Recreational Open Space Benefits: The project would provide a 100-
foot wide, landscaped linear park along the San Francisco Bay, incorporating a
segment of the Bay Trail and other pedestrian amenities within the park. The park
will be owned and maintained by the Project sponsors for private and public use; and,
21
.
Campus Development: The Project site plans include generous open space areas,
and pedestrian plazas and paths inter-linking the buildings containing research and
development, offices, local serving retail/restaurants, child care facility, and parking
structures and lots. These retail, personal services and other amenities would serve
the needs of employees in the area during their workday without the need for
additional trip generation; and,
5. Economic Benefits: The Project would restore sales tax revenues and increase
property and other tax revenues from the Project site to the City; and,
.
Transportation Demand Management. Although the Project will create
unavoidable traffic and air quality impacts, the FEIR includes innovative mitigation
measures to reduce vehicular trips and air pollution. The measures take the form of a
"Transportation Demand Management" program which includes a broad range of
incentives for employees to ride-share, vanpool, ride BART, Caltrain, shuttles, and
other transit, ride bicycles, or work from home. The Program would be aggressively
managed on an ongoing and monitoring basis by "transportation coordinators" to
facilitate wide participation; and,
,
Best Use of Existing Property. The Britannia East Grand Project would provide a
beneficial mix of office, R&D, biotechnical industries, retail and restaurant
employment; redevelopment of a former paint manufacturing site; hazardous
materials remediation; pedestrian amenities; and tax revenues, which outweigh the
unavoidable environmental impacts.
The City Council therefore adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Britannia East
Grand Project. Additionally, because the City has previously made a Statement of Overriding
Considerations to approve the South San Francisco General Plan Update (Dyett & Bhatia, October,
1999) which caused the same unavoidable impacts as the proposed Project, that previous Statement
of Overriding Considerations would support approval of this Project. In particular, the General Plan
EIR (Dyett & Bhatia, October, 1999) identified measures to mitigate for traffic congestion along US
101 and for regional air pollution, but found that such impacts could not be reduced to less than
significant levels. The Britannia East Grand Project would impact some of the same freeway
segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and whose traffic and air quality effects could
only be partially mitigated. Therefore, the statement of overriding considerations that was made for
approval of the General Plan Update would also apply to action on the Britannia East Grand Project
by the City and is re-affirmed and the findings related thereto re-adopted to supplement the record
for this Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Britannia East Grand Project.
22
Section 6. Citations
City of South San Francisco. Final Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, October
1999. Planning Consultant: Dyett & Bhatia, San Francisco CA.
City of South San Francisco. Draft Environmental Impact Report, Britannia East Grand Project,
October 2001. Planning Consultant: Richard Morehouse, Morehouse Associates, Corte Madera,
CA.
City of South San Francisco. Recirculation Draft Environmental Impact Report, Britannia East
Grand Project, February 2002. Planning Consultant: Richard Morehouse, Morehouse Associates,
Corte Madera, CA.
City of South San Francisco. Final Environmental Impact Report, Britannia East Grand Project,
April 2002. Planning Consultant: Richard Morehouse, Morehouse Associates, Corte Madera, CA.
23