HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso RDA 13-1993 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION NO. 74-93
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
RESOLUTION NO. 13-93
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CERTIFYING REVIEW
AND CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND STATING OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE
EL CAMINO CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (the "Draft
EIR") on the E1 Camino Corridor Redevelopment Plan (the
"Redevelopment Plan") was prepared by the City of South San
Francisco (the "City") pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.,"CEQA"), the
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations §§15000 et seq.,
the "State EIR Guidelines") and the City's and Agency's
Guidelines for Implementing CEQA (the "Local Guidelines"); and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 1993, the City forwarded the Draft
EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those agencies
which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the E1 Camino
Corridor Redevelopment Project to be undertaken pursuant to the
Redevelopment Plan (the "Project"), to all affected taxing
agencies pursuant to Health & Safety Code §33333.3, and to other
interested persons and agencies, and sought the comments of such
persons and agencies; and
WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies of
the completion of the Draft EIR was published in the Enterprise-
Journal on January 30, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission
(the "Planning Commission") held a noticed public hearing on the
Draft EIR on March 4, 1993; and
WHEREAS, comments were received on the Draft EIR prior to
the close of the 45-day review period for submitting comments on
the Draft EIR. The comments received and the City's responses to
such comments are contained in a Final Environmental Impact
Report on the Redevelopment Plan dated April, 1993, which
document is incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2451, adopted on May 6, 1993, the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council and the
Agency the certification of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the City Council
and the Agency on May 26, 1993 on the Redevelopment Plan, the
proposed amendments to the City of South San Francisco General
Plan (the "General Plan Amendment") and the EIR, following notice
duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested
persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or objections
thereto were hears, and the EIR was considered; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1993, by Resolution No. 65-93, the City
Council certified the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and for the
General Plan Amendment; and
WHEREAS, as subsequently referred to in this Resolution, the
EIR (State Clearhousing #92113002) consists of the Draft EIR
(dated February, 1993) and the Final EIR incorporating comments
and written responses thereto (dated April, 1993); and
WHEREAS, by this concurrent resolution, the City Council, as
the lead agency under CEQA for preparing the EIR and the entity
responsible for adopting the Redevelopment Plan and approving the
Project; and the Agency, as the agency responsible for preparing
and carrying out the Redevelopment Plan under the California
Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety §33000, et seq.),
jointing desire to comply with the requirements of CEQA, the
State EIR Guidelines, and the Local Guidelines for consideration,
certification, and use of the EIR by lead and responsible
agencies in connection with the approval and subsequent
implementation of the Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency as follows:
1. That the City Council and the Agency hereby find and
certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA,
the State EIR Guidelines and the Local Guidelines; that the EIR
adequately addresses the environmental issues of the Project and
the Redevelopment Plan; and that the City Council and the Agency
have reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR
prior to approving the Project and the Redevelopment Plan.
2. That the City Council and Agency hereby identify the
significant effects, adopt the mitigation measures, adopt the
monitoring program to be implemented for such mitigation
measures, make the findings, and declare the statement of
overriding considerations set forth in detail in the attached
Exhibit "A" which is incorporated in this Resolution by this
reference. The statements, findings and determinations set forth
in Exhibit "A" are based on the above certified EIR and other
information available to the City Council and the Agency, and are
made in compliance with Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the
State EIR Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of CEQA.
2
3. That, pursuant to Public Resources Code §21082.1, the
City Council and the Agency hereby find and certify that the EIR
reflects the independent judgment of the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly
introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South
San at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of
June , 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Robert Yee, and
Mayor Roberta Cerri Teglia
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers Jack Drago, and John R. Penna
City Clerk ~
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly
introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco at reQu]ar meeting held on
the 23rd day of June , 1993 by the following vote:
AYES: Boardmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Robert Yee, and
Chairwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Boardmembers Jack Drago, and John R. Penna
ATTEST:
Redevelopment AgencyVof the
City of South San Francisco
3
· El Camino Corridor Program ATTACHMENT 1 Mitigation Monitoring
' · City of South San Francisco RESOLUTION NO. 74-93 CITY COUNCIL
May 14, 1993 RESOLUTION NO. 13-93 REDEVELOPMENT Page I
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE EL CAMINO CORRIDOR
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
The following monitoring program has been formulated for implementation of environmental
Impact mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed El
Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan (April 1993). The El
Camino Corridor mitigation monitoring program will involve implementation verification through
use of a checklist. A recommended checklist is attached hereto. State mitigation monitoring
requirements and the recommended verification checklist are described herein.
A. STATE MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENT
On January 1, 1989, AB 3180 became law in California. The bill requires all public agencies
to adopt reporting or monitoring programs when they approve projects subject to
environmental impact reports. The complete text of the bill can be found in Section 21081.6
of the Public Resources Code. As mandated by this legislation, a mitigation monitoring
program must be implemented by the Lead Agency (the City) subsequent to certification of the
Final EIR for the Proposed El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment
plan.
Most of these mitigation measures will be subject to effective monitoring through the City's
and Redevelopment Agency's normal administrative, capital improvement planning and
individual project development review procedures (i.e., during formulation of future capital
improvement plans, and individual assistance agreements; approval procedures for individual
project tentative maps, developmen, t agreements, and building permits; and associated plan
check procedures). However, to satisfy CEQA Section 21081.6, a documented record of such
implementation will be necessary.
B. CHECKLIST FORMAT
The attached monitoring checklist includes spaces for: (1) a summary of each significant
adverse impact identified in the EIR; (2) a summary of each associated mitigation measure;
(3) identification of the type of recommended monitoring action; (4) identification of the
associated timing requirements; and (5) identification of the agency responsible for pedorming
and verifying the monitoring action.
WP$1tJOBS~522tMI TMONtMMP RO.522
El Camino Corridor Program Mitigation Monitoring,
City of South San Francisco
May 14, 1993 Page 2
WP$1UOBSt52~I ~NtMMP RO.~2
ZC~ n n
_
0
~ ~ o--mO
~ c ~
0 m · ~
em~E
c
~ m o o~..~ ~
~ ~ -. ~__
EXHIBIT A
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EL CAMINO CORRIDOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT
MITIGATION MEASURES, MONITORING PLAN,
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. General Information and Description of the Project
The project under considerationby the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency") and the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco ("City Council") is
the Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the E1 Camino
Corridor Redevelopment Project (the "Project") and the General
Plan Amendment for the E1 Camino Corridor ("General Plan
Amendment").
The Redevelopment Plan has been prepared pursuant to the
California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code
Section 33000 et seq., to enable the City of South San Francisco
(the "City") and the Agency to eliminate the physical, economic
and social blighting conditions that currently exist in the
-- Project Area so that the Project Area may be developed in
conformance with the City General Plan to the benefit of Project
Area residents and businesses and the City of South San Francisco
community as a whole.
The Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR") for the Project
has been prepared by the Agency in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the State CEQAguidelines and
applicable local CEQA Implementation Guidelines. As used in
these findings, the term "EIR" means the Draft Environmental
Impact Report ("DEIR") and the Final Environmental Impact Report
("FEIR") prepared by the City for the Project, as more fully
described below. The City has served as "Lead Agency" and the
Agency has served as a "Responsible Agency" in the preparation
and consideration of the EIR.
The EIR process began on October 16, 1992 with the
preparation by the City of an Initial Study and the mailing of a
Notice of Preparation to all interested and affected agencies,
followed by the preparation of a DEIR. The DEIR was submitted to
the State Clearinghouse for review on February 1, 1993. The
comment period closed on March 17, 1993. On January 30, 1993 the
Notice of Completion of the DEIR was published in The Enterprise
Journal.
~3103P.PSO
06/15/95 -1-
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code.Section 33333.3, the DEIR
and the Redevelopment Plan were distributed by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to all affected taxing agencies and the
fiscal review committee. Copies of the Notice of Completion of
the DEIR were also mailed to the Cityts mailing list of
interested persons regarding environmental issues. Pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21092 a copy of the Notice of
Completion was filed with the County of San Mateots Clerk's
Office for posting. The Planning Commission conducted a noticed
public hearing on the DEIR on March 4, 1993.
Thirteen (13) written comments were received on the DEIR in
the form of letters and memoranda submitted to the City. A
fourteenth letter was received from BART after the close of the
public review period. Oral comments were also received by and
from the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission at its
public hearing on the DEIR held on March 4, 1993. Oral comments
on the adequacy of the EIR were received from one member of the
public at this hearing. The comments received on the DEIR, and
the City's response to such comments are contained in the FEIR.
The Redevelopment Plan, General Plan Amendment, and the EIR
for the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment came before
the City Council and the Agency on May 26, 1993 at a public
hearing. On May 26, 1993 the City Council and the Agency
certified the EIR for the General Plan Amendment and adopted the
following Findings, Monitoring Plan, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
II. The Record
The Record of the City Council and the Agency relating to
the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment and their
potential environmental effects includes the following documents
and materials, which are incorporated in this Exhibit A by this
reference:
A. The Redevelopment Plan for the E1 Camino Corridor
Redevelopment Project;
B. The Preliminary Report on the Redevelopment Plan dated
January, 1993 (the "Preliminary Report");
C. The Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment
Plan dated April, 1993 (the "Report to Council") and all further
supplements to the Report to Council prepared by the Agency and
submitted to the City Council;
D. The amendment to the General Plan for the City of South
San Francisco dated May, 1993 (the "General Plan Amendment#);
63103PJ~o0
O~/~S/9~ --2--
E. Documentary and oral evidence received by the South San
Francisco Planning Commission, the city Council and the Agency
during Public hearings on the Redevelopment Plan, General Plan
Amendment, and the EIR for the Redevelopment Plan and General
Plan Amendment, and the Agency's response to written evidence
received before and at the public hearing;
F. The EIR prepared for the Redevelopment Plan and General
Plan Amendment, consisting of the DEIR and the FEIR;
G. The Written Findings and Responses pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 33363, adopted by the City Council on
June 23, 1993.
H. Matters of common knowledge known to the City Council
and the Agency which they consider, such as the South San
Francisco General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
III. Overall Findings
Before the Agency and the City Council may approve the
Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment, CEQA mandates that
the City, as lead agency, and the Agency, as a responsible agency
within the meaning of CEQA, consider the Record and make certain
findings required by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14
California Code of Regulations Sections 15091, 15092 and 15093.
The EIR identifies potentially significant impacts on the
environment which are likely to result from adoption of the
Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment. Based on the
following findings as to each such impact, the Agency and the
City Council conclude that changes or alterations have been
incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
all potentially significant environmental impacts identified by
the EIR, except for the noise impact identified in Section IV.E.
As to those unavoidable significant impacts, the City Council and
Agency have adopted a statement of overriding considerations, as
set forth in Section VII below.
Further, as required by Public Resources Code Section
21081.6, a monitoring program is set forth in Attachment I to
this Exhibit A and is adopted for the mitigation measures stated
in and required by this Exhibit A.
The purposes of the findings contained in this Exhibit A
include: (1) certifying the EIR prepared for the Redevelopment
Plan and General Plan Amendment; (2) briefly describing and
summarizing the potentially significant environmental impacts of
the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment; (3) describing
mitigation measures for, and alternatives to, the Redevelopment
Plan and General Plan Amendment; and (4) presenting the Agency
and City's findings as to the impacts of the Redevelopment Plan
63103P.P50
06/1S/93 --3 --
and General Plan Amendment after adoption or rejection of the
mitigation measures and alternatives.
The City Council and the Agency certify that the EIR has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it was presented
to, and reviewed and considered by, the Agency and the City
Council prior to acting on the Redevelopment Plan and General
Plan Amendment. In so certifying, the Agency and the City
Council recognize that there may be "differences" among and
between the information and opinions offered in the documents and
testimony that make up the Record. Therefore, by these findings
(including this Exhibit A and the resolution adopting this
Exhibit A), the Agency and the City Council adopt the
clarifications and/or modifications of the EIR as set forth'in
these findings, and determine that these findings shall control
and that the EIR shall be deemed to be certified subject to the
determinations reached by the Agency and the City Council in
these findings, which are based on the substantial evidence in
the Record described above.
The Agency and the City Council also find and determine that
the EIR will serve as the "Program" EIR for the Redevelopment
Plan and General Plan Amendment, pursuant to California Code of
Regulations Section 15168. Subsequent specific projects will
undergo individual environmental review and may involve further
identification of project-specific impacts, mitigations and
alternatives. At this stage of the redevelopment process, it is
impossible to forecast with certainty the particulars of such
subsequent projects, whether such subsequent projects will be
approved, will be approved at the maximum density or intensity
allowed by applicable land use regulation or will involve the
assumptions, environmental impacts and scenarios hypothesized in
the EIR. Nonetheless, these findings attempt to address
plausible environmental impacts of the Redevelopment Plan and the
General Plan Amendment at the earliest stage in the process. The
EIR recommends mitigation measures for the Redevelopment Plan and
General Plan Amendment as a whole, including mitigation measures
which are designed to be: (i) incorporated as policies of the
City and the Agency in implementing the Redevelopment Plan and
General Plan Amendment; (ii) effected through subsequent imple-
menting regulations, ordinances, standards, programs and plans;
or (iii) incorporated into future development approvals.
The Agency and the City Council also find and determine that
the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Agency and the
City Council.
IV. Findings and Monitoring Program
Notwithstanding the identification of the significant
environmental effects of the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan
~3103P.P~O
06/1.%'9~ -4-
Amendment, the Agency and the City Council have approved the
Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment, as authorized by
Public Resources Code Section 21081 and 14 California Code of
Regulations Sections 15901, 15902, and 15093. As required by the
aforementioned references, the following findings are made for
which there is substantial evidence in the record. Further, as
required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, a
monitoring program is adopted for each mitigation measure adopted
by the City and the Agency.
For each potentially significant environmental impact
identified in the EIR, there follows a summary that= a) describes
the potential significant effect, b) outlines a mitigation
measure or measures, c) sets forth a monitoring program for the
proposed mitigation measure(s), and d) adopts the proposed
mitigation measure(s) and monitoring program, makes one or more
of the findings required by CEQA, and cites the supporting
evidence and analysis for such finding(s). The proposed
monitoring programs are detailed in Attachment i to this Exhibit
and are cross-referenced in the following text by the component
number found at the left margin of Attachment i for each
monitoring program.
A. LAND USE
__ 1. Land Use Impact ~1
a. ~nvironmental ~ffect= Increased Residential
Density on McLellan Nursery Property. The impacts of increased
residential density on the McLellan Nursery property would be
minimized through implementation of density transition policies
and design standards advocated for this site in the General Plan
Amendment.
b. Mitigation Measure(s}. None Required.
c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
d. Findina. Not applicable.
2. T.and Use Impact #2
a. ~nvironmental Effect= Macy's Site Apartment
Development. The impacts of Macy's site apartment development on
the adjacent Treasure Island Trailer Park, and the impacts of
Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart site condominium development on
the adjacent Red Arrow Mobile Home Park and adjacent single
family homes along Chestnut Avenue, would be minimized by the
buffering policies and design standards advocated for these two
sites in the General Plan Amendment.
/3103P.PSO
06nS/9~ --5--
b. ~itigation Measure(s). None Required.
c. Monitoring ProGram. Not applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
3. Land Use ?mDact #3
a. Rnvironmental Effec%: Cumulative I~pacts.
In addition to the changes in Project Area home and job totals
anticipated between 1995 and 2010 as a result of the Project,
another approximately 900 homes and 3,340 more Jobs are projected
elsewhere in the City, and another approximately 4,450 homes and
15,750 Jobs are projected elsewhere in north San Mateo County
between 1995 and 2010. These cumulative buildout increments are
consistent with the general plan land use parameters of the
respective communities and would not be expected to cause
significant cumulative land use impacts. The effects of these
changes in cumulative traffic, public services, noise and air
quality impacts are addressed in corresponding sections of this
EIR.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required.
c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
4. Land Use Impact #4
a. Environmental Effect: Growth-Inducing
Impacts. Growth inducement would be an impact (i.e., a goal) of
the Redevelopment Plan, General Plan Amendment, and annexation.
Any precedent-following proposals for similar, more intensive
development of other properties in the Project vicinity would be
expected to comply with adopted General Plan and zoning policies
for these properties. The impact of the added buying power
associated with Project Area residential development (i.e., an
added demand for 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor
space) would not exceed the commercial space increases
anticipated within the Project Area as a result of the Project
(approximately 75,000 sq. ft.). The multiplier effect of
project-facilitated direct job growth would be expected to result
in a total of up to 282 direct and indirect new jobs in the
region, a relatively minor increment when compared to anticipated
1995-2010 regional Job growth figures.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). The growth inducing
effects would be continued to the Project Area and would be
mitigated by the land use compatibility design standard policies
included in the General Plan Amendment.
6~103P.PSO
oG/15/93 - 6-
C. Monitoring Proaram. Not applicable.
d. Finding. The above mitigation measure is
hereby adopted as part of the General Plan Amendment. Based upon
the information and analysis of Part IV.A. of the DEIRr the
f£nding is made that the adoption of the General Plan Amen~mene,
including design standard policies, will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in A.4.a.
B. URBAN D~SIGN
1. Urban Desian ImPact #~
a. Environmental Effect: McLellan Nurser~ Site.
The form and layout of anticipated condominium development on
this site at 25 units per acre average density (two-stories)
could be created in any style without significant impacts on
offsite viewpoints. Development of the site as an enclave would
cause little or no disruption to adjacent neighborhoods.
However, opportunities to enhance the existing adjacent Serra
Highlands/Sterling Manor neighborhood with development of the
McLellan site include provision of needed pedestrian access to E1
Camino Real and the proposed BART station. (The McLellan site,
Alta Loma School, E1 Camino Real, and intervening topographic
differences currently form a barrier between the Serra
Highlands/Sterling Manor neighborhood and the proposed BART
station.)
b. Mitigation Measure(s). In the new
development layout for the McLellan site, provide a pedestrian-
only connection from the upland neighborhood through the McLellan
property to E1 Camino Real and the BART station site. In
addition, the design guidelines set forth on pages 102-104 of the
DEIR should be incorporated into any development on the McLellan
site.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component $1 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. F~nd~ng. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. A pedestrian link between
the Serra Highlands/Sterling Manor Neighborhood would provide a
connection between these neighborhoods and the E1 Camino Real and
BART, thus improving access in these neighborhoods. Based upon
the information and analysis in Part IVB of the DEIR, the finding
~l~P.l~.~O
06/1S/~ -7-
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in B.l.a. above.
2. Urban Design Impact #2
a. Rnvironmental Rffec~: Building Heights. New
transit oriented residential development at 50 units per acre
average density in the core area north and south of the BART
station is expected to involve construction of 3-to-4-story
buildings above partially-submerged, one-level parking. These
heights would be significantly less than the existing Macy's
warehouse and Kaiser Hospital structures. Also, because much of
this core area is lOw-lying, the visual effects of 3-to-4-story
building heights would be limited. These impacts are not
considered to be adverse.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Although the impacts
are not considered adverse, design measures are proposed on pages
102-104 of the DEIR to ensure strong street relationships and
appropriate pedestrian linkages with the BART station.
New development in the areas north and south of the
BART station should face the Hickey Boulevard Extension and "New
Street," respectively, as illustrated on Figure 12 of the DEIR.
A mid-block pedestrian crossing should be considered on "New
Street" to link new industrial development to the station.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~2 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Incorporation of the
design performance standards will ensure that high density
housing will fit with the surrounding urban area and for the most
part enhance the urban design of the area by requiring high
quality construction. Based upon the information and analysis in
Part IV.B. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of
the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in B.2.a. above.
3. Urban Design Impact #3
a. Significant Rnvironmental Effect: Visual
ImDact in the Mission Road/County Center Area. The potential
~I~P.P~O
0~15/~ -8--
development sites in the Mission Road/Grand Avenue/County
Center/Oak Avenue area are closely connected visually to existing
adjacent neighborhoods. There is, therefore, a greater need and
opportunity in this area to integrate new project-facilitated
development with the existing surroundings. At 30- to 40-units
per acre, the new development is likely to be 2-to-3 stories
high. These heights would be compatible with adjacent existing
development along Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Oak Avenue if
setbacks, building massing, street orientation, architectural
form, and rooflines are designed sensitively. However, without
the General Plan Amendment and associated design standards to
ensure these results, new developments might be designed as
enclaves that do not front on or relate to adjacent streets, with
significant adverse impacts on the existing neighborhood
character. In addition, this subarea is over 1,500 feet from the
proposed BART station, a walk of five to ten minutes. Mission
Road is currently not a pleasant, pedestrian-encouraging
environment, a condition which would deter future pedestrian
movement to and from the proposed BART station.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Design parameters are
proposed on page 108 of the EIR for setbacks, frontage
relationships, building heights, architectural treatments, and
pedestrian treatment along Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Mission
Road.
Along the west side of Mission Road, a new walk should
be constructed west of the open culvert, and consideration should
be given to thinning and retaining existing vegetation to
function as street trees. A new walk and plantlng strips should
be installed as part of project-facilitated development along the
east side of Mission Road, in accordance with "boulevard street"
recommendation page 104 of the DEIR.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component $4 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Incorporation of the
above design parameters will orient new development toward the
neighborhoods and insure that high density housing fits with the
adjoining neighborhood designs. Improvements to pedestrian
access along Mission Road will provide greater access to BART
from this area and reduce reliance upon cars. Based upon the
information and analysis in Part IV.B. of the DEIR, the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
~I~P.PSO
oW15/93 -9-
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in B.3.a. above.
4. Significant Urban Desiqn Impact #4
a. Environmental Effect. Visual Impact - BART
Hickey Station. The most visually problematic element of the
BART station plan is the parking structure proposed along the E1
Camino Real frontage. Overall, the structure is likely to
obscure views of the BART platform from E1 Camino Real and create
an unattractive wall along the street frontage. It also is
likely to be out of scale and character with proposed transit
oriented residential development to the north and south. The
main entrance drive to the parking structure on E1 Camino Real
would be perceived as a long tunnel through the parking
structure. The proposed parking structure street setbacks are
inconsistent with expected residential setbacks to the north and
south, and insufficient to allow the landscaping, sidewalks, and
lighting necessary to create a unified "parkway" frontage along
E1 Camino Real, which will visually unify the route as the area's
principal identifying element and reduce visual impacts of the
BART station and new residential development. The garage
structure as proposed would also have an awkward relationship to
the street edge. In addition, pedestrian access to the station
along the E1 Camino Real side would be indirect.
b. Mitigation MeasureCs). Within the
constraints of the proposed BART development program, a number of
mitigation measures are recommended and illustrated on pages 108-
111 of the DEIR to reduce identified visual and design impacts,
including parking structure setbacks, overall reconfiguration of
the structure, and other architectural treatments to enhance the
appearance and "landmark" role of the new station along E1 Camino
Real. General performance standards for Project Area Street
design are suggested on Pages 103-107 of the DEIR, including
parkway design treatment for E1 Camino Real.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. BART/SAMTRANS.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #4,5 and 8 of
the monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit
are hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program
for the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measures are
within the jurisdiction of BART and not the City or the Agency.
However, the City and the Agency find that adoption of the above
mitigation measures will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect described in B.4.a above. The
City and the Agency hereby adopt a policy to advocate adoption of
these mitigation measures with BART.
63103P,PSO
Ot~'lS/9~ - 1 O-
5. Urban Design Tmpact #5
a. Sign~ficant ~nv~ronmenta] ~ffect: Visual
Impact of Mission Road ?.a¥out. The proposed layout of the
Mission Road side of the BART station also includes aspects which
would introduce visual conflicts with existing residential and
commercial development along the roadway frontage, and would
involve awkward pedestrian movements.
b. ~itigation Measure(s). Measures to enhance
the pedestrian environment, improve pedestrian safety, and
improve parking provisions along the various station street'
frontages are also recommended on pages 108-111 of the DEIR.
c. M~tigation Responsib{l{ty. BART/SAMTRANS.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #6 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit are
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measures are
within the jurisdiction of BART and not the City or the Agency.
However, the City and the Agency find that adoption of the above
mitigation measures will substantially lessen or avoid the
significant environmental effect described in B.4.a above. The
City and the Agency hereby adopt a policy to advocate adoption of
these mitigation measures with BART.
6. Urban Design Impact #6
a. Significant Environmental Rffect. V.~sua]
ImDact of Proposed Mixed-Use Residential-Commercial Development
Area. The mixed use residential-commercial development area
proposed along the north side of the station (along the Hickey
extension) would probably take the form of 3-to-4-story housing
over one-story commercial, with surface and subsurface (garage)
parking. This development form could visually complement
proposed transit oriented residential development to the north
(on the opposite side of the Hickey extension), but may not be
compatible with adjacent BART station and BART parking structure
development; and may be out of scale with the low-rise character
of existing development on the opposite side of Mission Road
(residential and commercial development and the high school).
b. Mit~gat~on Measurers). Design parameters are
recommended on page 110 of the DEIR to ensure compatibility
between BART-station site residential-commercial development and
planned transit oriented residential development on the opposite
__ side of the Hickey extension.
~I~P.PSO
~/]s/~ -11-
c. Mitigation Responsibilitv. BART, City,
Agency, and future private developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #7 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Adoption of design
parameters will ensure that the streetscape of any joint
development is compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. Based
upon the information and analysis in Part IV.B. of the DEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure
and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in B.6.a. above.
C. HOUSING. POPULATION. AND EMPLOYMENT
No significant adverse housing, population, or employment
impacts are identified.
D. TRANSPORTATION
1. Transportation Impact
a. Significant Environmental Rffect: Existing
Intersection Deficiencies. Seventeen (17) local intersections
most likely to be affected by project related development and
traffic increases have been evaluated in the EIR traffic study.
Currently, the majority of these intersections are operating at
acceptable levels of service (LOS) during the weekday AM and PM
peak traffic hours. However, the following six local
intersections are currently operating at unacceptable LOS levels,
and have been identified in this EIR as significant existing
impact locations.
6310~P.P$O
o6,,] s/9~ - 12-
b. ~itigatton Measure(s)
Area of Impact ~itigation
· E1 Camino Real/Mission Signalize (result--AM and PM
Road (Colma) --AM and PM= LOS B)
LOS F
· E1 Camino Add second left turn lanes on
Real/Westborough Westborough and Chestnut
Dr./Chestnut Ave.--PM= approaches (result--PM LOS D)
LOS F
· Westborough Dr./Junipero Restripe northbound Junipero
Serra Blvd.--PM= LOS E Serra approach to provide two
left turn lanes, two through
lanes and one right turn lane
(result--PM LOS D)
· Hickey Blvd./S.R. 280 Signalize (result--PM LOS D)
northbound ramps (Daly
City)--PM= LOS E
· Hickey Blvd./S.R. 280 Signalize (result--PM LOS C)
-- southbound ramps (Daly
City)--PM= LOS E
· Chestnut Ave./Hillside Signalize (result--PM LOS B)
Dr.--PM= LOS F
The EIR traffic analysis also indicates that signals are
needed under current traffic conditions at the following
intersections=
Area of ImDact Mitigation
· Mission Road/Grand Ave. Signalize
· Chestnut Ave./Grand Ave. Signalize
· Hickey Blvd./I-280 Signalize
northbound ramps (Daly
City)
· Hickey Blvd./I-280 Signalize
southbound ramps (Daly
City)
c. Mittgat~on Responsib~l~tv. City of South San
-- Francisco.
~I~P.P~
06/1~ -13-
d. Monitoring Program. Components $9, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, and 16 of the monitoring program set forth in
Attachment i to this Exhibit are hereby incorporated by reference
as the monitoring program for the above-described mitigation
measure (s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring programs are hereby adopted. As the indicated
mitigation measures show, inclusion of these mitigation measures
will improve existing levels of service at these intersections.
Based upon the information and analysis in Part IV.D. of the
DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above
mitigation measures and monitoring programs will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Section D.l.a. above.
2. Transportation Impact #2
a. Significant Environmental Effect: Existing
High School Vicinity Safety Concerns. A high level of jaywalking
by high school students occurs at the Mission Road/Evergreen
Drive intersection and along the high school frontages adjacent
to these two roadways, particularly by students going to and from
bus stops and adjacent neighborhoods.
b. Mitigation Measure(s}. SamTrans buses should
stop to let off or pick up students on the high school side of
Evergreen Drive and Mission Road. Additionally, during pre- and
post-school hours, buses should stop as far as possible from the
Mission Road/Evergreen Drive intersection. In its student
orientations and assemblies, E1 Camino High School should
regularly advise students to use crosswalks and not jaywalk.
Alternatively, the high school should consider fencing the
grounds fronting on Mission Road and Evergreen Drive to channel
students to gates located near crosswalks.
c. ~itigation Responsibility. South San
Francisco Unified School District/SamTrans/City of South San
Francisco.
d. Monitoring Program. Component $17 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure.
e. Finding. To the extent the above mitigation
measures are within the jurisdiction of the City and/or Agency,
the mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted.
City/Agency advocacy of adoption of the above measures by the
appropriate agency will reduce the incidence of jaywalking in the
~I~P.PSO
06/1~ -14-
area and will thus reduce safety concerns. Based upon the
information and analyses in Part IV.D of the DEIR, the finding is
made that the adoption of the above mitigation measures and
monitoring programs will avoid or Substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Section D.2.a
above.
Transportation Tmpact #3
a. Significant Environmental Effect: Year2010
Intersection Deficiencies without the Project. The following six
intersections would experience additional significant impacts by
the year 2010 due to increases in traffic associated with
subregional growth without the project:
b. ~itigation Measure(s).
Area of Impact Mitigation
· E1 Camino Add second EB and WB left turn
Real/Westborough lanes as recommended to
Blvd./Chestnut Ave.--AM: correct existing deficiencies
from LOS D (existing) to (result: PM LOS still F);
LOS E; PM: would remain extend Oak Ave. from Mission
LOS F Rd. to E1 Camino Real,
aligning with Arroyo Drive, as
proposed in General Plan
(General Plan Policy 75);
result: PM LOS D
· E1 Camino Real/Hickey Add additional lanes to SB E1
Blvd.--PM: from LOS C Camino intersection approach
(existing) to LOS E (result: one left/three
through/one right turn lane;
PM LOS ¢)
· Hickey Blvd./Junipero Add one additional lane to the
Serra Blvd.--PM: from WB Hickey approach (result:
LOS D (existing) to LOS E one left/two through/one right
turn lane; PM LOS D)
· Hickey Blvd./I-280 NB Add one additional lane to the
ramps (after NB offramp approach (result:
signalization)--PM: LOS one left/one shared left-
E through/one right turn lane;
PM LOS D)
· Westborough Dr./Junipero Add one additional lane to NB
Serra Blvd./ 1-280 NB Junipero Serra approach and
onramp--PM: LOS E one additional lane to WB
(existing) to LOS F
63103P,PSO
o6/1s/92 -15-
Westborough approach (result=
PM LOS D)
. Avalon Dr./Junipero Serra Add one additional lane to NB
Blvd./I-280 NB ramps--PM: offramp approach (result= one
LOS D (existing) to LOS E left/two through/one right
turn lane; PM LOS C)
In addition, added signals would be needed at the following
intersections=
Area of Impact Mitiqation
· Mission Road/Evergreen Signalize, provide left turn
Dr. lane on SB intersection
approach (result LOS B)
. Hickey Blvd. extension/E1 Signalize
Camino Real
· Hickey Blvd. Signalize
extension/Mission Rd.
· "New Street" (BART Signalize, provide left turn
station)/E1 Camino Real lane on SB E1 Camino Real
approach to New Street (result
Los B)
· "New StreetN (BART Provide all-way stop sign
Station/Mission Road) control
c. Mitigation Responsibility. City of South San
Francisco.
d. Monitoring Program. Components $18, 19, 20,
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the monitoring program set
forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit are hereby incorporated by
reference as the monitoring program for the above-described
mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. As the indicated
mitigation measures show, inclusion of these measures will
improve existing levels of service at these intersections. Based
upon the information and analysis in Part IV.D. of the DEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation
measures and monitoring programs will avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effect described in Section
D.3.a. above.
o6/~s/~ -16-
· 4. Transportation Impact #4
a. Significant ~nvironmental ~ffect: Base Case
0perat{onal and Safety Concerns. Under the anticipated 2010 base
case traffic conditions summaries in Tables 12 and 15 of the
DEIR, many drivers would experience extended to extreme delays
during the peak commute periods at those intersections listed as
having unacceptable service level operation. The following
specific operational and safety Concerns would be anticipated
under year 2010 base case conditions without the project:
o BART Driveways on Hickey and ~1 Camino Real. The
preliminary BART station site plan does not
indicate anticipated roadway geometrics adjacent
to the site. To provide for safe turning
movements into and out of the BART station along
E1 Camino Real and the Hickey Extension, right
turn deceleration lanes would be required on the
approaches to the BART kiss-and-ride driveways and
the New Street intersection, and a left turn would
be required on E1 Camino Real at New Street.
Provision of these lanes would be necessary to
decrease the chance of rear-end collisions between
slower vehicles (those slowing to turn into the
station) and higher speed through traffic.
° BART Driveways on Mission Road. It is also
unclear on the BART station site plan exactly
where the kiss-and-ride driveways and the small
BART parking lot driveway on Mission Road would be
located in relation to Evergreen Drive.
Inappropriate placement of these driveways in
relation to existing intersections on Mission Road
and in relation to the driveways accessing the
high school could produce significant operational
and safety problems.
The provisions for left turn lanes that would be
made along Mission Road at the driveways serving
the kiss-and-ride/bus stop facility and the small
parking area are also unclear on the BART station
plan. Lack of adequate northbound left turn lanes
at these locations would produce significant
safety and operational problems. The need for
these turn lanes in conjunction with the need
identified above for signalization of the
Mission/Evergreen intersection, and the lack of
left turn lanes on the southbound Mission Road
approaches to Evergreen Drive and the high school
access driveways, would constitute a significant
base case safety and operational problems.
63103P.PSO
06/lS/~ -17-
b. Mitigation Measure(s).
BART Driveways. Provide right turn deceleration
lanes on the approaches to the BART driveways along E1 Camino
Real, the Hickey Boulevard Extension, and on the approach to New
Street.
New Street/E1 Camino ?ntersection. Provide a left
turn lane of the southbound E1 Camino Real approach to New
Street.
Mission Road/BART Parking ?.or Access. Provide a
minimum distance of 150 feet between the Mission Road BART
parking lot access and the nearest intersections (Evergreen Drive
and New Street).
BART Kiss-and-Ride Driveways. Complete a detailed
engineering analysis to determine the most appropriate placement
of the BART Kiss-and-Ride driveways, with emphasis on safe
provision for Kiss-and-Ride turn movements in relation to high
school driveway turn movements.
Mission Road/BART Kiss-and-Ride and Bus StoD.
Provide left turn lanes on the Mission Road approaches to
Evergreen Drive and the BART Kiss-and-Ride/bus stop driveways.
Mission Road High School Access. Provide left
turn lanes on the southbound approaches to the high school access
driveways on Mission Road.
Rvergreen Drive Traffic Speeds. Increase speed
enforcement along Evergreen Drive if speeding traffic becomes a
problem due to the opening of the BART station. If speed
enforcement does not relieve the problem or is not possible due
to Police Department budget limitations, and if speeding is
perceived to be a continuing hazard during the hours when
students are walking to and from the school, consideration should
be given to introduction of speed undulations on Evergreen Drive
or placing barriers on the route to prevent through traffic.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. City/Agency/BART.
d. Monitoring Program. Component No. 29, 30,
and 31 of the Monitoring Program set forth in Attachment I to
this Exhibit are hereby incorporated as the monitoring program
for the above-described mitigation measures.
e. Finding. To the extent the above mitigation
measures and monitoring programs are within the jurisdiction of
the City and/or the Agency, they are hereby adopted. Provision
63103P.PSO
06/1S/92 -18-
of additional turn lanes and other safety features will decrease
the likelihood of rear-end collisions and eliminate conflicts
between slower turning vehicles and higher speed through traffic.
Based upon the information and analyses in Part IV.D. of the
DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above
mitigation measures and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Section D.4.a above.
5. Transportation Impact #§
a. Si~nificant ~nvironmental ~ffect: Year 2010
Pedestrian/Bicycle Def~c{encies without Project. Projected~"base
case" traffic increases plus the new BART station would increase
traffic on Evergreen and Mission and would create safety concerns
for pedestrians crossing both streets, particularly high school
students. The BART station location also overlaps a City General
Plan designated "Intra-County Bicycle Route."
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Request BART to
incorporate Intra-County bike route in station plan along Colma
Creek edge, as well as pedestrian and bike crosswalks and paths
to surrounding residential and commercial areas. Request that
BART provide crosswalks at the signalized New Street intersection
with E1 Camino Real as well as at the signalized or all-way stop
New Street/Mission Road intersection.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. city/Agency/BART.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #32 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted to the extent such measures
are within the jurisdiction of the City and/or Agency. Advocacy
by the City/Agency for incorporation of these improvements will
provide safe pedestrian/bicycle access to and from the BART
station. Based upon the information and analysis in Part IV.D.
of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above
mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Section D.5.a. above.
6. Transportation Impact #6
a. Significant Environmental Effect: Year 2010
Parking Deficiencies without Project. Overflow parking from the
new BART station, in combination with overflow high school
parking, could affect onstreet parking availability in existing
63103P,PSO
06/IS/gS -19- '
residential areas east of the station. Overflow parkinq from the
station could also create onstreet parking conflicts with
pedestrian traffic on the west side of E1 Camino opposite the
station (there are no existing sidewalks on the west side of E1
Camino).
b. ~itigation Measure(s). Request BART
contribution to frontage improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk)
along west side of E1 Camino across from station. Establish
restricted onstreet parking program in residential areas adjacent
to station and in nearby parking lots; continuously monitor BART
parking adequacy. Formulate temporary parking contingency plan
and include design contingencies in BART parking structure to
allow for expansion if and when needed.
c. Mitiaation Responsibilitv. BART/City of
South San Francisco.
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~33 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. To the extent the above-mitigation
measure is within the jurisdiction of the City or Agency, the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby
adopted. Adoption of the above mitigation measures will provide
protections against BART overflow parking by ensuring constant
monitoring and contingency plans to create more parking when
there is a need. Based upon the information and analysis in Part
IV.D. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Section D.6.a. above.
7. Transportation Impact #7
a. Significant Environmental Effect: Year 2010
Intersection Deficiencies with Project. The following three
intersections would experience additional significant impacts by
the year 2010 due to increases in traffic associated with the
Project facilitated growth in the Project Area:
b. Mitigation Measure(s).
Mitigation
Impact Mitigation Responsibility
E1 Camino Improvements City
Real/Hickey Blvd.- needed for year
-PM: from LOS E 2010 conditions
63103P.P50
06/1S/92 - 2 O-
(without project) without project
to LOS F (with would provide
project) acceptable
operation.
(result: LOS C)
Hickey Blvd. Add (stripe) one City, Agency,
extension/E1 additional lane to future developers
Camino Real--PM: WB approach on
from LOS B Hickey extension
(without project) (result: PM LOS
to LOS E (with D)
project)
Hickey Improvements City
Blvd./Junipero needed for year
Serra Blvd.--PM: 2010 conditions
from LOS D without project
(without project) would provide
to LOS E (with acceptable
project) operation.
(result: LOS D)
E1 Camino Improvements City
Real/Westborough needed for year
Blvd (F without 2010 conditions
Project to worse F without Project
with Project) would provide
acceptable
operations
Hickey BiYd/I-280 Improvements City
NB ramps (E needed for year
without Project to 2010 conditions
worse E with without Project
Project) would provide
acceptable
operations
Avalon Dr/Junipero Improvements City
Serra B1vd/I-280 needed for year
NB offramp (E 2010 conditions
without Project to without Project
worse E with would provide
Project) acceptable
operations
In addition, the following intersections would result in signal
warrants being met or approaching the warrant levels.
63105P.PSO
o6,,~ s/~ -21-
Mitigation
Intersection Mitigation Responsibility
Hillside/Hickey Signalize City
Blvd. Extension
E1 Camino Real/ Signalize City
Macy's Residential
Access
New Street/Mission Signalize if City
Road warranted. Provide
left turn lane on
Northbound Mission
Road approach
c. Monitoring Program. Component #34, 35, 36,
37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the monitoring program set forth in
Attachment I to this Exhibit are hereby incorporated by reference
as the monitoring program for the above-described mitigation
measure (s).
d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Adoption of these
measures will improve the level of service at the above
intersections as noted above. Based upon the information and
analysis in Part IV.D. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program
will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect described in Section D.7.a. above.
8. Transportation Impact #8
a. Significant Environmental Effect: Other
~oadway Operational and Safety Conditions. Project facilitated
development could result in obstructions of through traffic by
turning movements into new driveways along existing streets
within the Project Area.
b. Mitigation Measure(s).
· Minimize Mission Road driveways serving new residential
uses. Space driveways, at a minimum, 150 feet apart
from each other and from the Oak Avenue intersection.
Driveways on opposite sides of the road should be
located opposite one another or offset by at least 150
feet.
~I~P.PSO
06/1~ -22-
-. Provide left turn lanes on the approaches to driveways
serving new housing along Mission Road. If feasible,
as part of the widening for left turn lanes serving the
Project, a continuous left turn lane should be provided
serving as many existing uses as possible.
· Provide right turn deceleration lanes on the E1 Camino
and Hickey Extension approaches to all Project access
roadways.
· Provide a raised median on E1 Camino Real Adjacent to
the Shell Gas Station/Motel new commercial site.
· Locate driveways serving the Shell Gas Station/Motel
new commercial site a minimum of 200 feet from the E1
Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard intersection (both on E1
Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard), while ensuring that
adequate site distance is maintained for southbound E1
Camino traffic to the E1 Camino driveway (due to the
hillside at the north end of the parcel).
· Provide right turn deceleration lanes or areas on the
E1 Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard approaches to each
driveway serving the Shell Gas Station/Motel new
commercial site.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,
future developers, BART.
d. Monitoring Program. Components ~42, 43, 44
and 45 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to
this Exhibit are hereby incorporated by reference as the
monitoring program for the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. The above mitigation
measures will increase safety by decreasing conflicts between
driveway traffic and through traffic. Based upon the information
and analysis in Part IV.D. of the DEIR, the finding is made that
the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring
program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in Section D.8.a. above.
9. Transportation ImDact #9
a. Significant ~nvironmental Effect: Project
Pedestrian and Bicycle Impacts. The possibility of pedestrians
from future apartment development on the Macy's site wanting to
cross the Hickey Blvd. extension to access the BART station and
its commercial area could create significant safety impacts.
Similarly, high school students crossing Mission Road to access
63103P,PSO
O~/~$ZgS -2 3-
the BART station commercial area could create significant safety
impacts. Overall increases in traffic due to the Project would
also increase potential concerns for local bike riders.
b. Mitigation Measure(si. Discourage pedestrian
crossings on the Hickey extension with special roadside edge and
median design methods; consider fencing along high school Mission
Road frontage.
c. Mitigation Responsib~l~ty. City, Agency,
BART.
d. Mon{toring Program. Component $46 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. The incorporation of
crosswalks and pedestrian barriers will decrease inappropriate
pedestrian crossings that present safety concerns. Based upon
the information and analysis in Part IV.D. of the DEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure
and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Section D.9.a.
above.
10. Transportation Impact $10
a. S4gnificant ~nvironmental ~ffect:
Construction Period Impacts. Truck traffic associated with
project-related construction/demolition activities could cause
substantial disruption to AM and PM peak commute traffic flows
temporarily. Additionally, storage of construction vehicles on
City streets could present parking impacts. Construction truck
impacts on streets in the vicinity of E1 Camino High School may
also present safety impacts.
b. Mitigat~on Measure(si.
· Limit all construction truck activity to the daytime
hours between, but not including, the AM and PM peak
commute traffic hours.
· Prohibit truck activity in the vicinity of all local
schools the hour before school starts and the hour
after school finishes for the day, on those days
schools are in session.
· Provide on-site parking or storage for all construction
worker autos, heavy equipment material storage,
-24-
contractor trailers, and trucks waiting to load or
unload material.
. Encourage construction workers to car and vanpool and
take transit to and from the area.
· Prohibit construction truck traffic on local or
collector roadways, such as Evergreen drive or Grand
Avenue between Mission Road and Chestnut Avenue.
· Limit all temporary lane closures on arterial roadways
to non-commute hours.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,
future developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~47 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. The above mitigation
measures will limit construction traffic during peak hours and
during the most likely hours of high numbers of pedestrians.
Based upon the information and analysis in Part IV.D. of the
DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above
mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Section D.10.a. above.
E. NOIS~
1. Noise Impact #1
a. Significant Environmental Effect. 2010 "Base
Case" Cwithout Project}. BART Retained Cut or At-Grade Option.
The at-grade or retained cut BART option would have significant
adverse effects on maximum noise levels inside adjacent
residential units and would create noise disturbances and reduce
environmental quality at E1 Camino High School, Los Cerritos
Elementary School, Orange Memorial Park, the Francisco Terrace
Tot lot, and the linear park planned by the City along the SPTCO
right-of-way.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Implement the subway
option.
c. Miti~ation ResponsibilitY. BART, City,
Agency.
f~103P.I~O
o~,~s/~ -25-
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~48 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. To the extent the above mitigation
measures are in the Juriediction of the City and/or Agency, the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby
adopted. Construction of BART in a subway alignment will
eliminate noise conflicts with surrounding areas. Based upon the
information and analysis in Part IV.E. of the DEIR, the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in E.l.a. above.
2. Noise Impact #2
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Traffic
Noise. Project facilitated new housing along the frontages of E1
Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and
Chestnut Avenue would be exposed to traffic-related average daily
noise levels at or above the City General Plan identified
threshold (65 dBA CNEL) triggering mitigation needs.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Project-specific
noise abatement measures designed to reduce interior noise levels
to below CNEL -45 and compliance with state "Title 24" noise
compatibility standards for multifamily residential development
should be required as a condition of residential approvals in the
Project Area.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component $49 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Inclusion of specific
noise mitigation measures in individual projects will reduce any
noise impacts on residences to a level acceptable under the City
General Plan. Based upon the information and analysis in Part
IV.E. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in E.2.a. above.
63103P.PSO
~l~ -26-
3. Noise Impact #3
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Aircraft
Noise. The Project Area is and will continue to be exposed to
SFO-generated "single-event" noise levels from Project Area
overflights that could interfere with indoor residential
activities, including sleep, if not adequately mitigated in the
design of new Project Area structures.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). As a condition of
approval, all residential projects in the Project Area should be
designed to achieve the necessary exterior-to-interior noise
reduction to meet single-event criterion and the City's interior
noise standard.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Proaram. Component #50 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Inclusion of specific
noise mitigation measures in individual projects will reduce any
noise impacts on residences to a level acceptable under the City
General Plan. Based upon the information and analysis in Part
IV.E. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in E.3.a. above.
4. Noise Impact #4
a. Significant Environmental Effect.
Construction Period. Noise would be generated during project-
assisted construction activities. Impacts would depend on the
types of equipment used and distances from existing residential
and other noise sensitive uses.
b. Mitigation Measure(s).
(1) Construction Schedul{ng. Limit noise
generating construction activities including truck traffic going
to and from a site, for any purpose, to the hours stipulated in
the City's Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.32 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, Noise Regulations, Section 8.32.050
dated 2-91).
~I~P.PSO
~/15/~ -27-
(2) Construction Equipment Mufflers and
Maintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction
equipment powered by internal combustion engines.
(3) ?dling Prohibitions. Prohibit
unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines.
(4) ~quiDment T.ocation and Shielding.
Locate all stationary noise generating construction equipment,
such as air compressors, as far as practical, from existing
nearby residences and other noise sensitive land uses.
(5) Ouiet Equipment Section. Select quiet
construction equipment, particularly air compressors, whenever
possible. Fit motorized equipment with proper mufflers in good
working order.
(6) Notification. Notify neighbors within
1,000 feet of project construction areas of the construction
schedules in writing.
(7) Noise Disturbance Coordinator.
Designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be
responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine
the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad
muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures
warranted to correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously
post a telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the
construction site and include in the notice sent to neighbors
regarding the construction schedule. (The Agency should be
responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and
an individual project sponsor should be responsible for posting
the phone number and providing construction schedule notices).
C. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,
future developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~51 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Findln~. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted; however, based upon the
information and analysis in Part IV.E. of the DEIR, the finding
is made that the significant environmental effect described in
E.4.a. above cannot be avoided or substantially lessened.
Therefore, this significant effect will be discussed in Sections
VI (Alternatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding
Considerations) below.
~3103P.P~O
o6n5/9~ -2 8-
~T ! I i
F. STORM DRAINAGE. WATER. AND SEWER FACILITIES
BTORM DRAINAGE
1. Storm Drainage Impact #1
a. S~gnif~cant ~nvironmenta] ~ffect. T.ocal
Stormwater Collection. Project-facilitated construction of
impervious buildings and pavement on vacant Project Area
properties would increase the rate and volume of stormwater
runoff into local storm drains and Colma Creek. Downstream
reaches of Colma Creek have adequate capacity to accommodate the
higher runoff. However, sections of the Colma Creek channel
within the Project Area may not be adequate to accommodate the
added runoff from a 50 year storm. As a result, increased
development in the Project Area could worsen existing local
flooding conditions along Colma Creek. The depth and frequency
of local flooding would increase. These effects would be
confined to areas already identified as flood prone.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Construct an
improved, higher capacity channel section in the Project Area or
provide onsite stormwater detention facilities.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,
future developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component $52 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Additional capacity in
the channel in the Project Area will accommodate any increased
runoff and reduce the likelihood of flooding. Based upon the
information and analysis in Part IV.F. of the DEIR, the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Storm Drainage,
Section F.l.a. above.
2. Storm Drainage Impact ~2
a. Significant ~nvironmental Effect. Increased
runoff from Project Area development could also worsen drainage
problems in existing low capacity tributary drainage systems in
the Project Area, resulting in localized impacts. Most existing
63103P.PSO
06/1.~'9~ - 2 9-
channels and culverts affected by the project development would
be upgraded or replaced as development occurs. However, the
McLellan, Wye Motel, County Center, and Oak Avenue properties
would need special improvements.
b. Mit~gation Measure(s}. Replacement and
relocation of existing storm drains and channels that now serve
properties upstream of E1 Camino Real and Mission Road may be
necessary to accommodate anticipated peak runoff rates expected
with Project Area buildout. Design of individual development
sites should include overland release routes to carry excess
runoff during extreme storm events.
C. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,
future developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~53 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Replacement of existing
storm drains and channels will provide sufficient capacity to
handle impacts. Based upon the information and analysis in Part
IV.F. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program wi11 avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Storm Drainage, Section F.2.a. above.
3. Storm Drainage Impact #3
a. Significant Rnvironmental ~ffect. ?.ocal
Flooding. Portions of approximately eight Project Area parcels
are located within the FEMA designated 100-year flood plain.
Three of these are designated for the new BART station. Four are
designated for new apartment or condominium development.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). New development
within the designated flood plain must be constructed in
accordance with FEMA regulations, with all residential floor
elevations raised above maximum expected flood levels.
c. Mitigation ResDonsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #54 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
63103P.PSO
o6/1 s/9~ - 3 O-
e. ~indinu. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Evaluation of future
developments will decrease the risk of flooding to these
properties. Based upon the information and analysis in Part
IV.F. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Storm Drainage, Section F.3.a. above.
4. Storm Drainage Impact ~4
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Water
Ouality. Project-facilitated development could result in
increases in the production of urban pollutants carried by
stormwater into local surface waters.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). As a condition of
future individual development approvals or project assistance,
the development sponsors should be required to prepare an erosion
and sedimentation control plan for implementation throughout the
construction period. This plan should be prepared in conformance
with City of South San Francisco, San Mateo County Flood Control
District, and Association of Bay Area Governments design
standards. It is recommended that each plan, at a minimum
include the following provisions:
Existing paved and vegetated areas should be left
undisturbed until construction of improvements on
each Project Area site is actually ready to
commence.
All disturbed areas should be immediately
revegetated or otherwise protected from both wind
and water erosion upon the completion of grading
activities.
Project runoff should be collected into stable
drainage channels, from small drainage basins, to
prevent the buildup of large, potentially erosive
stormwater flows.
Runoff should be directed away from all areas
disturbed by construction.
~ Sediment ponds or siltation basins should be used
to trap eroded soils before runoff is discharged
into onsite or offsite culverts and channels.
To the extent possible, project sponsors should
schedule major site development work involving
earth moving, excavations, and offsite stream
~I~P.P~O
06/1~ - 3 1-
channel improvements for construction during the
dry season.
An NPDES construction permit would have to be obtained form the
RWQCB for all project-facilitated development projects that would
result in the disturbance of more than five acres. The terms of
this permit would require that project development not cause any
increase of sedimentation, turbidity, or hazardous materials
concentrations within downstream receiving waters. It is
expected that implementation of the erosion control plan outlined
above would satisfy all NPDES erosion sedimentation requirements,
but additional provisions would be needed for the proper handling
and disposal of fuels and hazardous construction materials.
Post-Construction Measures. Post-construction non-point source
pollution control measures specified in the NPDES permits for
individual developments in the project area should include
techniques and maintenance practices designed to permit the
effective, on-going removal of non-point source pollutants from
the sitets surface water runoff. These measures should be based
on the latest Best Construction Techniques and Best Management
Practices, as identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the RWQCB. It is recommended that they include, at a
minimum, the following provisions for each individual development
project=
· To the extent possible, stormwater runoff should be
directed through grassy swales before it is discharged
from the site, to permit some removal of sediments and
heavy metal contaminants.
In addition, skimmers and grease traps should be built
into selected storm drain manholes and catch basins to
trap debris and remove oil and grease.
All pollution control facilities should be periodically
maintained throughout the life of each development
project to provide for the removal and proper disposal
of accumulated contaminants.
· On-going maintenance would be the responsibility of
each individual project sponsor, or their successor.
A pavement cleaning and maintenance program should be
implemented on all parking lots, particularly at the
onset of the rainy season, to reduce the build-up of
urban pollutants and debris that are normally washed
into the storm drain system.
c. Mitigation Responsib~]4ty. City, Agency,
future developers.
~I~P.PSO
o6/1s/~ - 3 2-
d. Monitoring Program. Component ~55 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Incorporation of the
above mitigation measures will reduce the level of urban
pollutants carried into local surface waters by providing
controls on runoff. Based upon the information and analysis in
Part IV.F. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of
the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Storm Drainage, Section F.4.a. above.
5. Storm Drainage Impact #5
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Project-
facilitated construction activities could also result in
increased temporary soil erosion and downstream sedimentation.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). As a condition of
individual project approvals, applicants should be required to
prepare construction period erosion and sedimentation control
plans in conformance with City and San Mateo County Flood Control
District standards. A NPDES construction permit must also be
obtained from the RWQCB.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,
RWQCB, future developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #56 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Control of construction
period erosion by compliance with local requirements will limit
the construction runoff. Based upon the information and analysis
in Part IV.F. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption
of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Storm Drainage, Section F.5.a. above.
6. Storm Drainage Impact #6
a. ~nv~ronmental ~ffect. BART Subway Option.
Construction of BART as a covered subway rather than as an open,
retained cut would not significantly change the impact of the
~I~P.PSO
06/lS/~ -33--
BART extension on local storm drains and Colma Creek (i.e., the
excavation depth would not differ significantly). Storm drains
that now run from the east side of Mission Road and pass under
the SPTCO right-of-way to Colma Creek would have to be replaced
under either option.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required.
c. Monitor{ng Program. Not applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
WATER
7. Water Tmpact #1
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Fire Flow
~equirements. The 4-inch line serving the Wye Motel site lacks
sufficient fire flow capacity.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). A new parallel 8-
inch line approximately 450 feet long would have to be installed
in Hickey Blvd. to supplement the existing line.
-- c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future
developers.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #57 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. The installation of the
new line would provide sufficient fire flows to existing and new
developments. Based upon the information and analysis in Part
IV.F. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the
above mitigation measure and monitoring Program will avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect
described in Water Section F.7.a. above.
8. Water Impact #2
a. ~nvironmental Effect. Domestic Water
Demands. The net project-related increase in average daily water
demand would be within the capacity of the CityWs water supply.
b. Mitigation Measure(si. No special mitigation
is required, but various project-specific water conservation
- measures are recommended in the EIR.
63103P.1~0
06/15/9~ --34--
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Not applicable.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #58 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. Not applicable.
9. Water Impact #3
a. ~nv{ronmental Rffect. BART Subway Option and
Undergrounding of Colma Creek. The proposed profile grades for
the subway vs. the retained cut alternative are very similar at
the point where the new track would interface with three existing
water lines that cross from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real within
the Project Area. These three lines would have to be replaced
(run either above or below the rail line) with either option.
Since this is an impact of BART and is not directly related to
the Project, it is not considered a significant impact of the
Project.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required.
c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
10. Sewer Impact #1
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Wastewater
Treatment. The net project-related increase in average daily
wastewater production would be well within the rated capacity of
the City's wastewater treatment facility.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required.
c. Monitoring Pro~ram. Not applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
11. Sewer Impact #2
a. Environmental Rffect. Wastewater Collection-
-Trunk Sewers. The anticipated project-facilitate4 increase in
peak wastewater flow rates at Project Area buildout would require
a significant portion of the remaining Mission Road trunk sewer
capacity. The line probably does not have sufficient capacity to
~I~P.PSO
o6ns/~ - 35-
accommodate the higher flows from the Project Area in addition to
peak flows from the sewer*s much larger surrounding drainage
area.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Before substantial
additional development proceeds in the Project Area, complete an
engineering analysls of the Colma Creek trunk sewer line along
Mission Road to determine any need for additional trunk sewer
capacity and, if warranted, to establish a construction time
table and fair-share cost responsibilities.
c. Mitiqation Responsibility. City, Agency,
landowners.
d. Monitoring Program. Component #59 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Ftndina. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. An engineering analysis
before project development will determine the need for additional
trunk lines to be constructed as part of the development. Based
upon the information and analysis in Part IV.F of the DEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure
and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environment effect described in Section F.11.a above.
12. Sewer ?mpact #3
a. Significant Environmental Effect. Wastewater
Collection-Project Area. The existing sewer line that crosses
Colma Creek behind the Macy*s site does not have sufficient
capacity to accommodate anticipated project facilitated
development. However, construction of the subway or retained cut
BART extension alternative through the Project Area would require
replacement of this line with a sewer pumping station and force
mains.
b. M{tiqation Measures. More detailed
engineering analysis of the Macy*s sewer line capacity should be
required as a condition of future residential development on the
Macy*s site. If necessary, a second gravity line, less than 400
feet in length, should be extended across Colma Creek to provide
a second connection to Mission Road. Alternatively, if BART is
constructed first, the necessary sewer replacement actions may
mitigate this impact.
c. ~4t{gation Respons~b4]tty. Future
Developers.
6~ ~ 03P.PSO
06/1S/92 - 3 6-
d. Monitoring Programs. Component ~60 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. A study of the wastewater
capacity will determine the need for additional trunk lines as
the Project Area develops. Based upon the information and
analyses in Part IV.F of the DEIR, the finding is made that the
adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program
will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect described in Section F.12.a, above.
G. OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES
POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION
1. Police and Fire Services Impact #1
a. Significant Environmental Effect= Project-
facilitated development would bring corresponding increases in
the number of residents requiring law enforcement and fire
protection services. No special additional fire protection
training, equipment or apparatus would be required (no project-
facilitated development will exceed four stories in height).
b. Mitigation Measure(s). The rate of
additional police and fire calls per year associated with the
Project Area should be monitored by the two departments.
Additional personnel and facilities should be provided as
warranted by the monitoring results.
c. Mitigation Responsibility. Police and Fire
Departments.
d. Monitoring Proqram. Component #61 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Monitoring of police and
fire needs as the Project Area develops will ensure that adequate
protection is provided when needed. Based upon the information
and analysis in Part IV.G. of the DEIR, the finding is made that
the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring
program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect described in Police and Fire Protection,
Section G.l.a. above.
63103P.PSO
o6ns/92 - 3 7 -
2. Police and Fire Services Impact #2
a. ~nvironmenta] ~ffect: The project-
facilitated undergrounding of BART would not create any unique or
significant impacts on the provision of local police or fire
services.
b. M4t4gat4on Meas-reCs). None Required.
c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. -
d. Finding. Not applicable.
PARKS ~%ND RECREATION
3. Parks and Recreation Serv4ces I~pact #1
a. Significant Rnvironmental Rffect: Park
Acreage. To meet established City standards, anticipated
project-facilitated buildout of the Project Area would result in
the need for approximately 25 acres of new parkland.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Construct mini-parks
as the need develops in the Project Area to comply with the
City's 1/4 mile radius standard, and require dedication of
parkland or dedication of in lieu fees for the remaining share of
the 25 acres of required parkland not otherwise provided as
described below:
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Responsibility
Neighborhood Parks. Construct City, Agency, future
a neighborhood park in the developers
Project Area or nearby on
vacant and/or surplus school
land at the Alta Loma or E1
Rancho school sites.
Community Linear Park. City, Agency, future
Require project-specific land developers.
dedications and improvements
necessary to implement the
planned linear park along the
line of the former Colma
Creek.
d. Mon.~tor~ng Program. Component ~62 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is
~I~PJ~SO
o~l ~93 - 3 8 -
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. The requirement of park
dedications as a condition of development will provide adequate
recreational facilities to Project Area residents. Based upon
the information and analysis in Part IV.G. of the DEIR, the
finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure
and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Parks and
Recreation, Section G.3.a. above.
SOUTH SAN FI~NCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
4. South San Francisco Unified School District
Impact #1
a. Significant Environmental Effect: ~ro4ect-
Facilitated Development Impacts. The anticipated project-
facilitated addition of 3,225 dwelling units would generate up to
113 K-12 students per average year over the 15 year project
absorption period (1995-2010), based on yield factors provided by
the District. These increases would soon exceed current
capacities of all schools in the current attendance area
boundaries encompassing the Project Area (assuming no school
reopenings or changes in attendance boundaries between now and
the year 2010). As a result of recent school closures, the
District owns four school facilities which are currently not used
or leased out for other uses.
In addition to project facilitated development, it is estimated
that an additional 690 housing units could be developed in South
San Francisco over the project period, resulting in a total of an
additional 366 students.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). An effective
combination of the following measures should be implemented:
" Relocated classrooms (the District's
current strategy is to accommodate
anticipated fluctuations in school
enrollment by providing additional
relocatable classrooms).
Reopen closed schools (the District has
already been advised to hold one of the
recently closed schools in reserve to
provide for anticipated enrollment
increases).
63103P.PSO
o~/15/~ -39-
-- o Increase fees (the District could raise
its development impact fees to the
maximum rate allowed by law).
o Additional fees (if warranted, the
District and City could also request
additional school payments from
developers, on top of established fees).
Sale of surplus property (funds could be
generated for the provision of
additional classroom space through the
sale of surplus land or school
facilities).
c. Mitigation Responsibil~ty. District.
d. Monitoring Proqram. Component #63 of the
monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is
hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for
the above-described mitigation measure(s).
e. Findina. The above mitigation measures and
monitoring program are outside the Jurisdiction of the City and
the Agency. The Agency has agreed to enter into a tax sharing
-- agreement with the school district pursuant to Health and Safety
Code Section 33401 which will mitigate the impacts of the Project
on the school district by providing tax increment revenues to the
District. Based upon the information and analyses in Part IV.G
of the DEIR, the finding is made that adoption of the tax sharing
agreement with the Agency will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Section G.4.a
above.
H. SOILS AND GEOLOGY
1. Soils and Geology Impact ~l
a. ~nvironmental ~ffect: Project-related
geotechnical impact concerns include the construction limitations
and foundation design requirements that may apply to soil and
geologic conditions within the Project Area, the effects of
project-facilitated development on risks of erosion or landslide,
and the potential exposure of additional people and structures to
risk of earthquake-induced injury or damage.
b. Mitigat4on Measure(s).
It is expected that the geologic impacts described in
Section IV.H. of the DEIR are common in nature and can generally
be mitigated through the use of accepted earthwork and site
~I~P.PSO
06/1~ -40-
preparation techniques, and through the careful design of all
buildings and structures in conformance with the Uniform Building
Code.
c. Monitoring Program. The City, as a condition
of project approvals, shall require compliance with Uniform
Building Code and additional design criteria if necessary.
d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Based upon the
information and analysis in Part IV.H. of the DEIR, the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Section H.l.a.~
above.
I. AIR OUALITY
1. Air Ouality Impact #1
a. Environmental Effect: Lonq-Term Local Air
Oualit¥ Effects. Year 2010 CO concentrations with the Project,
even under worst-case meteorological and traffic assumptions, are
within applicable state and federal ambient standards. Project
Area and cumulative traffic increases would be offset by
anticipated reductions in the per-mile emissions rate associated
with increasingly stringent emissions controls imposed by the
state.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required.
c. Monitoring Proqram. The City as a condition
of project approval for individual projects will require a
landscape plan which complies with the above migitation measures.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
2. Air Ouality Impact #2
a. Environmental Effect: Long-Term Regional Air
Ouality Effects. Opportunities for housing in close proximity to
a BART station are highly limited in the region. If the project
were not implemented, most of the housing demands otherwise met
by the project-facilitated, transit oriented, residential
development would be provided for in different, more
conventional, non-BART-oriented forms elsewhere in the region.
The Project, by promoting compact development of mixed
63103P.P$O
06/! $/93 -- 41-
(residential and commercial) and high density land uses within
short walking distances of BART, would act to promote the use of
transit rather than automobiles. The air quality impact data in
section IV.1.3 of this EIR indicates that the reduction in
regional commute-period vehicular use would be expected to have a
net mitigating effect on cumulative regional mobile source air
pollution levels, and in meeting BAAQMD Bay Area t91 Clean Air
Plan goals. The tPl Clean A{r Plan encourages "cities and
counties to promote high density, mixed-use development in
vicinity of mass transit stations."
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Mitigation measures
recommended in the Transportation section of this EIR to reduce
traffic congestion would be expected to further reduce the local
and regional mobile source air quality impacts of the Project.
c. M~tigat~on Responsibility. Not applicable.
d. Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
e. Fi,dina. Not applicable.
J. V~GETATION AND WIT.~T.IF~
1. Vegetation and W~ld]ife Tmpact #1
a. ~nvironmental Effect= Project-facilitated
development of various sites throughout the Project Area (more
specifically described in Section IV.J.2. of the DEIR) would
result in the removal of existing mature trees. Because these
trees are not considered to be biologically significant, the
biotic impacts of removal of such trees would be considered less
than significant.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Although no
significant biotic impacts have been identified, mature trees
should nonetheless be preserved whenever possible. Individual
development projects which require the removal of mature trees
(ie. trees with a six-inch diameter trunk at breast height)
should be required to offset the loss in the project landscape
plan through measures such as tree replacement at a ratio of
three to one. In addition, all proposed landscape plans for
project facilitated development should utilize native plant
species to the extent possible.
c. Mon~toring Program. The City shall require
as a condition of project approval landscaping plans which comply
with the above mitigation measure.
d. Findina. The above mitigation measure and
monitoring program are hereby adopted. Replacement of any mature
~I~P.PSO
o~1~ - 4 2 -
trees removed as a result of Project development will provide new
landscapes, compatible with the surrounding area. Based upon the
information and analysis in Part IV.J. of the DEIR, the finding
is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and
monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect described in Section J.l.a.
above.
K. CULTURAL RRSOURCES
1. Cultural Resources Impagt ~1
a. ~nvironmental Effect: ~ative American
Archaeological Village. Prehistoric resources (e.g., chert,
obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, pestles, dark
friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat-
affected rock, or human burials) within the existing Native
American archaeological village site in the Project Area could be
subject to disturbance during project-facilitated construction.
Assuming that the City requires a field inspection and evaluation
of the identified cultural resource site by qualified
archaeologist prior to development of the site (i.e., an
assessment of the nature and extent of previous impacts to the
resource, monitoring of subsurface construction activities such
as grading and trenching, and proper documentation of resource
finds), no significant impacts would occur.
b. Mitigation Measure(s~. No additional
mitigation would be required beyond the evaluation, monitoring,
and documentation procedures described above which are
incorporated in the General Plan Amendment.
c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
d. FindinG. Not applicable.
2. Cultural Resources ImDact #2
a. Environmental Rffect: Undiscovered Cultural
or Historical Resources. The Project would result in the
construction of over 3,000 additional residential units and 25
acres of additional commercial development and associated
improvements in an area with potentials for containing cultural
and historical resources. The grading associated with this
project-facilitated construction could result in the disturbance
of undiscovered cultural or historical resources within the
Project Area. In addition to those prehistoric resources
described above, these could include historic resources such as
stone or adobe foundations or walls, structures with square
nails, and refuse deposits. Assuming the City requires each
development project to fund and carry out field investigations
~/1~ -43-
prior to construction, monitoring during grading or trenching,
and proper documentation of resource finds, no significant
impacts would occur.
b. Mitigat{on Measure(s). No additional
mitigation would be required beyond the.evaluation, monitoring,
and documentation procedurps described above which are
incorporated in the General Plan Amendment.
c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
3. Cultural Resources Impact #3
a. Rnvironmental Effect: Rod Mc?.ellan Nursery
Company. The proposed annexation and development of the Rod
McLellan Nursery site would change the use and character of the
property from a wholesale and retail nursery complex to a
contemporary residential neighborhood of cluster housing. While
such a change would not represent a loss of a designated
architecturally or historically significant structure or site, it
would nevertheless eliminate the nursery complex setting, which
is an important element in the local history of the area. The
property owner and proponent of its residential conversion has
expressed the possibility of incorporating a small retail nursery
component in the Project as a means of recognizing and conveying
the historical background of the property.
b. Mitigation Measure(s). Although the proposed
conversion of the McLellan Nursery property to residential use
would not result in a significant impact on a designated
architectural or historic resource, the following measures are
recommended as possible conditions of project approval in order
to acknowledge the historical importance of the nursery complex:
(1) Archival Measures. The project sponsor
should meet with the City's Historical Preservation Commission to
obtain the Commission's input regarding meaningful an4 reasonable
archival preservation. Prior to development of the property, the
complex should be photographed by a professional photographer
retained by the project sponsor, and the Rod McLellan Company
should also voluntarily provide archival information to the
Commission. To the degree that such materials exist, the Company
should provide from its files historical photographs, plans,
magazine and newspaper articles, and other relevant memorabilia.
(2) Monument and/or Displays. If and when
the nursery property is redeveloped, an appropriate onsite
monument and/or permanent display should be incorporated into the
- project, perhaps as part of the possible retail nursery
component, to commemorate the history of the site as the Rod
McLellan Nursery Company.
c. Monitoring Program. Not Applicable.
d. Finding. Not applicable.
V. Summary of Unavoidable Significant Adverse Effects.
The following significant impacts of the Project are
considered unavoidable:
1. Noise. Noise related to project-generated or project-
assisted construction activities may be temporarily significant
and unavoidable. The level of noise would depend on the type of
Construction equipment used and the distance from the existing
residential and other noise-sensitive areas. Although such
impact would be of a temporary nature and would have a beneficial
result in the long-term, while is it ongoing, it will remain
significant and unavoidable.
No mitigation measures regarding this impact has been
rejected by the Agency and the City Council as being infeasible
due to specific economic, social, or other considerations.
VI. Findings on the Feasibility of Alternatives to the Proposed
RedeveloDment Plan or General Plan Amendment.
The EIR discusses 7 alternatives to the Redevelopment Plan
and General Plan Amendment, the adoption of which would, in some
cases, avoid the significant environmental effects listed in
Section V above. Each alternative is discussed in this section
and findings are made regarding its feasibility.
1. Alternative One--No Project
(a) Principal Characteristics
Under the "no project--status quo" alternative, there would
be no change in existing conditions in the project area. The
existing conditions, including the blighted conditions in the
Project Area, would remain unchanged. Under this alternative,
existing land use patterns, blighted land use and visual
conditions, and stagnant growth rates would remain. No
additional jobs or housing units would be created and no funding
for affordable housing would be provided. Existing
transportation conditions would remain as described in section
IV.D.1 of the EIR. Project area traffic levels would remain
constant. Likewise, noise and air quality conditions would
06,'15/~ -45-
remain as they are today. No new demands on public services or
facilities would be created.
(b) Finding.
Based on the information contained in Chapter VI of the
DEIR, the information in-the FEIR, and the information set forth
in the Preliminary Report and the Report to the Council, the
finding is made that Alternative One does not achieve the goals
of the Project and thus is not a feasible alternative. In
addition, Alternative One is found to be less desirable thanthe
Project because blighting conditions will remain in the
community, new jobs and investment in the community as well as
new affordable housing will not be available. Additionally, the
beneficial impacts of the Project, including a subway alignment
for BART and removal of blight would not occur.
1. No Project--Minor Growth
(a) Principal Characteristics. Under the "no project
--minor growth" alternative, the area would continue to change at
current rates. There would be no General Plan Amendment
increasing allowable densities in the Project Area, no annexation
of the McLellan site, and no actions taken by the Redevelopment
Agency to remove blighting conditions and stimulate investment in
the Project Area. The proposed BART track would be constructed
in a retained cut or at-grade rather than a subway design, and no
funding would be provided for the covering of Colma Creek.
Under this "no project alternative," it is assumed that the
relatively stagnant economic conditions in the ProjectArea would
remain. Any positive effects of the new Hickey Boulevard BART
station would be offset by the blighting effects of the retained
cut or at-grade configuration of the BART extension. The only
other substantive change in local conditions would be completion
of the Hickey Boulevard extension, which could stimulate
increased interest in commercial development at the southeast
corner of the E1 Camino Real/Hickey Boulevard extension
intersection. Development of the Harmonious Holdings property at
1400 E1 Camino Boulevard with a residential project similar to
the pending 96-unit condominiumproposal would also be
anticipated.
(b) Comparative Tmpacts and M~tigat~ng ~ffects. The
general environmental impacts of the "no project" alternative in
comparison to the impacts of the Project as proposed are
described below=
Land Use Factors. Substantially less new development of the
Project Area would occur under this alternative. As a result,
existing land use compatibility problems, under-utilization of
property, parcelization problems, and other blighting land use
conditions would be more likely to remain. The introduction of
the BART line in a retained cut or at-grade design would create a
significant noise and visual incompatibility impacts and would
introduce a new physical barrier across the Project Area.
The mitigating effects of the no project alternative related
to land use are that fewer existing businesses and residences
would be displaced by new development, and the higher density
residential forms and resulting land use incompatibility
potentials would not be introduced.
Visual and Urban Design Factors. This alternative would
have little positive effect in reducing existing blighted visual
conditions and lack of cohesive urban design themes in the
Project Area. As described above, this alternative would allow
introduction of the visually unattractive retained cut or at-
grade BART line alternative.
This alternative would also result in lower density
development on the McLellan site which may be more compatible
with adjacent residential uses to the west.
Housing, PoDulation. and Employment. This alternative would
create fewer new housing units and less population increase, but
a slightly higher 2010 job total in the Project Area (the Macyts
warehouse and county government center would remain). This
alternative would not generate any funding for the development of
affordable housing within the city.
Transportation. This alternative would generate less
additional traffic on the local street system, and reduced
operational and safety concerns (see section IV.C.s.b of this
EIR). However, this alternative would also create fewer high
density residential units with the benefits of being located near
a BART station.
Noise. This alternative would subject fewer new homes to an
E1 Camino Real noise environment which is not compatible with
residential land use. However, the construction of the BART line
in a retained cut rather than subway design would create
significant increases in adverse impacts on existing and future
noise-sensitive uses in and near the Project Area (homes,
businesses, schools, parks, etc.).
Storm Drainage. Water. and Sewer Facilit~es. This
alternative would result in fewer storm drainage improvements in
the Project Area due to a reduced amount of private investment
and public assistance. On the other hand, the alternative would
also place less additional demands on existing water and sewer
systems.
63103P.P50
o6ns/~ -47-
Other Public Services. This alternative would put fewer
additional demands on police, fire, school, parks, recreation,
and road maintenance services within the Project Area and City as
a whole due to the reduced amount of new residential units.
So{Is and Geology. Th~s alternative would subject fewer new
development projects to the erosion and slope stability
conditions, and to the seismic risks associated with development
in the vicinity.
Air Oualit¥. This alternative would have less adverse
impact on air quality due to the reduced number of vehicle trips
which would be generated. However, this alternative would not
realize the regional air quality benefits of constructing high
density residential development near a BART station.
Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative could maintain
more existing trees in the Project Area and would result in the
retention of more minor habitat area for common wildlife species.
(c) Finding. Based on the information contained in
Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the
information set forth in the Preliminary Report and the Report to
Council, the finding is made that Alternative Two does not
achieve the goals of the Project and thus is not a feasible
alternative. Alternative Two does not provide for a subway
alignment for BART, which will ensure that the blighting
conditions will remain in the Project Area, and the potential for
additional adverse conditions to occur will exist, including
increased noise impacts. In addition, the area would continue to
lack a cohesive urban design.
3. Alternative Three--Redevelopment as Proposed. But With
~o General Plan Amendment
(a) Principal Characteristics. This alternative would
include the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the area
without the proposed General Plan Amendment, i.e., with no
increase in current General Plan density allowances. No Transit
Oriented Residential density classification would be created. As
.a result, the McLellan site would be developed at maximum
densities of 8 to 15 units per acre (i.e., as currently zoned)
and the other residential and planned commercial properties would
be developed at maximum densities of 15 to 30 units per acre, as
opposed to between 30 and 50 units per acre. This alternative
assumes hypothetically that increased incentives to invest in the
area would still be created by the various proposed redevelopment
actions, including the creation of more buildable land through
the undergrounding of the BART tracks, the covering of Colma
-- Creek, and other infrastructure improvements.
~I~P.P50
~1~ -4 8-
This scenario would involve the addition of approximately
1.194 residential units and the development of approximately
75,000 square feet of commercial development. In addition, this
alternative would include the mandatory funding of affordable
housing units required by Redevelopment Law.
(b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects
?.and Use Factors. Less new development within the Project
Area would occur under this alternative. As a result, some
existing land use compatibility problems, under-utilization.of
property, parcelization problems, local storm drainage
deficiencies, and other blighting land use conditions would be
more likely to remain.
This alternative would permit development of new multi-
family housing in the area with densities found acceptable in
other areas of the City. However, the decreased density
allowances would significantly reduce the incentives and
feasibility of residential development, and in particular, would
reduce or eliminate incentives for transit oriented, mixed use
joint development of the BART station site.
Visual and Urban Design Factors. This alternative would
also result in lower density development on the McLellan site and
other Project Area properties, reducing potentials for visual
incompatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoo~s.
Housing. Population. and Employment. This alternative would
generate fewer new housing units and associated population in the
Project Area. This alternative would also generate less funding
for the development of affordable housing within the City. The
job impacts of this alternative would not be significantly
different than the Project.
Transportation. This alternative would generate less
additional traffic on the local street system and would create
fewer associated operational an~ safety concerns. However, this
alternative would also result in a reduced number of high density
residential units with the benefits of being located near a BART
station.
Noise. This alternative could subject fewer new homes to
the existing and projecte~ E1 Camino Real noise environment.
Storm Drainage. Water. and Sewer Facilities. This
alternative woul~ place less additional demand on existing water
and sewer infrastructure systems. Storm drainage impacts would
not change significantly.
63103P.PSO
06/1S/93 -4 9--
9ther Public Services. This alternative would put fewer
additional demands on police, fire, school, parks and recreation,
and road maintenance services within the Project Area due to the
reduced number of new residential units.
Soils and Geology. This alternative would subject fewer new
residential units to the seismic risks associated with
development in the vicinity.
Air Oualit¥. This alternative would have less adverse~
impact on air quality due to the reduced number of vehicle trips
generated. However, this alternative would facilitate less.~of
the regional air quality benefits associated with construction of
high density residential development near a BART station.
Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative would maintain
more existing trees in the Project Area which provide minor
habitat area for common wildlife species.
(c) Finding. Based on the information contained in
Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the
information set forth in the Preliminary Report and the Report on
the Plan, the finding is made that Alternative Three does not
achieve the goals of the Project and thus is not a feasible
alternative. Without increased residential densities, funding of
the BART subway alignment would not be possible, which would
result in an above grade BART line. An above grade BART line
would continue the existing blighting condition of limited parcel
size, which is the primary deterrent to development in the area.
4. Alternative Four--Modified General Plan Amendment--
Reduced Densities
(a) principal Characteristics. This alternative would
include implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and a General
Plan Amendment similar to the proposed Project, but with reduced
levels of density increase. The alternative would include the
followlng development characteristics:
The McLellan site would not be granted a density increase
(i.e., would develop at currently allowed densities of S to 15
units per acre, rather than at 25 units per acre). All other
identified residential development sites, including the Macy's,
Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart, and S.F. Water Company
properties would be developed at maximum densities of 30 units
per acre. No 40 or 50 unit per acre densities would be allowed.
As a result, the residential buildout total for the Project Area
would be reduced from 3,225 units down to 1,971 units. The
commercial square footage component would not change.
6~IO~P.I~O
06/15/9~ --50--
(b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Rffects
Land Use Factors. Less intensive new residential development
within the Project Area would occur under this alternative. As a
result, potentials for land use compatibility problems with
adjacent properties would be reduced. The alternative would
introduce new multi-family housing in the area more similar to
the densities found acceptable in other areas of the City.
Visual and Urban Design Factors. This alternative would also
result in lower density development on the McLellan site which
may be more compatible with adjacent residential uses to the
west. This alternative would also result in more two-to-three
rather than three-to-four story residential structures on other
properties, with corresponding reductions in potential visual
impacts.
Housing, Population, and Employment. This alternative would
result in a small net increase in new housing and population
within the Project Area. This alternative would also generate
less funding for the development of affordable housing within the
City. The employment impacts would not be significantly
different from those of the Project.
Transportation. This alternative would generate 39 percent
less additional traffic on the local street system and would
create fewer associated operational and safety concerns.
However, this alternative would create fewer high density
residential units with the benefits of being located near a BART
station.
Noise. This alternative would subject fewer new homes to
the E1 Camino Real noise environment.
Storm Drainage. Water. and Sewer Facilities. This
alternative would also place fewer additional demands on existing
water and sewer infrastructure systems. Storm drainage impacts
would not change significantly.
Other Public Services. This alternative would put fewer
additional demands on police, fire, school, parks and recreation,
and road maintenance services, due to the reduced amount of
associated new residential units (39 percent fewer additional
units).
Soils and Geology. This alternative would subject fewer
residential seismic risks associated with development in the
vicinity.
Air Oual{ty. This alternative would have less adverse
impact on air quality due to the reduced vehicle trips generated.
o~,~$/~ -51-
-- However, this alternative would facilitate less of the air
quality benefits associated with construction of high density
residential development near a BART station.
Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative would result in
no significant change in identified vegetation and wildlife
impact.
(c) F~nd~n~. Based on the information contained in
Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the
information set forth in the Preliminary Report and the Report on
the Plan, the finding is made that Alternative Four does not
achieve the goals of the Project and thus is not a feasible'
alternative. Without increased residential densities, funding of
the BART subway alignment would not be possible, which would
result in an above grade BART line. An above grade BART line
would continue the existing blighting condition of limited parcel
size, which is the primary detriment to development in the area.
5. Alternative Five--Mod~fied General Plan ~mendment--
Increased Densities
(a) Principal Characteristics. This alternative would
include a Redevelopment Plan and a General Plan Amendment similar
to the proposed Project, but with greater increases in density
-- allowances at selectedProject Area locations than the proposed
Project in order to provide more transit-oriented housing and
greater tax increment yields. This alternative would include the
following specific differences in project characteristics:
· The McLellan site would develop as proposed with the
Project~ i.e., with an average density of 25 units per
acre and a yield in 775 units. (A substantial
additional increase in density on this property beyond
25 units/acre would not be reasonable, given the sitets
topographic characteristics and relationship to
existing single family neighborhoods.)
Residential density allowances on the County Center and
Oak Avenue residential sites wold be increased to 40
units per acre (currently 30).
· The residential density allowance on the Chestnut
Avenue property (0.96 acres) would remain at 30 units
per acre.
The commercial square footage increase would not change
(i.e., would remain at 75,000 additional square feet).
As a result of these variations, the total number of
-- residential units in the Project Area at buildout would increase
~I~P.PSO
o~,1~ -52-
to 3,~76 units, representing an 11 percent increase over the
units that would be built under the proposed Project.
(b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects.
Land Use Factors. This alternative would create more
residential development at densities not found elsewhere in the
City. These greater densities and associated increases in
building height could be considered incompatible with existing
residential uses surrounding the area. However, the greater
development incentive offered by these increased densities could
facilitate a quicker private response to the corridor improvement
program and an increased level of tax increment, thereby removing
blighted elements more effectively than the proposed budget.'
V~sua] and Urban Design Factors. The proposed density with
this alternative would create more building mass than with the
proposed project (in general, an added story for individual
projects). This building mass would be more difficult to design
in compatible character with the scale and architectural style of
surrounding neighborhoods. This density of housing could also
result in less onsite area for public open space, and would
create more shadow impacts than the proposed densities.
Housing. Population. and Employment. This alternative would
result in approximately 3,576 residential units, or 351 more
housing units than the Project with an associated increase in
population. The increased housing density would also result in
increased opportunities for affordable housing units on the
project site and would generate more funds for affordable housing
citywide due to the larger tax increment. This alternative would
not result in any more commercial square footage or associated
jobs than with the proposed Project.
Transportation. This alternative would generate slightly
more vehicle trips due to the increased number of housing units
and would correspondingly increase project impacts on traffic
system operation and safety. However, this project would also
create the benefit of providing a greater number of housing units
near the BART station.
Noise. This alternative would increase the number of future
residential units exposed to the impacted traffic noise
environment along E1 Camino Real.
Storm Drainage. Water. and Sewer Facilities. This
alternative would result in increased demands on water and sewer
service due to the increased number of housing units. No
noticeable change in storm drainage impacts would be anticipated.
~310~P~P$O
o6/1s/92 -53-
Other Public Services. This alternative would also result in
increased demands on police and fire protection services,
increased school enrollment, parks and recreation needs, and
increased road maintenance needs due to the 11 percent increase
in number of residential units and the associated increases in
population.
Soils and Geology. This alternative would increase the
number of units subject to regional seismic hazards.
Air Ouality. This alternative would slightly increase
project related adverse impact on air quality due to the 11
percent increase in number of vehicle trips generated. However,
this alternative would facilitate more of the regional air
quality benefits associated with construction of high density
residential development near a BART station.
Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative would have
vegetation and wildlife impacts very similar to the proposed
Project.
(c) Finding. Based on the information contained in
Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the
information set forth in the Preliminary Report and the Report to
Council, the finding is made that Alternative Five does not
achieve the goals of the Project and thus is not a feasible
alternative. In addition, this alternative would not decrease
any of the adverse environmental effects resulting from the
Project, but rather would increase the amount of noise, traffic
problems and the impacts on public services.
6. Alternative Six--Modified Redevelopment Activit~es
(a) Principal Characteristics.
Under this alternative redevelopment scenario, the General
Plan Amendment aspects of the Project would be the same, but
there would be changes in the allocation of Project tax increment
revenues to various types of redevelopment activities.
Specifically, the total allocation to affordable housing
assistance would be increased to approximately 40 percent
(approximately $16.4 million)~ i.e., a doubling of the
approximately 20 percent ($8.2 million) allocated under the
proposed Project. This shift in allocation towards housing
assistance would correspondingly reduce the percentage of tax
increment allocated to other #additional agency projects" (BART
undergrounding, drainage channel covering, other infrastructure
improvements, etc.)
(b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Effects.
Under the proposed Project, this EIR has estimated that
approximately 273 housing units could be assisted; under this
alternative, theoretically, approximately 546 ~nits would be
assisted. Such additional housing assistance would result in
several beneficial impacts. The City's increased ability to
assist with affordable housing would have additional positive
effects on City and regional housing supplies, providing
increased housing opportunities for a broader range of
households. The added housing emphasis could also improve the
existing imbalance between job availability and local housing in
South San Francisco.
On the other hand, because this alternative would not
adequately fund the BART undergrounding, flood channel covering,
and other fundamental infrastructure improvement needs identified
in the area (estimated cost total: $28 million), this alternative
would have substantially less ability to encourage new private
development, and by extension, to accrue additional tax increment
revenue needed for redevelopment area improvements and housing
assistance.
(c) Finding. Based on the information contained in
Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the
information set forth in the Preliminary Report and the Report to
Council, the finding is made that Alternative One does not
achieve the goals of the Project and thus is not a feasible
alternative. Reallocation of tax increment revenue to affordable
housing projects will mean that the Agency will not have
sufficient revenue to ensure undergrounding of the BART line. In
addition, reallocation of tax increment revenue will not reduce
any of the environmental effects resulting from the Project.
7. Alternative Seven--Modified Redevelopment Area Boundary
(a) Principal Characteristics. This alternative would
be similar to the proposed Project in terms of General Plan
Amendment aspects and allocation of redevelopment funding, but
would involve a modified Project Area boundary. Two boundary
modification variations (subalternatives) are considered in the
discussion below: a reduced redevelopment area boundary and an
expanded redevelopment area boundary.
(i) Reduced Project Area Boundary. The Project
boundary could be reduced if there were portions of the
redevelopment area that would not benefit from redevelopment
activities. However, the Agency believes that these conditions
do not exist. As established in the Agency's Preliminary Report,
blighting conditions do exist in those areas currently included
within the proposed Project Area boundary, and failure to treat
~I~P.PSO
o~as/~ -55-
these conditions in one portion of the area (by excluding it from
redevelopment actions) could reduce the effectiveness of the
redevelopment efforts in the remainder of the Project Area.
Also, the overall effectiveness of the redevelopment program
would be significantly reduced with such a boundary contraction,
since tax increment revenues would not be sufficient to fund the
proposed BART undergrounding, a principal goal of the project.
Also, with a smaller redevelopment area and less tax increment
revenue, fewerhousing units affordable to very low-, low- and
moderate-income households would be assisted.
(ii) Expanded Project Area. The proposed project
boundaries were established by the Agency based on identification
of areas within which blighting conditions occur. The Agencyts
objective has been to only include blighted areas in the
redevelopment area boundaries. Because blighting conditions have
not been identified outside the redevelopment area boundary, an
enlarged boundary would not be a viable alternative under state
redevelopment law.
(b) Finding. Based on the information contained in
Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the
information in the Preliminary Report and the REport to Council,
the finding is made that Alternative Seven does not achieve the
goals of the Project and thus is not a feasible alternative. The
Project Area boundaries were selected to conform to the
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law. A change in the
boundaries would most llkely not conform to the CRL.
VII. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
The Agency and the City Council have fully considered the
discussion and analyses in the Record regarding the environmental
impacts, socioeconomic effects, cumulative impacts, growth-
inducing impacts, and irreversible and irretrievable commitments
of resources. The Agency and the City Council find that the
programs and activities of the Redevelopment Plan and General
Plan Amendment will provide numerous economic, social,
environmental and other benefits to the Project Area, and to the
City of South San Francisco, which override any unavoidable
significant adverse impacts of adoption and implementation of the
Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment. The Agency and
the City Council further find that Alternatives One through Seven
to the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment set forth in
the DEIR and summarized in Section VI of this Exhibit A are
infeasible because such Alternatives would limit the social,
economic and other benefits of Project and implementation which
are described below, and are therefore outweighed by them.
~I~P.PSO
o~/1~ -56-
The Agency and the City have agreed to adopt all mitigation
measures recommended in the EIR. However, the Project (as so
mitigated) will continue to result in the unavoidable significant
adverse impacts defined in Section IV and s~mmarized in Section
VI of this Exhibit A. The Agency and the City Council hereby
determine that, pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations
Section 1§093, the benefits of the Redevelopment Plan and General
Plan Amendment outweigh the mitigated adverse environmental
impacts identified in Part VII above. The Agency and the City
specifically find that, to the extent that the adverse or
potentially adverse impacts set forth above have not been
mitigated to insignificant levels, there are specific economic,
social, environmental, land use and other considerations that
support approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and General
Plan Amendment. Further, the Agency and the City find that any
of the following overriding considerations is sufficient to
approve the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment for any
one or more of the impacts outlined above, and that each of the
overriding considerations is adopted with respect to each of the
impacts individually. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section
21081(c) and CEQA, the Agency and the City Council make the
following Statement of Overriding Considerations and find that
the following considerations support approval of the Project=
A. The Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment
consists of policies, objectives and programs for the planned and
orderly development and redevelopment of the community in
conformity with the General Plan, and facilitate the provision of
all the benefits, financial and otherwise, of such development~
and
B. The Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment
stimulates the sound economic development of South San Francisco
by providing opportunities for transit oriented housing in
conjunction with the undergrounding of the proposed BART line;
creation of a public/private partnership to facilitate the
development of commercial and residential land; assisting in the
improvement of older, underutilized, commercial and industrial
properties; and
C. The proposed Redevelopment Plan and General Plan
Amendment will provide infrastructure improvements that will
further stimulate private investment in the ProJect Area that
would not have occurred without public participation and
assistance~ and
D. The adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan
Amendment will facilitate funding and implementation of the
proposed Agency-assisted Transportation Improvements, which are
necessary to facilitate orderly development in and access to and
from the Project Area~ and which will ensure that all existing
-57-
and proposed residential neighborhoods resulting from development
in the Project Area will be in close proximity of and have
reasonable access to local commercial, recreational and
educational facilities; and
E. Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan and General Plan
Amendment will result in a significant increase in the amount of
housing affordable to low, very low-, and moderate income
households in the Project Area and the surrounding South San
Francisco community, thereby improving the Jobs-housing balance
in the Project Area and reducing adverse traffic, air quality and
other impacts associated with development in the Project Area~
and
F. The Redevelopment Plan and General Plan Amendment will
improve and expand public services and facilities, by providing
for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of deteriorated storm
and sanitary utilities; development of additional utility systems
and facilities needed to service full development~ improvement of
parks, recreational and cultural facilities to support present
and future development~ and
G. The Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan Amendment
will facilitate the development of high density transit oriented
housing, which will have beneficial impacts on regional air
quality by reducing the reliance on automobiles~ and
H. The Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan Amendment
will eliminate noise and safety impacts which would result from
an at-grade or retained cut alignment for the BART line and
eliminate conflicts between the BART line and sensitive land uses
in the vicinity such as schools and hospitals.
~I~P.Pr~Q
~/1~ -58-