Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 30-2010RESOLUTION NO. 30-2010 CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, IN(:LUDING ADOPTION OF THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RELATED ZONING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the City of South. San Francisco ("City")Planning Division staff and the City's consultant, Dyett and Bhatia, have prepared an amendment to the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan, which includes new zoning and design guidelines intended to facilitate anal promote mixed-use development in the defined "Study Area" along the southern corridor of El Camino Real ("Amendment" Or "Project"); and, WHEREAS, the City determined that an Environmental Impact Report was required to evaluate the impacts of the proposed Amendment; and, WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was originally issued on June 17, 2009 and a draft environmental impact report was prepared and circulated for public review beginning in August 2009; and, WHEREAS, changes were subsequently made to the project description and study area, affecting the environmental analysis of the Amendment, and accordingly, a second Notice of Preparation was published on October 22, 2009, and a devised draft environmental impact report ("DEIR") was circulated for public review from November 25, 2009, until January 11, 2010; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held study sessions on the Amendment at their meetings on October 2, 2008, and June 4, 2009, and held a duly noticed meeting during the review period on December 3, 2009 to take public comment on the revised and recirculated DEIR; and, WHEREAS, the Final EIR (FEIR) for the Amendment consists of the DEIR, as well as all comments received on the revised and recirculated DEIR, written response to those comments, and minor revisions to the DEIR; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and carefully considered the information in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR (collectively, "EIR") at a duly noticed public hearing held on February 4, 2010, and by resolution, made findings and recommended certification of the EIR, as an objective and accurate document that reflects the independent judgment of the City in the identification, discussion and mitigation of the Arnendrnent's environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and carefully considered the information in the EIR, at a duly noticed public hearing held on March 24, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Amendment cannot be approved unless a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted which evaluates the benefits of the proposed Amendment against its unavoidable impacts, and an earlier Statement of Overriding Considerations was made by the City and also applies to the Amendment as follows: 1. The City of South San Francisco approved an update to its General Plan a.nd Environmental Impact Report in October 199!9. Th.e City Council made a statement of overriding considerations in its approval o~ the General Plan update, because the measures identified to mitigate for traffic congestion along US 101. and regional air pollution would not be sufficient to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. 2. The Amendment would impact some of the salme freeway segments that were identified in the General Plan EIR and which could only be partially mitigated. 3. Therefore, the Statement of Overriding Considerations that was made for approval of the General Plan would also apply to decision-making on the Amendment by the City. 4. Additionally, the Amendment offers specific benefits as stated in the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Amendment (attached as Exhibit B and incorporated herein). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14'California Code of Regulations § 15000, et seq.; the South Sa.n Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the South El Camino Real General Play Amendment, including related rezoning, zoning text amendment, and design guidelines, and the Draft and Final EIIZ prepared for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and all appendices thereto; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commissio~h's study sessions on October 2, 2008, and June 4, 2009; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission's duly notice public hearings on December 3, 2009, and February 4, 2010; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Ci(y Council's duly noticed public hearing on March 24, 2010; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South Sah Francisco hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The EIR for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment (EIR-08-0004), as well as the Exhibits attached to this Resolution, incluiding the CEQA Findings (Exhibit A) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit B) are each incorporated by reference as part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of thief Planner, Susy Kalkin. 4. Based on the City Council's independent judgment and analysis, the City Council makes the findings regarding the Amendment's environrr~ental impacts and project alternatives set forth in Exhibit A, and the findings regarding a balanicing of the Amendment's unavoidable impacts and benefits, set forth in Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the entirety of the record as described above, and for the reasons set forth in this Resolution including the incorporated Exhibits, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, hereby adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached as Exhibit B, and certifies the EIR (EIR-08-0004) for the Amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution wad regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of March, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Richard A Garbarino, and Karyl Matsumoto, Vice Mayor Kevin Mullin and Ma o~M~,rk Addiego NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ST: /% ity Clerk Exhibit A CEQA Findings EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS Section I: Introduction Prior to approving a proj ect for which an EIR has been certified, a lead agency must make find- ings as to each significant impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21081; CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. (a).) As articulated in Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which. an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdic- tion of another public agency and not the' agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment oppgrtunities for highly grained work- ers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identi- fied in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) A lead agency need not make any findings for impacts .that the EIR concludes are less than sig- nificant. (See ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Ca1.App.4th 704, 716.) Most of the "impacts" identified in the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment EIlZ do not exceed CEQA thresholds Hof significance. Accordingly, no findings are required or included for these less-than-significant impacts. With respect to the remaining impacts, the South El Clamino Real General Plan Amendment is intended to be a "self-mitigating" project; that is, the Amendment incorporates policies and pro- grams designed to avoid or minimize impacts that may ptherwise be considered to exceed CEQA significance thresholds. Because these policies and programs that avoid or substantially lessen such impacts have already been incorporated into the project, there are no additional mitigation measures proposed or required for the Amendment (arid accordingly, no Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is required). Potentially significant impacts for which no feasible poli- cies, programs or mitigation measures exist are considered significant and unavoidable impacts, and discussed in detail in the Statement of Overriding Considerations (attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution). In accordance with these CEQA principles, the following findings discuss im- pacts for which Section II: General Finding For purposes of CEQA and the findings set forth herein, the record of proceedings for the City's decision on the project consists of, without limitation:. a) matters of common knowledge to the City, including, but not limited to, federal, State and lpcal laws and regulations; and b) the fol- lowing documents which are in the custody of the City; and available for review by the public at the City's Planning Department, City Hall Annex, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA: • Notice of Preparation and other public noticed issued by the City in conjunction with the project; • The Public Review Draft EIR; • All written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the public comment period on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments; • All findings, statements of overriding consideration, and resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred therein; • All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, correspondence, and. all planning docu- ments prepared by the City or the consultants, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to: a) the City's compliance with CI~,QA; b) the Project site/area; or c) the City's action on the Project; and • All documents submitted to the City by agencies or members of the public in connec- tion with the project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21082.1(c)(3), the City also finds that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment as the lead agertcy for the project. Section III• Findings Regarding Potentially Significant Impacts of the Proposed Project NOISE Impact 3.2-3: The proposed Amendment may result in development of noise-sensitive receptors in close proximity to major sources of transportation none. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Policies 9-I-4, 9-I-5, 9-I-11, and 9-I-12. Finding: Policy 9-I-4 requires that for all new noise-sensitive receptors in the CNEL 60 dB to CNEL 69 dB noise contours, an acoustical study be prepared specifying mitigation features re- quired to achieve an interior noise level not exceeding CNEL 45 dB in any habitable room. Pol- icy 9-I-5 requires that Leq of 45 dB be achieved during... the nosiest hour of operation for schools and places of assembly. Further, as required by the SFb Airport Land Use Commission's crite- ria, Policy 9-I-11 prohibits new residential and other nioise-sensitive development in the CNEL 70 dB+ areas. Finally, new residential development in the areas between the CNEL 65 and 70 dB contours will be required to provide an avigation easement. These policies will operate to collec- tively ensure that noise-sensitive receptors are not looted in the noisiest areas, and that those that are located in areas subject to a high level or noise, are developed in a manner to reduce inte- rior noise levels. Implementation of these policies will minimize the identified impact to a less- than-significant level. PARKS AND RECREATION Impact 3.4-1: While future development under the proposed Amendment may result in in- creased demand for and use of existing parks, proposed parks will meet level of service stan- dards. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Policy 5.1-I-ll0. Finding: Policy 5.1-I-10 facilitates improved connectivity to open space and enhanced park and recreation opportunities in the South El Camino Real' corridor, potentially including improve- ments to Orange Avenue and Spruce Avenue to mare them more pedestrian friendly, a new shared school/neighborhood park on the South San Francisco High School site, collection of in- lieu fees, and a new mini-park in the South El Camino Real corridor. The new parks proposed as part of the Amendment will help to meet any increase irk demand for parks and recreation facili- ties resulting from the Amendment. Therefore, implementation of this policy will minimize the identified impact to ales-than-significant level. VISUAL RESOURCES Impact 3.7-1: Future development under the proposed) Amendment may degrade the existing visual character of the Planning Area and affect scenic views of Sign Hill and the San Bruno Mountains. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Changes to Figure 2.3 of the General Plan and policies 3.4-G-5, 3.4-I-22, 3.4-I-23, and 3.4-I-26. Finding: Currently, there are only limited views of scenic vistas (including the San Bruno Mountains and Sign Hill) from a pedestrian height in the South El Camino Real corridor. Poli- cies 3.4-I-22 and 3.4-I-26 establish design standards, i#~cluding variations in building volumes and step-backs for buildings exceeding 35 feet in height, that will operate to minimize bulk at higher levels of buildings. Policy 3.4-I-23 requires ground-level promenades and pathways, which will reduce development that may block views from corridor. All of these policies, along with Policy 3.4-G-5, will contribute to a diverse and vibrant visual character along the South El Camino Real corridor that will help preserve the limited existing views. Therefore, implementa- tion ofthis policy will minimize the identified impact to aless-than-significant level. LAND USE AND HOUSING Impact 3.8-2: Implementation of the proposed Amendmment may displace substantial numbers of existing housing, population, or jobs. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Policies 3.4-h17, 3.4-I-18, and 3.4-I-26. Finding: Policy 3.4-I-17 requires that redevelopment o#'low-intensity commercial uses be in the form of high-intensity active or mixed-uses, that inclujde uses such as retail, restaurants, bars, theaters, commercial recreation, personal services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, child care ser- vices, libraries, museums, and galleries on the ground bevel, fronting El Camino Real, and that compatible residential, office, hotel/motel uses be locatled on upper levels. This will help to off- set displacement of housing and jobs resulting from the redevelopment of the area. Policies 3.4-I- 18 and 3.4-I-26 similarly require active uses in the corridor. Therefore, implementation of this policy will minimize the identified impact to a less-than significant level. Section IV: Findings Regarding Alternatives The EIR evaluates the environmental impacts of two alternatives to the Amendment, the Em- ployment Center Alternative and the No Project Alternative, and compares them to the proposed Amendment. The Employment Center Alternative assumes the same development potential but a higher distribution of non-residential uses in the Pl~.nning Area, compared to the proposed Amendment. Consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA in all EIRs to help decision-makers compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The No Project scenario is based on the South San Francisco 1999 General Plan, which represents the continuation'.. of the existing plans and policies if the proposed Amendment is not adopted. Table 4.2-1 summarizes the buildout of the proposed Amendment, the Employment Center Alternative and tl~e No Project scenario. The City Council hereby concludes that the EIR sets Forth a reasonable range of alternatives to the Amendment, so as to foster informed public participation and informed decision making. The City Council finds that the alternatives identified and described in the EIR were considered and further finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, social, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA section 21081(c). EMPLOYMENT CENTER ALTERNATIVE The Employment Center Alternative assumes the same amount of redevelopment potential as the proposed Amendment. It also assumes that future development will be more nonresidential com- pared to the proposed Amendment. The Alternative assumes half of the development would be residential, including 630 housing units, expected to accommodate 1,810 residents, resulting in a total of 22,810 housing units and 69,210 residents at buildout. The other half of the development would be non-residential, adding approximately 538,OOb square feet of non-residential develop- ment to what is anticipated in the No Project scenario, resulting in approximately 27.6 million square feet ofnon-residential at buildout. Compared with the proposed Amendment, the Alterna- tive would result in 210 fewer housing units, and 600 fewer residents but 600 more jobs, at buildout. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative assumes continuation of land use development under the 1999 Gen- eral Plan. Buildout of the No Project Alternative would result in an increase of 2,780 housing units and nine million square feet of non-residential spice to the city's 1999 inventory of an es- timated 19,400 housing units and 18.1 million square feet of non-residential space. The total number of housing units at will be 22,180 and the total non-residential square footage will be 27.1 million square feet at buildout. The No Project Alternative will accommodate a total popu- lation of 67,400 in 2020. Compared with the proposed Amendment, the No Project scenario would result in 840 fewer housing units, 2,410 fewer re~'idents, and 700 fewer jobs, at buildout. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123(e)(2)) require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives analyzed. The No P!roj ect: Alternative, because of the lower amount of growth and the resulting lessening of adverse impacts, would in many cases, be envi- ronmentally superior. However, CEQA Guidelines mandate that if the No Project Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, then another environmentally superior al- ternative must be identified. Although the environmental superiority can vary depending on the topic, or even depending on analysis criteria for the same topic, overall the Employment Center Alternative represents the environmentally superior altetnative. The Employment Center Alternative, with less population compared to the proposed Amend- ment, would have fewer impacts on South San Francisco's public utilities and services. It would also result in the lowest GHG emissions per service population, indicating it efficiently accom- modates population and employment growth. In additign, the demand for parks would be less in the Employment Center Alternative. The Employment Center Alternative represents the envi- ronmentally superior alternative because it minimizes tlhese impacts while achieving much of the purpose of the proposed Amendment. Finding Regarding Alternatives: The proposed Amendment is the only project capable of achieving the primary project objectives, and in some areas, would have fewer environmental impacts than the alternatives considered. The No Project Alternative would fail to achieve any of the most basic project objectives, and is rejected on this basis. The Employment Center Alterna- tine represents the environmentally superior alternative,lthough does not achieve some of the ba- sic project objectives. It would not, for example, allovV~ the City to proactively address issues identified in the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emission law (SB375), or to address the need for additional housing units in the community. Further, while the Employment Center Alternative is considered the environmen- tally superior alternative, in some areas, the proposed Amendment would have fewer environ- mental impacts. In particular, the proposed Amendment', focuses on establishing a high intensity, mixed-use, and pedestrian oriented district along El Camino Real, thereby achieving the greatest jobs/housing balance in South San Francisco of all alternlatives. Since all new development under the proposed Amendrr~ent would be in the form of infill devel- opment-the redevelopment of existing sites-each alternative expects development on the same set of sites. Therefore, impacts are no different for many issue areas, including land use and housing, traffic, circulation and parking, and all of the impacts included in the impacts not poten- tially significant category. However, the proposed Amendment proves to be an efficient alterna- tive by showing preferable per capita results for the irr~portant issue areas of energy and GHG emissions, though the emissions per service population are preferable under the Employment Center Alternative and total energy use and GHG emissions are less with the Employment Cen- ter Alternative. The proposed Amendment also has preferred outcomes in the issue areas of air quality and aesthetics. Because the Employment Center Alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, and would have more severe environmental! effects in some areas, the Employment Center Alternative is rejected. Exhibit B Statement of Overriding Considerations STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 1. General. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines suction 15093, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopts this Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified as significant and unavoidable in the Environmental Impact Report for the South El Camino Real General Plan Amend~pnent ("Amendment" or "Project"). (Resolution No. .) The City Council has carefully considered each impact in reaching its decision to approve the Project. The proposed Amendment Planning Area is located along E1 Camino Real between Chestnut Avenue and Noor Avenue in central South San Francisco. This segment of El Camino Real is approximately 1.25 miles west of downtown and U.S. 101, one mile east of I-280, and approximately one rile north of I-380. The proposed Amendment aims to target higher intensities and mixed-use development in this southern portion of El Camino Real. The Planning Area currently has some vibrant uses, but much of the corridor is underutilized, with single-story development or uses such as drive- through fast-food establishments, motels, and auto body shops. Development along the corridor is typically set back from El Camino Rea, behind large surface parking lots, separating active uses from the pedestrian realm. In addition, development is at low intensities and too spread out to sustain much pedestrian activity or to develop a unifying identity. The proposed Amendment would incorporate a new land use designation, El Camino Real Mixed Use, into the General Plan, intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real area. The proposed. Amendment also includes the necessary rezoning, honing text amendments, and Design. Guidelines, to implement the vision of El Camino deal as an urban, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented corridor for residents to live, work, shop, and play, consistent with the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative vv!hich encourages compact mixed-use development and high-quality urban design along E~ Camino Real. The Amendment will also allow the City to proactively address issues identified in the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emission law (SB375). Ultimately, the proposed General Plan Amendment and new zoning eliminates out-of--date land use policies and regulations in the South El Camino area. The proposed South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment and implementation pieces aim to limit sprawl by promoting additional development intensity and density in a developed area (infill), link transportation and land use by promoiting mixed-use redevelopment in an area that is well served by bus transit and has access to BART, and promote high quality development by implementing development standards and design guidelines that stress urban design, open space, and pedestrian-oriented details. Key features of the proposed Amendment include creation of a new land use designation--El Camino Real Mixed-Use-intended to accommodate high intensity active uses and mixed-use development in the South El Camino Real area; encourage residential development by allowing residential densities of 60 units per acre, with densities of up to 80 units per acre for development meeting specific criteria; protect existing neighborhoods by including an exception to '',the maximum density (limited to 40 units per acre) for parcels on the east side of El Catnino Real, between First Street and West Orange Avenue; and adjusting Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in an effort to ensure that the corridor is redeveloped in a more intense form than the current development pattern. The Amendment will also create a new zoning di$trict-El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX)-and a new chapter to implement the General Plan policies is being proposed. Finally, the Amendment proposes adoption of tl~e South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which highlight and illustrate some o~ the major development standards applicable in the South El Camino Real corridor. They summarize the standards to provide clear and concise visual examples of various', standards, as well as "desirable" and "undesirable" examples of project details. The Desjign Guidelines support the General Plan and the applicable zoning and will be a key tool for decision-makers, staff, applicants, and the community to understand the deslign expectations that will be applied during design review and for granting FAR, density, and height bonuses. The City Council hereby adopts specific overriding considerations for the impacts listed below that are identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable. The City Council believes that all of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR will be substantially lessened by mitigation measlures and policies adopted with the original General Plan approval and by the polies adopted through approval of the proposed Amendment. Even with these policies, however, the City Council recognizes that the implementation of the Amendment caries with it unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in the EIR. The ~ity Council specifically finds that to the extent the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Amendment have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Amendment. 2. Unavoidable Significant Adverse Implacts. The following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts have been identified in the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report: TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND PARHING Impact 3.1-1: Future development under the proposed Amendment, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load aid capacity of the street system, and would cause intersection LOS standard established by the General Plan to be exceeded. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Changes to the Land Use Diagram and Policy 3.4-I-17. Finding: Redeveloping the corridor as with pedestrian-oriented mixed-uses, as called for on the Land Use Diagram and in Policy 3.4-I-17, will be an effective way of reducing traffic impacts. It has the potential to reduce vehic~e travel, needs for parking and street widening, and impacts on climate change. However, in order to achieve acceptable levels of service (LOS) at the impacted intersections, widening of all approaches and additional receiving lanes would be needed, which would requite additional right-of--way, relocation of utilities, and the possible relocation of buildings along El Camino Real. Road widening for additional lanes would be required o~ El Camino Real, Spruce Avenue, Ponderosa Road, West Orange Avenue, and Westborough Boulevard. These mitigations would be contrary to the purpose of the proposed Amendment, which is to create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood along El Camino ..Real that is pedestrian-oriented and walkable. Widening approaches to increase LOS would benefit automobile drivers but often result in overly-wide streets and intersections that are difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross, and could result in narrowing of sidewalks. These changes would potentially result in worsened conditions for pedestriians, bicyclists and transit users. This would also be inconsistent with other planning efforts along corridor, including the El Camino Real Master Plan and the Grand Boulevard Initiative. The widening of approaches would not only be inconsistent with the proposed Amendment and other planning efforts (i.e. El Camino Master Plan, adopted 2006) along El Camino Real, but would be economically and technologically infusible. Widening could potentially require acquisition of Caltrans right-of--way and/ or the acquisition and possibly demolition of existing viable commercial and residential properties. The expense involved in such an effort would not be justified by the types of land uses facilitated by the proposed Amendment. Given that the mitigation. measures are in contravention to the proposed Amendment and other planning efforts along the El Camino Real corridor, as well as economically and technologically infeasible, the cumulative impact is significant and unavoidable. Impact 3.1-2: Future development under the proposed Amendment, along with regional population and employment growth, would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load ar~d capacity of the street system, and. would cause roadway LOS standards established b~ the county congestion management agency to be exceeded. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Changes to the Land Use Diagram. Finding: The mixed-use land use and zoning polities included as part of the proposed Amendment, help to alleviate the cumulative impact. However, for one freeway segment, I-280 from Westborough Boulevard to Hickey Boulevard, the proposed Amendment is determined to have a significant impact. The expense and proximity to existing development make adding capacity to the roadway system, namely to I-280, infeasible mitigation for economical and technological reason. While reducing the size of the project could theoretically reduce this impact, virtually any increase in trips on this roadway would trigger a significant impact under the significance criteria. Thus, the impacts to roadway segments would remain significant and unavoidable for proposed Amendment. AIR QUALITY Impact 3.3-1: New development under the proposedd Amendment, together with regional growth, may cause vehicle miles traveled (VM'f) to increase at a faster rate than population growth and, therefore, be inconsistent with the 2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy. Amendment policies Reducing Impact: Policies 3.4-G-5, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.4-I-20, 3.4-I-22, 3.4-I-23, 3.4-I-24, 3.4-I-25, 3.4-I-27, 3.4-I-~8, and 3.4-I-29. Finding: BAAQMD District Guidelines specify that the cumulative air quality impact of a General Plan or amendment is based on determining local plan consistency with (Clean Air Plan) CAP population and VMT assumptions. The proposed Amendment is consistent in regards to population growth and transportation control measures. However, it is not consistent regarding the rate of VMT growth. The analysis suggests that the incremental effects of the proposed Amendment will be beneficial in comparison to the No Project; however, as VMT will continue to grov~r at a faster rate than population, the proposed Amendment remains part of a significant impact. While the impact remains significant and unavoidable, it should be noted that the proposed Amendment actually reduces the significant impact somewhat (though not enough to reduce the overall impact to less than significant), and is consistent with the CAP in regards to population and transportation control measures. Policies promoting redevelopment of the area as a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented corridor, included a~ part of the proposed Amendment, along with existing General Plan policies, help to alleviate the cumulative impact. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to a less- than-significant level. Accordingly, despite implementation of the Amendment polices, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. ENERGY & GREENHOUSE GASES Impact 3.6-3: Implementation of the proposed Amendment may increase total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in South San Francisco, compared to existing conditions, but would result in fewer per capita emissions. Amendment Policies Reducing Impact: Policies ~.4-G-5, 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.4-I-19, 3.4-I-20, 3.4-I-23, and 3.4-I-26. Finding: Concurrent implementation of the proposed Amendment and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region could result in increased GHG emissions, thereby contributing to global climate change impacts. However, policies in the proposed Amendment (in conjunction with existing State programs) will operate to ensure that the South El Camino Real corridor is developed as an efficient, pedestrian-oriented community, that relies on available transit opportunity and aggressively reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT). One of the guiding policy. of the Amendment, for example, is to develop the corridor in a manner that fosters "a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment." (Policy 3.4-G-5.) This will be imfilemented by redeveloping existing low intensity uses with higher intensity mixed uses. (S~e e.g., Policies 3.4-I-17, 3.4-I-18, 3.4-I- 19, 3.4-I-20 3.4-I-26.) Development in this marpner will reduce residents' reliance on vehicles, one of the largest contributors to energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Because the Amendment will be replacing low-intensity, high. vehicle use land uses, with higher- intensity pedestrian-oriented uses, the Amendment will contribute to the City's achievement of its emission goals. Indeed, per capita emissions end emissions per service population will be lower with the proposed Amendment than under existing conditions (or even the No Project Alternative), indicating that the proposed Amendment is more efficient at accommodating a mix of population and employment growth. Implementation of the identified polices will alleviate the impact, and ensure that the Amendment's contribution to this impact remains less than cumulatively considerable (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15130(a)(3)), however, the cumulative impact would still exceed significance thresholds. 3. Overriding Considerations. The City Council now balances the unavoidable impacts that apply to the South El Camino Real General Plan Amendment, against its benefits, and hereby determines that such unavo~~dable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Amendment, for the reasons set forth below. The following specific economic, legal, social, technological, land use, and other considerations support approval of the Project: A. The Amendment will implement the City's vision of El Camino Real as an urban, pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented corridor for residents to live, work, shop, and play, consistent with the City's support of the Grand Boulevard Initiative which encourages compact mixed-use development and 1~igh-quality urban design along El Camino Real. B. The Amendment will allow the pity to proactively address issues identified in the State of California 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) and the State's greenhouse gas emission law (SB375). The Amendment is expected to achieve a reduction in per capita emissions and emissions per service population as compared to the No Project Alternative. C. The Amendment, including the nevi zoning, will eliminate out-of--date land use policies and regulations in the South El Camino area, limit sprawl by promoting additional development intensity and density i~ a developed area (infill), link transportation and land use by promoting mixed-use redevelopment in an area that is well served by bus transit and has access to BART, and promote high quality development by implementing development standards and design guidelines that stress urban design, open space, and pedestrian-oriented details. The higheir-intensity uses proposed under the Amendment will expand the City's tax base and generate General Fund income for the City. D. At buildout, the Amendment is expected to create 840 additional housing units and 700 additional jobs (as compared to the No Project Alternative), and achieve the greatest jobs/housing balance of all alternatives considered.