HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 149-1999RESOLUTION NO. 149-99
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR COSTCO WHOLESALE (EIR-98-084)
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was prepared in March 1999, and mailed to
responsible public agencies; and
WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) dated April 1999 was prepared
for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and a
Notice of Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH 99032047); and
WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for a 45-day review period beginning on April 30,
1999 and ending on June 15, 1999. Public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and mailed to agencies and all property owners
within 300 feet of the project boundaries. In addition, all persons who had requested notification
were mailed a notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the DEIR
on June 3, 1999. At this hearing and through submitted written comments, the Planning
Commission received comments on the DEIR from the public agencies and interested
individuals; and
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated August 1999 has been
prepared which includes responses to all comments received during the review period. Notice of
the availability of the FEIR was published in a newspaper of general circulation on August 9,
1999, and mailed to agencies and all property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries.
In addition, all persons who had requested notification were mailed a notice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the FEIR and held a duly noticed public
hearing on the document on August 19, 1999 and October 21, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the document on
November 17, 1999; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Findings of
Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, as contained in the attached Exhibit A,
including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and certifies the Environmental
Impact Report for the Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco at the regular meeting held on the 17 day of November 1999 by
the following vote:
AYES:Councilmembers Euqene Muilin, John Penna, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto
and Mayor Jim Datzman
NOES: None.
ABSTENTIONS: Councilmember Joseph Fernekes
ABSENT: None.
Attest:
ylvia Payne
City Clerk
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact
and
Statement of Overriding Consideration
EXHIBITA
Pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines and Section21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code
Related Environmental Documentation:
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports
(State Clearinghouse Number 99032047)
Date of Adoption by City of South San Francisco:
Project Files May Be Reviewed at:
City of South San Francisco
Department of Economic and Community Development
Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
November, 1999
..... TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1.
Section 2.
Section 3.
Section 4.
Section 5.
Section 6.
Section 7.
Introduction and Purpose .............................................. 1.1
Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR ...................... 2.1
Alternative 1: No-Project ................................................. 2.1
Alternative 2: Multi-Family Residential ...................................... 2.1
Alternative 3: Retail Commercial Development ................................ 2.2
Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project
Identified in the EIR ................................................... 3.1
Earth and Geotechnical .............................. ' ................... 3.1
Land Use and Planning . '. ............................................... 3.1
Transportation and Circulation ............................................ 3.1
Air Quality .......................................................... _._.~ 3.3
Hazardous Materials .................................................... 3.3
Aesthetics and Light and Glare ............................................ 3.4
Mitigation Measures for Less-than-Significant Impacts ...................... 4.1
Earth and Geotechnical ................................................. 4.1
Transportation and Circulation ............................................ 4.2
Implementation Schedule & Checklist for Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting .................................................. 5.1
Statement of Overriding Considerations .................................. 6.1
Citations ............................................................ 7.1
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose
A Costco Wholesale warehouse sales facility is planned to be located on the northwest corner of the
site. This building would include approximately 147,000 gross square feet of floor area in a single story
configuration, with primary interior uses being administrative offices, a central receiving area and the sales
portion of the building. The building would be used for selling goods and services, including food products,
clothing, personal care, household and electronic goods, automotive supplies and similar products for resale,
commercial and personal use. Another component of the project would be an automobile gasoline facility to
be constructed in conjunction with the warehouse facility. The gasoline facility would be located along the
easterly side of the site. Use of the gasoline facility would be restricted to Costco Wholesale members only.
Four pump islands under a canopy would be built with 8 self-service pumps installed. A maximum of 16
vehicles could be refueled at one time. New underground tanks would be installed as part of the gasoline
facility. In addition to the foregoing, the EIR analyzed up to 50,000 square feet of retail space is proposed to
be built on the residual portion of the project site, although specific users and a precise site plan have not been
developed.
The purposes of the project include (i) facilitating a higher and better utilization of the former Macy's
warehouse site through the development of a modern wholesale/retail warehouse outlet facility, (ii) increasing
employment opportunities in the community, (iii) assisting in toxic clean-up within the project area, and (iv)
increasing tax and other revenues to the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency.
This document presents findings that must be made by the City prior to approval of the project
pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081 of the Public Resources
Code. Under CEQA the City is required to make written findings explaining how it has dealt with each
alternative and each significant environmental impact identified in the draft environmental impact report (DEIR)
and final environmental impact report (FEIR) (City of South San Francisco, April 1999 and August 1999),
collectively referred to herein as the "EIR." The City may find that:
changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR;
such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency, and not the agency making the findings, and have been or can and should be
adopted by that other agency; or
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
Evidence from the DEIR, FEIR and City's General Plan is used to meet these criteria.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose
November, 1999
This document summarizes the significant environmental impacts of the project and project
alternatives, and describes how these impacts are to be mitigated.
This document is divided into the following seven sections:
Section 1 "Introduction and Purpose";
Section 2, "Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR";
Section 3, "Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR";
Section 4, "Mitigation Measures for Less-than-Significant Impacts";
Section 5, "Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting";
Section 6, "Statement of Overriding Considerations"; and
Section 7, "Citations".
Section 2, "Findings on the Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR", presents alternatives to the
project and evaluates them in relation to the findings set forth in Section 15091(a)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines, which allows a public agency to approve a project that would result in one or more significant
environmental effects if the project alternatives are found to be infeasible because of specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations.
Section 3, "Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR", presents
significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the EIR, the findings for the impacts, and the
rationales for the findings.
Section 4, "Mitigation Measures for Less-than-Significant Impacts", describes mitigation measures
adopted for less-than-significant impacts of the proposed project that were identified in the EIR.
Section 5, "Implementation Schedule and Checklist", presents the implementation schedule and
checklist and describes mitigation timing, verification, and responsibilities for the project.
Section 6, "Statement of Overriding Considerations", presents the overriding considerations for
significant impacts related to the project that cannot be or have not been mitigated or resolved. These
considerations are required under Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which require the decision-
making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a proposed
project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project.
Section 7, "Citations", identifies all references cited in this document.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 1. Introduction and Purpose
November, 1999
Section 2. Findings on Project Alternatives Considered in the EIR
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO-PROJECT
No impacts are associated with the No-Project Alternative because the project site would remain
vacant. Therefore, none of the impacts identified for the proposed project would occur.
Finding: Alternative Infeasible
The City finds the No-Project Alternative infeasible because the General Plan has identified the need
for improving vacant and underutilized properties located along El Camino Real for high quality residential uses
or for commercial uses. The No-Project Alternative also would not achieve the social, environmental and
economic goals of the project to convert the site to a modern wholesale/retail outlet facility, to increase
employment opportunities in the community, to Clean up toxics within the project site, and to increase tax and
other revenues to the City and the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.
ALTERNATIVE 2: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The Multi-Family Residential Alternative has been identified as a feasible alternative use of the project
site, but no specific design has been developed because neither the City nor Costco Wholesale has expressed
interest in pursuing this alternative. Compared to the proposed project, the Multi-Family Residential Alternative
would result in the following types of impacts:
Earth and geotechnical: similar or more extensive grading to accommodate multi-family
development;
Land use: increased impacts to change the City's General Plan Land Use Designation and
Zoning Ordinance to accommodate multi-family development;
Transportation, parking and circulation: at 15 units per acre, less traffic at all times; at 40 units
per acre, similar AM peak hour entering trips, much greater AM peak hour exiting trips, and
less PM peak hour trips and total daily traffic; and at 50 units per acre, similar AM and PM
peak hour entering trips, much greater AM peak hour exiting trips, and less PM peak hour
exiting trips and total daily traffic;
Air quality: less total daily traffic would result in fewer long term permanent air quality impacts;
construction air quality impacts would be similar;
Hazardous materials: Clean up requirements would be similar;
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 2. Find/ngs on Project Alternatives
Considered in the EIR
November, 1999
· Noise: greater impacts would be expected from a permanent residential population on the
project site; and
· Aesthetics, light and glare: less impacts would be expected.
Finding: Alternative Infeasible
This alternative does not meet the project's social and economic objectives of increasing employment
within the community and maximizing City and Redevelopment Agency tax revenues. Therefore, the City will
not pursue this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 3: RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The Retail Commercial Development Alternative has been identified as a feasible alternative use of
the project site, but no specific design has been developed because neither the City nor Costco Wholesale
has .expressed interest in pursuing this alternative. Compared to the proposed project, the Retai'l-6ommerci a'l
Deve'l opment. Alternative would result in the following types of impacts:
· Earth and geotechnical: similar impacts;
· Land use: similar impacts;
· Transportation, parking and circulation: similar or slightly less impacts;
· Air quality: similar or slightly less impacts;
· Hazardous materials: similar impacts; and
· Aesthetics, light and glare: similar impacts.
Finding: Alternative Infeasible
The City finds that the Retail Commercial Development Alternative would have very similar or, at best,
only slightly less impacts than the proposed project, but this alternative would not meet the project's social and
economic objectives of increasing employment within the community and maximizing City and Redevelopment
Agency tax revenues. Therefore, the City will not pursue this alternative.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 2. Findings on Project Altematives
Considered in the EIR
November, 1999
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR
This section identifies the findings on significant impacts of the project, as identified in the DEIR/FEIR
by issue area.
EARTH AND GEOTECHNICAL
Impacts 4.1-1 to 4.1-3: Impacts in this category were found to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for these impacts.
Finding: Mitigation measures not required. The City finds that mitigation measures are not required
because there are no significant earth or geotechnical impacts.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts 4.2-1 to 4.2-3: Impacts in this category were found to be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required for these impacts.
Finding: Mitigation measures not required. The City finds that mitigation measures are not required
because there are. no significant land use or planning impacts.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 4.3-1: Near-Term Roadway Impacts: Significant traffic impacts are anticipated at the following study
area intersections:
· El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F" during the PM
peak hour);
· El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
· El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
· Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
· Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour).
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the
Proposed Project Identified in the EIR
November, 1999
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: The project developer shall provide a fair share financial contribution to
the above intersections to fund necessary traffic signalization and roadway improvements to reduce potential
impacts to a less-than-significant level. The amount and timing of improvements shall be determined by the
South San Francisco Public Works Department. Intersection operations would improve to LOS "D" at the
above intersections. Notwithstanding the obligation to make a fair share contribution, the City of South San
Francisco cannot guarantee that the Town of Colma will implement the mitigation at the intersection of Mission
Rd./El Camino Real located in Colma. Therefore, this intersection has been included as a significant and
unavoidable impact, and must be overridden.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 is feasible and required. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.3-1 is feasible and, through the City's Capital Improvement Program, will reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level. Fair share contributions shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of an occupancy
permit for ~he Costco Wholesale warehouse, and the City Public Works Department will be responsible for
implementing the street improvements under the Capital Improvement Program.
Impact 4.3-3: Long,Term Roadway Impacts: The following intersections are projected to opera-t'e at
unacceptable level of service with and without the addition of project traffic, since the proposed project would
add 2% or greater traffic to these roadways:
· El Camino Real/Westborough Boulevard-Chestnut Avenue (LOS "E" during the PM
peak hour);
El Camino Real/Mission Road (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
El Camino Real/Arlington Drive (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
Camaritas Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
Hilton Avenue/Hickey Boulevard (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour);
Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue (LOS "F" during the PM peak hour).
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: The following traffic and roadway improvements shall be installed as part
of project construction. The proposed Costco facility shall be responsible for a fair share of the improvements
listed below.
Add an additional left-turn lane only for the north leg of the intersection and add an
exclusive right-turn lane on the east leg of the intersection. The LOS will improve to
"D" during the PM peak hour;
Upgrade the signal at the Grand Avenue/Chestnut Avenue intersection for a left-turn
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the
Proposed Project Identified in the EIR
November, 1999
protected phase, and re-stripe eastbound and westbound Chestnut Avenue to
provide one exclusive left-turn lane, and a shared through and right-turn lane. LOS
will improve to D during the evening peak hour.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 is feasible and required. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.3-3 is feasible and, through the City's Capital Improvement Program, will reduce the impact to a less-than-
significant level. Fair share contributions shall be collected by the City prior to issuance of an occupancy
permit for the Costco Wholesale warehouse, and the City Public Works Department will be responsible for
implementing the street improvements under the Capital Improvement Program.
AIR QUALITY
Impact 4.4-1: Air Quality Construction Impacts: The effects of project construction activities would be
increased dustfall and locally elevated levels of PM10 downwind of construction activity. Construction dust
has the potential for creating a nuisance at nearby properties.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1: The measures contained in the DEIR are recommended, based on
BAAQMD standards, to reduce construction impacts to a level that is less-than-significant.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 is feasible and required. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.4-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The measures specified in the DEIR
must be implemented by the project proponent as a condition of issuance of a grading permit and shall be
subject to regular inspection by the City Building Department for compliance.
Impact 4.4-3: Permanent Regional Air Quality Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would exceed
the maximum BAAQMD air quality standards for permanent regional impacts.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3: Implementation of traffic Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-3.
Finding: Mitigation Measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-3 are feasible and required, but significant impact
is unavoidable. The City finds that mitigation measures 4.3-1 and 4.3-3 are feasible and will partially reduce
the impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. This impact would require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as a condition of EIR certification. (Refer to page 6-1)
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Impact 4.5-1: Hazardous Materials: The project site has been determined to be contaminated. The
Environmental Site Assessment document (Kleinfelder, 1997) recommends that the project developer contact
the San Mateo County Department of Health Services to determine appropriate site remediation, if any, is
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
7
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the
Proposed Project Identified in the EIR
November, 1999
..... required.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1: Prior to commencement of demolition activities on the site, the project
developer shall contact the San Mateo County Health Department for site clearances with regard to identified
potentially hazardous materials on the site.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 is feasible and required. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.5-1 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by either confirming the site is
sufficiently clean or requiring Costco Wholesale to comply with the designated remediation measures to satisfy
the performance criterion of the San Mateo County Department of Health Services (DHS) that hazardous
materials on the project site pose no threat to human health, life or the environment. While the determination
of required clean-up levels is the responsibility and within the jurisdiction of DHS and not the City, such
determination can and should be made by DHS and the City will require evidence of an approved and
implemented remediation plan or a site clearance letter prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
Costco Wholesale warehouse. If there is an on-going remediation plan at the time of issuance of the certificate
of occupancy, Costco :Shall include the City Planning Division among the recipients of monitoring re.P. OrtS
pursuant to the remediation plan.
AESTHETICS AND LIGHT AND GLARE
Impact 4.6-3: Light and Glare: Implementation of the proposed project would induce new sources of light and
glare into El Camino Real and perhaps adjoining properties, primarily from new parking lot and building security
lighting.
Mitigation IVieasure 4.6-3: A lighting plan shall be approved for the project by both the Planning
Division and Police Departments to ensure that all exterior light fixtures will either be oriented downward or
equipped with cut-off lenses to ensure that no spill over of unwanted light onto adjacent properties or streets
shall occur.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.6-3 is feasible and required. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.6-3 is feasible and will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. The lighting plan shall require
approval by the City Planning Division and the Police Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
8
Section 3. Findings on Significant Impacts of the
Proposed Project Identified in the EIR
November, 1999
Section 4.
Mitigation Measures for Less-than-Significant Impacts
EARTH AND GEOTECHNICAL
Impact 4.1-1: Site Grading and Excavation: Approval of the proposed project would cause increased
amounts of site grading and excavation for construction of the new facility. Grading operations would proceed
based on grading and excavation plans approved by the City of South San Francisco and completed in
compliance with the Uniform Building Code.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1: As a condition of issuing the grading permits for the project, the City
requires the grading contractors to prepare and implement grading and excavation plans in compliance with
the Uniform Building Code.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 is to be implemented. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.1-1. is feasible and should be adopted although the impact is less than significant. __..
Impact 4.1-2: Soil Erosion: Increases in grading and excavation would increase the potential for erosion of
earthen material off of the site into local surface bodies of water (Colma Creek), the storm drain system and
into adjacent streets. A major potential negative effect of soil erosion is degradation of local water quality by
depositing organic and inorganic material in local waters. The significance of this impact is reduced through
adherence to sedimentation and erosion control plans and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan included
in the Notice of Intent.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2: As a condition of issuing the grading permits for the project, the City
requires the grading contractors to prepare and implement soil erosion and sedimentation control plans and
a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 is to be implemented. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.1-2 is feasible and should be adopted although the impact is less than significant.
Impact 4.1-3: Seismic Hazard: During a major earthquake on a segment of one of the nearby faults, strong
to very strong shaking is expected to occur at the project site. Strong shaking during an earthquake can result
in ground failure such as that associated with soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, and differential compaction.
Adherence to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code and specific grading and building foundation
recommendations made in the Kleinfelder geotechnical report will reduce seismic impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
9
Section 4. Mitigation Measures for
Less-than-Significant Impacts
November, 1999
Mitigation Measure 4.1-3: As a condition of issuing the building permits for the project, the City
requires that the construction plans and specifications comply with the seismic standards of the Uniform
Building Code and the Kleinfelder geotechnical report.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4.1-3 is to be implemented. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.1-3 is feasible and should be adopted although the impact is less than significant.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 4.3-2: Near-Term CMP Roadway Impacts: With appropriate exemptions granted by C/CAG, less-
than-significant impacts would be expected along nearby freeway segments.
Impact 4.3-4: Long-Term CMP Roadway Impacts: With appropriate exemptions granted by C/CAG, less-
than-significant impacts would be expected along nearby freeway segments under long-term conditions.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Prepare a CMP Deficiency Plan for 1-280 between the Hicke~-and
Westborough interchanges unless the C/CAG determines that the LOS criteria for the segment with exclusions
would be LOS "A" or "B" and a deficiency plan would not be required. Nevertheless, the City will require as
a condition of approval of the Use Permit that the project proponent prepare and implement a TDM program
upon opening for business and participate in any appropriate interregional deficiency plan developed through
C/CAG.
Finding: Mitigation Measure 4,3-4 is to be implemented. The City finds that Mitigation Measure
4.3-4 is feasible and should be adopted although the impact is less than significant.
POTENTIAL UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
1. Permanent Regional Air Quality Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would exceed the maximum
BAAQMD air quality standards for permanent regional impacts.
2. Traffic Mitigation at Mission/El Camino. Notwithstanding the obligation to make a fair share contribution,
the City of South San Francisco cannot guarantee that the Town of Colma will implement the mitigation at the
intersection located in Colma.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
lO
Section 4. Mitigation Measures for
Less-than-Significant Impacts
November, 1999
Section 5.
Implementation Schedule and Checklist for Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
This section contains an abbreviated description of each mitigation measure and is in tabular, checklist
format. A complete description of each mitigation measure is contained in Section 3, "Findings on Significant
Impacts of the Proposed Project Identified in the EIR", or Section 4, "Mitigation Measures for Less-than-
Significant Impacts," of this document.
The mitigation measures to be implemented by the project applicant or successors in interest are
separated in the following phases:
· prior to issuance of a grading permit,
· prior to issuance of a building permit, :
· prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Costco Wholesale warehouse, and
· ongoing requirements.
The City-implemented mitigation measures are contained at the end of each table.
Mitigation Measures
Timing of Verification
Prior to grading permit
Prior to building permit
Prior to certificate of occupancy
4.1-1
4.1-2
4.4-1
4.1-3
4.6-3
4.3-1
4.3-3
4.5-1
4.3-4
Ongoing 4.5-1
4.3-4
City-implemented measures
4.3-1
4.3-3
(pay fair share)
(pay fair share)
(TDM Plan)
(for any remediation after certificate of occupancy),
(participation in C/CAG deficiency plan for 1-280)
(implement ClP)
(implement ClP)
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
t!
Section 5. Implementation Schedule and Checklist
For Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting
November, 1999
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule and Monitoring Checklist
Timing of
Verification
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Prior to grading permit
Prior to building permit
Prior to certificate of occupancy
Ongoing
City-implemented measures
4.1-1 Provide site grading Costco
and excavation plans
4.1-2 Provide sedimentation and Costco
erosion control plans and
stormwater pollution prevention
plan
4.4-1 Implement BAAQMD measures Costco
4.1-3 Incorporate seismic standards Costco
in construction plans
4.6-3 Provide lighting plan Costco
4.3-1 Provide fair share financial Costco.
contribution to CIP improvements
4.3-3 Provide fair share financial Costco.
contribution to CIP improvements
4.5-1
4.3-4
4.5-1
4.3-4
4.3-1
4.3-3
Implement toxics remediation plan Costco
Prepare & implement TDM Plan Costco
Complete toxics remediation Costco
Participate in C/CAG deficiency
plan for 1-280
Implement CIP
Implement CIP
Bldg. Dept.
Eng. Dept.
Bldg. Dept.
Eng. Dept.
Bldg. Dept.
Bldg. Dept .....
Planning Div.
Police Dept.
Pub. Works Dept.
Pub. Works Dept.
DHS
Planning Div.
Ec. Dev. Dir
DHS
Planning Div.
Costco C/CAG
Eng. Dept.
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
12
Section 5. Implementation Schedule and Checklist
For Mitigation Monitoring/Repo[ling
November, 1999
Section 6.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the applicable economic, legal, social,
technological or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects, those
effects may be considered "acceptable" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). However, CEQA requires
the agency to support, in writing, the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant
impacts are infeasible to mitigate. Such reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or
elsewhere in the administrative record (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[b]). The agency's statement
is referred to as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations".
The City of South San Francisco is proposing to approve the Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
project and has prepared and certified an FEIR that satisfies the requirements of CEQA. The following
adverse impacts of the project and of cumulative development in the South San Francisco area are consi~.ered
significant and unavoidable, both individually and cumulatively, based on the BEIR, FEIR, and the findings
discussed previously in Sections 2 and 3 of this document:
emissions from mobile sources of reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides and increased
amounts of suspended particulate matter (PMlo) would exceed BAAQMD air quality standards
for permanent regional impacts.
traffic impacts at the intersection of El Camino Real and Mission Road will remain at level of
service F. Payment of fair share contribution by the project developer cannot guarantee the
impact will be mitigated to a less than significant impact since it is located outside the
jurisdiction of South San Francisco.
The City finds that the social, environmental, and economic considerations of the proposed Costco
Wholesale Warehouse Facility project outweigh the foregoing, unavoidable environmental impacts for the
reasons stated below. In making this finding, the City has balanced the applicable economic, social,
environmental and other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts and
has indicated its willingness to accept the resulting risk.
The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan recognizes the importance of commercial areas
because of the employment opportunities provided and because businesses provide goods and services
needed by the community. The General Plan includes the designation of Planned Commercial areas for large
commercial developments and specifies the project site as one such area. The project would advance these
General Plan provisions as well as the specific project purposes:
Employment Benefits: The project would be a source of employment in South San Francisco,
generating jobs from the Costco facilities.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
13
Section 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations
November, 1999
Community Benefits: The project would provide a popular source for the community to purchase a
select number of high-quality grocery, dry good, furnishing, equipment and other items at prices comparable
to wholesale and to obtain optical, pharmacy and other services offered by a modern wholesale/retail outlet
facility.
Land Use Benefits: The project would achieve the re-development of the former Macy's warehouse
site for a higher and better use as contemplated by the General Plan, including up to 147,000 square feet of
retail space.
Environmental Benefits: The project would cause contaminants on the site to be cleaned up or
contained in a manner which assures the conditions pose no threat to human health, life or the environment.
Economic Benefits: The project would restore Kales tax revenues and increase property and other tax
revenues from the project site to the City and the Redevelopment Agency.
Air Quality Impact: The project would contribute to existing regional air quality problems. The Ioc_a. tion
requirements and character of the project limit the potential for reducing these impacts by situating it elsewhere
or by adopting mitigation measures in the proposed location.
The Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility project provides a beneficial mix of retail employment, local
and regional serving commercial use, re-development of an outdated facility, assurance of toxic
containment/remediation, and tax revenues, which outweighs the unavoidable environmental impact.
Therefore, the City has adopted this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
14
Section 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations
November, 1999
Section 7. Citations
PRINTED REFERENCES
City of South San Francisco Department of Economic and Community Development, Planning Division. Land
Use, Transportation and Circulation Elements of the General Plan for the City of South San Francisco, 1986,
as amended.
City of South San Francisco. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility, April
1999, and supporting appendices. Environmental consultant: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Berkeley, CA.
City of South San Francisco. Final Environmental Impact Report: Costco Facility, August 1999. Environmental
consultant: Jerry Haag, Urban Planner, Berkeley, CA.
Costco Wholesale Warehouse Facility
Findings of Fact and
Statement of Overriding Considerations
15
Section 7. Citations
November, 1999