Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 74-1993 RDA Reso 13-1993CITY 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 (Sta'te Clearhousing #92113002) consists of the Draft EIR (dated February, 1993) and the Final EIR incorporating comments and writcen 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 responsiDle 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 implemen'tation 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. 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 requ]ar meeting held on the 23rd day of June , 1993 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Joseph Ao Fernekes, Robert Yee, and Mayor Roberta Cerri Teqlia NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Councilmembers Jack Dra(~o, and John R. Penna ATTEST: ~erk ~ I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at regular meeting held on the 23rd day of June , 1993 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco Boardmembers Joseph A. Fernekes, Robert Yee, and Chairwoman Roberta Cerri Teglia None None Boardmembers Jack Drago, and John R. Penna Fh~l EIR.CC/RDA El Camino ,~orridor Program City of Sou'.h San Francisco May 14, 1993 ATTAC~"LENT 1 Mitiga~on Monitorir,g RESOLUTION NO. 74-93 CITY COUNCIL Page1 RESOLUTION NO. 13-93 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MITIGA-ION 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 mi:igation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelooment 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 tl' ese 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., dudng formulation of future capital improverrent plans, and individual assistance agreements; approval procedures for individual project te'~tative 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 i'npact 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 veri ,fying the monitoring action. WP511JOBSL522WII TMONTMMPRO.522 The following environmental mitigation measures have been incorporated into the CEQA resolution for the El Camino Corridor General Plan Amendment and Redevelopment Plan approval in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts. A completed and signed chart will indicate that each mitigation requirement has been complied with, and that City and state menilodng requirements have been fulfilled with respect to Assembly Bill 3180 (Public Resources Code Section IDENTIRED IMPACT URBAN DESIGN FACTORS 1. McLellan Nu~e~/ Site. Development of the site as an enclave wouid cause little or no disnJplion lo adjacent neighborlxxxJs.. However, opportunities to enhance the existing adjacent Serra Highlands/Slerting Manor neighUorhood with development of the McLellan site inckJde provision of needed pedestrian access lo El Camlno Real and the proposed BART station. (The McLellan site, Alta Loma School, El Camino Real, and Intewenlng topographic diflerences cun'ently fom~ a barrier between the Sen'a Highlands/Stedlng Manor neigt~xhood and the proposed BART statk)n.) RECOMMENDED MmGATION In the new development layout for the McLellan site, provide a pedestrian-only connection from the upland neighborhood Ihrough the McLellan property to El Camino Real and the BART station site. Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements~ Agenc~ IPC PPA ECDD CAE · City Advocacy Effort; ClP · City Caplt,,I Improvement Plan item; CPA = Condition of Project Approvll; IPC = Individual Project Plan Check; PDR · Individual Project DeMgn Revl~; RPI · Redevelopment ProJec! Item; SOM · Specialized Ongoing MonlloHng ARL · A~mu~l RDA etelua leller to SSFUSO for lite of redevelopment pi.n; BSC. Prior to BART Stellon Completion; BSP · During BART Station Planning procele; FCIP. Include In Clly'l Futuro Flve-Yeer CIplIM Improvement PIll1; NCIP · Inglude In City's Next Five-Year C-pltll Improve.,,.3nl Progrsm; OMP. Ongoing Monitoring Program; Pf:A · Priol' to Flnel ~Apprmml of Indlddtml P~oleq:la; PPA · 1~4or to ProIImIneW Approwl of Indlvldtml Prolecte; P21 · Prior to the ye, r 2010 ECDO · CRy Eooho,-Io ~nd Community DivllOi~.,lltl I)epl~l~eftl; FD · City Fire Delmrtmeut; PD · Cily Police Del~rtmeut; PRCSD. City P,,rk~. Recroltlon, and Community Sm dcel Oepmlmltl; PWD · City PuMIo Wmkl Deportment; ROA · South S~n Frencl~o Redevelopment Agency; 8SFUSD · South San Frencleoo Unified School Dlatdct IDENTIRED IMPACT 2. Core Area. New transit oriented residential development at 50 units per acm average densily in the core area north and south of the BART station is expected to Involve construction of 3-to- 4-start buildings above partially-submerged, one- level pa~dng. These heights would be significantly less than lhe existing Macy's warehouse and Kaiser Hospital structures. Also, because much of this core area is Iow-lying, the visual effects of 3- 3. Parkway. The possroility o! a 'parkway' design treatment along El Camino Real represents an important oppertunity to visually unify the route as the area's principal identify element, and 1o substantially reduce any adverse visual Impacts of new residential development and the BART 4. Mission Road/County Center Area. Potential residential development siles in the Mission Road/' Grand Avenue/County Center/Oak Avenue portion of the area are closely connected visually to existing adjacent neighborhoods. Them is, therefore, a greater need and opportunity in this area to integrate new proJect-facllilated development with the existing surroundings. Al RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Nevertheless, design measures are proposed on page 108 to ensue strong street relationships and appropriate pedestrian linkages with the BART station. General performance standards for project area street design are suggested and illustrated in this EIR on pages 103-107. including 'parkway' design treatments for El Camino Real. Design parameters are proposed on page 108 of this EIR for selbacks, frontage relationships, building heights, architectural treatments, and pedestrian treatment along Grand Avenue, Oak Avenue, and Mission Road. Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements~ Agenc~ PDR PFA ECDD Public ECDD Improvements: ClP FCIP ECDD Private Projects: IPC w/PDR PFA Public Improvements: ClP FClP ECDD "CAE · Clly Advocacy Effort; CIP -. City C~plt-,I Imlxovement Pl.n Ilem; CPA · Condition o! Project Approval; IPC = Individual Project Plan Check; PDR · Individual Pro,ecl Design Review; RPI · Redevelopment Project Item; SaM = Specialized Ongoing MonlloHng t ARL at Annual RDA etatue letter lo SSFUSD for life of redevelopment plan; BSC = Prior to BART Station Completion; BSP = Dudng BART Station Planning peocoo8; FClP · Include in Clty'a Future Five-Year Capital Improvemefl! Plan; NCIP m Include In Cfty'e Next Five-Year Capitol Improvement Program; aMP = Ongoing Moflltorlng Program; PFA · Prior Ia Final Approval, kml PmJocta; PPA · Prior to Preliminary Approval of Individual ProJ~ .... r~ = Prior to the year 2010 s Ecoa u _.., ___Aoml0 and Communlly Development B0parlment; FD · City Fire Oep PD · City Police Deportment; PRCSD · City Perks, Recreation, and ~lty Se~4cee Ooplrtmeat; PWD · Clly Publle Wo~ko Depertmeflf; RDA · South Son Freflcloeo Redevelopment Agoney; SSFUSD · South San Frlncllco Unified School O~ltrlct IDEHTIFIED IMPACT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements~ Agency= 0- to 40-units per acre. the new development Is ely to be 24o-3-storles high. These heights ~uld be compatible with adjacent existing evelopment along Mission Road, Grand Avenue, nd Oak Avenue if setbacks, building massing, Iree! orientation, archlteclural form, and rooflinee re designed sensitively. However, without design tandards to ensure these results, new evelopments m~ be desioned as enclaves that o not front on or relate to adjacent streets, with ignltioant adverse Impacts on the existing Private Projects: IPC wlPDR PPA ECDD ;. BART Hickey Station. The most visually )roblemalic element of the BART station plan is he parking structure proposed along the El ~amino Real frontage. Overall, the structure is ikely tO obscure views of the BART platform from =_1 Camino Real and create an unattractive wall along lite street frontage. It also is likely to be out 3f scale and character with proposed Iransit ~rlented residential development to lhe north and south. The main entrance drive Io the.parking struclure on El Camtno Real would be perceived as a long lunnel Ihrough the parking structure. the proposed parking structure street setbacks are inconsislent with expected residential setbacks to Ihe north and south, and Insufficient to allow the Within the constraints of the proposed BART development program, a number of mitigation measures are recommended and illustrated on pages 108-111 of this EIR to reduce identified visual and design impacts, including parking structure setbacks, overall reconfiguration of the structure, and other architectural Ireatments to enhance the appearance and 'landmark' role of the new station along El Camlno Real. CAE BSP ECDD ~ CAE ,- City Advec~cy Effort; CIP · City C~pIIal Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Approval; IFC · Individual Pro~ect Plan Check; PDR · Indlvldu.l Project Design Revtew; RPI · Redeve~epmeflt Prelect Hem; SOM · Speal-Ilzed Ongoing Monllorlng "ARL · Almual RDA atllua biter lo SSF:USI) lot Ille o! rldeveloptttenl plan; BSC · Prior lo BART St. lion Compbtlon; BSP· I)uH~g BART Station Plannktg proceal; FCIP · Include hi Clty'l Future Flve-Yeer CoplI~I Imp~ovl,,, ::~l Plen; NCIP m InClude In Clty'a Next Flve-Yeer C~pII~I Impcovement Program; OMP · Ongoing MoftltoHng Progrem; PFA · Prlo~ lo Flnel App~wel of IndMcl~l Prolecla; PPA · PHo~ to Prellmln_mll' Approwl_o_f Ind_lvld_ual Prelect?; P2..1 _._Prio..r,.to_th?. ye._r 201.0 -. ............ Recrentlon and Community · ECDO · Cay E~ono,.,~0 .nd Communfly O.v,lop,~.,nt Oq).rtment; F~_- C~.ty Hr_e .r~,.:men,..,-.u. ~,~ [_o,..~._.uep._,?~. ,_; ,.,.~.~r, .._ ,..,?._,-.,..~_......:: ..... OlplJll. llll; PWO · Clly PuMo Wc~I Deplrtnteut; RDA · South Sat rrlnc~eco .$=svatopmem Agency, ~)ru:,u · :~ou~n :~n rrlncmco unmm ocn~m u~. IDENTIFIED IMPACT tandscaplng, sidewa~<s, and li0hting necessary to ~.reate a unified "parkway" frontage along El Camtno Real. The garage atmcture as proposed ~ould also have an awkward relationship to the street edge. In addition, pedestrian access to the station along the El Camino Real side would be RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Requirements' Responsible Agenc~ 6. 'l'be proposed layout of the Mission Road side of Ihe 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. 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 this EIR. CAE BSP ECDD 7. The mixed use residential-commercial development area proposed along the north side of the station (along lhe Hickey extension) would probably lake 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 odentad residential development to the north (on the opposite side of the Hlckay extension), but may not be compatible with adjacent BART station and BART pa~tng stmclure development; and may be out of scale wilh Ihe low-~se characler of existing Design parameters are recommended on page 110 of this EIR to ensure compatibility between BART- slalion site residential-commercial development and planned transit oriented residential development on the opposite side of the Hickey extension. BART Station: CAE Private Projects: IPC and PDR BSP ECDO PFA ECDD CAE. City Advocacy Efforl; ClP ,- City Capital Improveme. l Pla. Item; CPA = Condlllon of Project App~ovM; IPC · IndlvlduM Project Plan Ch~:k; PDR · Indlvidu,,I Project Design Revk~l; RPl · Redeve~op~ll Prol~cl Ilea; SOM · Specialized Ongoing Monitoring ARL · Ann~ml RDA IIIIUl I®tlel' 10 SSFUSO Iow life of redevelopment plan; BSC · Prior to BART Slatlo{1 Completion; BSP · {)~Hng BART Station Planning proce~ma; F(3P · Include In City'l Futuro Flve-Y®ar Capital Impt~wemen! PI.n; NC. IP · Include In City'a Next Five-Year C4mpllal Improvement Program; OMP · O~golng Monlto~ng Program; PFA · Prior lo Final AlmP~mwl of I I Prol~:ll; PPA · Im~or Io Prellml~,}, APlmrovM of Indlddu. I ProJe~lr- ""' - Prior to the y~ar 2010 ECDD ·Clt. .... ~k~ .~d Coamlu~lty I)~velolm~ent I)~p~tme.t; FD · City Fire Depart ! · City Imollc® Departme. t; PRC~D · City Pa{ks, R~:roltlon, end Co Services D~p~lmenl; PWD · City Publle Wo~kl I~tm~t; RDA · South ~ Fr~ndmao Rldlv~131m. An! Agency; SSFUSD · South ~n Fron¢l=c~ Unllled School Dltt~t IDEHTIFIED IMPACT developmeN on the opposite side of Mission Road ~ (resiclentlat and coh,rlerclal development and the high ~Xl~O. RECOMMENDED MmGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing R~qulre.',~nls~ Responsible Agehcy' 'o 8. Joint Development Feasibility. Options for improving Jo~ development potentials on the BART station site along the El Camino Real and Mission Road frontages of the BART station are evaluated on page 101 of this EIR. Modifications and refinements to the proposed BART station site plan are recommended and illustrated on pages 110-111 ot this EIR to Improve opportunities for joint development. CAE BSP ECDD TRANSPORTA T/ON Existing Intersection Deficiencies. Seventeen (17) local intemeclions 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 aCCelXable levels of sen~'e (LOS) during the weekday AM and PM peak traffic hours. However, the following six local Intersections ara currently operating at unacceptable LOS levels, and have been Identified in INs EIR as skzniflcant existina Imoact locations: ~ CAE · City Advocacy Effort; ClP · City C~plt.l Improvement Pl.n Item; CPA · Condition of Project ApprovBI; IPC = Individual Project Plan Check; PDR ,- Individual Project Design Review; Riff · Redevelopme~tl Project Item; SOM. Specialized Ongoing MonltoHftg "ARL · Annual RDA illlul letter Io SSFUSD for life of redevelopment pbn; BSC =~ I~lor to BART Station Completion; BSP - Dus4ng BART Station Ifflflfllng pt'lc)Cell; FCIP · Include in Clty'l Future Five-Year Clpltll Improvement Plan; NCIP ,. Include In Clty'l Next Five-Vest Copltal Improvement Pregr. m; OMP · Ongoing Monitoring Progrim; PFA · Plier lo Final App#ov.l of IndMdual PmJemla; PPA · PHor lo Prellmlnxry Approv. l of Individual P~oleclx; P21 · PTler to Ihe year 2010 s ECOD · City Eeom)mla end Community Development Oepmlment; FD · City Fire Department; PD · City Police Depellment; PRCSO · City PaSs, Recmtlon, snd Communl~/Sen~cel r~,.~=rf-n4~.. ~)wrl ,~ City Public: W~4'kl I)~l~lHm~nl: RI)A · Soulh San Franel.4:0 Redevelopment Agency; SSFUSD · So~lh S~fl Frencl$co Unified School DlatHct IDENTIFIED IMPACT 9. · El Camklo Real/Missi0n Rd.-AM and PM: LOSF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Signalize (resuR-AM and PM LOS B) Type of Monitoring Action~ Oaly City CIP MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements~ Agency~ Daly City Daly City PWD NClP 10. · El Camino Real/Westborough Dr./Chestnut Ave.-PM: LOS F Add left-turn lanes on the Westborough and Chestnut approaches (result--PM LOS D) ClP NCIP PWO 11. · Westborough Dr./Junipero Serra Blvd~l- 280 northbound onramp-PM: LOS F Restripe northbound Junipero Serra approach to provide two left-turn lanes, two through lanes and one right-turn lane (resuit~-PM LOS D) ClP NClP PWD 12. · Hickey Blvd~S.R. 280 northbound ramps (Daly CIIy)-PM: LOS E Signalize (result-PM LOS D) Daly City ClP Oaly City NCIP Daly City PWD 13. · Hickey Blvd./S.R. 280 southbound ramps (Oaly CRy')-PM: LOS E Signalize (result-PM LOS C) Daly City ClP Oaly City NCIP Oaly City PWD 14. · Chestnut Ave./Hillside Dr.-PM: LOS F Signalize (result-PM LOS B) ClP NCIP PWD The EIR traffic analysis Indicates that signals are also needed under current traffic conditions at the following ~ersections: ' CAE · City Advocacy Efforl; ClP · City Cnplt,,I Improvement Plen Item; CPA = Condition o! Project Approvel; IPC · Indlvldu.l Project Plan Check; PDR · Individual Project Detlgn Review; RPI · Redevelopment Project Item; SOIA · Speclellzed Ongoing Monitoring I ARL · Annual RDA 8talue loller lo SSFUSD for life o! redevelopment plen; BSC · Prior to BART Station Completion; BSP · During BART Stetion Plemting proce=e; FCIP ,. Include In Clty'a Future Five-Year C~pltal Improv4mmfll Plan; NCIP · Include In Clly't Next Rve-Yeir Capita! Improve,,.anl Progrem; OMP = Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA ·PHor !o Final Appromll o! k~hddu~l ProJeclt; PPA · Prior Io Preliminary Approvel ol Indlvlduol ProJecto; P21 · Prior to the year 2010 s ECDO · 4 mmk: .md Commtmlty Devdopme. l Depertm"mt; FD · City Fire Dep4 ' ' PD · City Police Dep~rtment; PRCSD · CRy Pi~, Recmetlon, end Community Sendcea Department, ·., ,. · City Public Wot, ks Del~rtment; RDA · S~ulh S~n FrenclKo Redevt t Agency; $SFUSD · South S.n Frencleeo Unified School Olltrlct IDENTIFIED IMPACT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Requirements2 Responsible Agency~ 15. · Mission Road/Grand Ave. 16. · Cheslnut Ave./Grand Ave. Signalize and add a lelt4um lane to the soulhbound intersection approach. Special signal phasing could also be employed to provide safe intersection operation (if it is possible lo achieve the widening needed for the added southbound lane). Signalize CIP NCIP PWD ClP NCIP PWD 17. Existing High School Vicinity Safety Concerns. A high level of jaywalking by high school sludents occurs at the Mission Rd./Evergreen Dr. intersection and along the high school frontages adjacent Io these two roadways, parlicularly by students going to and from bus stops and adjacent neighborhoeds. Bus Stops. SamTrans buses should stop to let off or pick up students on the high school side of Evergreen Dr. (north side) and Mission Rd. (east side). Additionally, during pre- and post-school hours, buses should stop as far as possible from the Mission Rd./Evergreen Dr. intersection. Crosswalks. In its student orientations and assemblies, El Camino High School should regularly advise students to use crosswalks and not jaywalk. Alternatively, the high school should consider fencing lhe grounds fronting on Mission Rd. and Evergreen Dr. lo channel students to gates k)cated near crosswalks. CAE BSP ECDD CAE BSP ECDD Year 2010 Intersection Deficiencies without the ' CAE · City Advocacy Effort; CIP = City C. plt,I Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Approval; IPC = IndlvlduM Project Plan Check; PDR · Individual Project Design Revlmnt; RPl · Redevelopmeett Project Item; eOM = Specialized Ongoing Monitoring · ARL · Annual RDA iIilul loller lo SSFUSD for life of redevelopment plan; Bec ~ Prior to BART St..riel1 Completion; BSP z During BART Slallon Planning proces8; FCIP · Include In City's Future Five-Yell Capital Improvement Plan; HCIP · Include In Clty'l Next Five-Year CopItal Improvement Program; OMP = Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA · Prior to Final Apprmml of ImJIvldual Prolecla; PPA · PHor lo Prellmlnaqt Approval of Individual Project,; P21 · Prior lo the year 2010 · ECDD · City Ecohomle amJ Communlly Developmenl Depmlme~t; FD. City Fire Department; PD · City Po#ce Dep~rtment; PRCSD · City Parka. Recreation. end Communl~ S4mRce, DBp,il~ainl; PWD · City Publlo Worke Department; RDA · Soulh Sen Francleco Redeveiopme,t Agency; SSFUSD = SouIh San Francleco Unified School DIIlrl~t IDEHTIFIED IMPACT Pro/eof. 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: RECOMMENDED MmGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing RequirementB~ Responsible Agency=. 18. · El Camin0 Real/Ilk=key Bivd..-PM: from LOS C (exisling) to LOS E Add additional lanes to SB El Camino intersection approach (result: one lelt/three through/one right turn lane; PM LOS C) ClP FClP PWD 19. · Hickey Blvd./Junipero Sera Blvd.-PM: from LOS O (existing) Io LOS E Add one additional lane to the WB Hickey approach (result: one lelt/two through/one right lure lane; PM LOS D) ClP FClP PWD 20. · Hickey Bird J1-280 NB ramps (alter stgnalization)-PM: LOS E Add one additional lane to the NB olframp approach (result: one lelt/one shared left-through/ one right lure lane; PM LOS D) ClP FClP PWD 21. · Avalon Dr./Junipero Serra Blvd./I-280 NB ramps--PM: LOS D (existing) to LOS E Add one additional lane to NB offramp approach (result: one left/two IhrouglVone right rum lane; PM LOS C) ClP FCIP PWD 22. · Weslborough BlvdJJunipero Serra Blvd./ 1-280 NB om'amp-PM: LOS E (existing) Add one additional lane to NB Junipero Serra approach and one additional lane to WB Westborough approach (result: PM LOS D) CIP FClP PWD ' CAE. City Advocacy Effort; CfP = City Capital Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of ProJecI Approval; IPC = Individual Project Plan Check; PDR = Individual Prolect Dualgn Review; RPI · Redevelopment Project Item; SOM= Specialized Ongoing Monitoring ~ ARL · Annual ROA ItalUl leltar Io SSFUSO lot life of fedevelopmenl plan; BSC = PHor lo BART Station Completion; BSP= Dudng BART Station Planning proceaa; FCIP · Include In Clty'a Future Five. Yea' C~pltal Improvement Plan; NClP · Include In Clty'a Nexl Five. Year Capital Improvement Program; OMP · Ongoing Monllorlng Program; PFA = PHor lo Final Appro~l ¢" ' .... '"u~l ProJecla; PPA ·PHor lo Preliminary Approval of Individual Pro~cta; P21 · Prior lo the year 2010 · ECDD · ~ male mad Community Development Department; FD · City Fife Oep~ PO · City Police Department; PRCSD. City Pall;a, Recreetk, n, and Community Servlcea Oepmtme~t; PWO · City Public Wofka Department; RDA · South San Francle~o Redaw I Agency; SSFUSD · South San Franelleo Unified School Diatrk:t IDENTIFIED IMPACT to LOS F RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type of Monitoring Action! MONITORING Timing Requlre,.ent$t Responsible AgenclP 23. · El Camino Real/Westborough BlvdJ Add second EB and WB left turn lanes as ClP FCIP PWD Chestnut Ave.-AM: from LOS D (existing) recommended to correct existing deficiencies Io LOS E; PM: would remain LOS F (result: PM LOS still F); extend Oak Ave. from Mission Rd. to El Camino Real. aligning with Arroyo Drive, as proposed in General Plan (General Plan Policy 75); result: PM LOS D In addition, added signals*would be reeded al the following imerse~ions: 24. · MissiOn Rd./Eve, green Dr. Signalize. provide left turn lane on Mission Road CIP FClP PWD Intersection approaches 25. · 'New Slreet' (BART station)/Mission Rd. Provide all-way stop sign control CPNCAE BSP PWD 26. · 'New Slreet' (BART station)~l Camlno Signalize; provide a left-turn lane on the SB El CPNCAE BSP PWD Real Camine Real approach Io New Street 27. · Hlckey Blvd. exlensiorVEI Camine Real Signalize ClP FClP PWD CAE · City Advocacy Effort; ClP · City Capital I~l~ovemenl Plan Item; CPA = Co~llllon of Project Approval; IPC · Individual Project Plan Cheek; PDR · Indlvklual Project Design Revla~; RPI · Redevelopment Project Item; SaM · Speelollzed O. golng MonlloHng ARL · Annual ROA atatu8 kdle~ lo SSFUSO for fife of redevelopment plan; BSC m PHor to BART Station Completion; BSP · I)udng BART Station Planning proeea8; FCIP · Include In C#y'e Future Fl~e-Yeer Caldlal Improvement Plan; NCIP · Include In Cliy'l Next Five-Year Capllal Improvement Program; aMP · Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA · Prlo~ lo Final IDENTIFIED IMPACT 28. · HIckey Blvd. extensiorVMisslon Rd. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Signalize Type of Monitoring Action' MONITORING Timing Requirements= Responsible Agenc~ CIP FCIP PWD 29. BART Driveways. BART station driveways along El Camino Real and lhe Hickey Blvd. extension would Increase risk of rear-end collisions between slower, turning vehicles and high speed through traffic. Provide right-turn deceleration lanes on the approaches to the BART driveways along El Camino Real, the Hickey Blvd. extension, and' on the approach to 'New Street.' CPA/CAE BSP PWD 30. BART Driveways. Inappropriate placement of BART driveways along Mission Rd. in relation Io other inlersecllons and d~veways, and a lack of adequate turning lanes at these BART station ddvaaays could resull In significant safely Impacts. Provide a min distance of 150 ft. between the Mission Rd. BART parking lot access and the nearest intersections (Evergreen Dr. and New SI.). BART should complete detailed engineering analysis to determine best placement of BART Kiss-and-Ride driveways, w/emphasis on safe rum movements in relation to high school driveway turn movements. CPA/CAE BSP PWD CPNCAE BSP PWD Provide left-turn lanes on the Mission Rd. approaches to BART Kiss-and-Ride and bus stop driveways. CPNCAE BSP PWD 31. Mission Rd./High School Access. Lack of lefl4um lanes on the SB Mission Rd. approaches to high school access driveways would result in Provide letl-tum lanes In the SB Mission Rd. approach to the high school access driveway. CIP FCIP PWD CAE · City Advocacy Elfort; ClP. City C~pltal Improwmen! Plan Ism; CPA = ~it~ of PmJ~ Ap~ovel; I~ m IndlvMual Prol~ Plan ~; PDR m I~l~ual ProJ~t R~I~; R~ = R~~! ~J~t It~; ~M = ~lallz~ ~1~ MonlIoH~ ARL - A~I RDA etmtut ~tter to SSFUSO for Hie of ~e~p~t plan; B~ = ~r ~ BA~ Stet~ ~mp~tlon; BSP= ~H~ BA~ S~t~n ~ann~ Clty'e Future Five-Yea~ Cmpltal Improve,ant Plan; NCIP m Include in Clly'e Next FIv~Y#r Capital Improvement Program; OMP = O~going Monitoring Program; IFA - Prlo~ lo Final Appfmm ..... 4d~l P~oJe~a; PPA · PHor to Preliminary Appro~ml of Individual Pmleeta; P21 = Prior to the year 2t110 ~ ECOO ,ohomle and Comm~tlty O&¥11~.~mnt Oepertm~tt; FO · C~ty Fire D~ 4; PO · City Police Department; PRCSD · City Pa~$, Recreation, end Community Service. Department; PWO · City Publlo WoHm Depeflmeut; RDA · South ~mt Franelaeo Red~ .... ~..,,ant Agency; SSFUSD · South San Franolaoo Unified Sehoel Dlelrlct IDEHTIRED IMPACT sign nt safety k pacts. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type o! Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Raquir3....~nts~ Agenc~ 32. Year 2010 Pedestrian/Bicycle Deficiencies w/thout Project. Projected 'base case' traffic Increases plus lhe new BART slation would increase traffic on Evergreen and Mission and would create safety concerns for pedestrians crossing both streets, parficularly high school students. The BART station location also overlaps a City General Plan designated 'lntra-CouNy Bicycle Route.' Request BART lo incorporate Intm-County bike mute in station plan along Colma Creek edge, as well as pedestrian and bike crosswalks and paths to surrounding residential and commercial areas. CPNCAE BSP ECDD 33. 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 residential areas east of the station. Overflow parking from the station could also create onstreet parking conlltcts with pedestrian traffic on Ihe west side of El Camino opposite the station (there are no existing sidewalks on the west side of El Camino). Request BART contribution to frontage Improvements (cu~o, gutter, sidewalk) along west side of El Camino across from station. Establish restricted onslreet parking program in residential areas adjacent to station and in nearby parking lots. Continuously monitor BART parking adequacy. SOM Formulate temporary parking contingency plan and CAE include design contingencies in BART parking CPNCAE BSP ECDD ClP BSC ECDD OMP ECDD BSP ECDD ~ CAE = City Advocacy Effort; ClP = City Capital Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Approval; IPC m Individual Project Plan Check; PDR = Individual Project Design Review; RPI · Redevelopmectt Project Item; $OM · Specialized Oflgolflg Monitoring · ARL · Annual RDA atalua letter lo SSFUSD for fife of redevelopmenl plan; BSC = Prior to BART Slatlon Completion; aSP = Du~ng BART Sta#on Planning proceaa; FCIP · Include In Clty'a Future Five-Year Capital Improva...~n! Plan; NCIP · Include In City's Next Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; OMP · Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA · PHor Io Final Approval of IndMdu~l ProJecla; PPA · Prior lo Preliminary Approval of Individual Pmlncla; P21 ·Pdor to the year 2010 t ECDO .. City Economic and Commu, lty I)evelopme~tl Deperlmeftt; FD. City Rte Oepartme~lt; PD · City Po#ce Dep~rtment; PRCSD .. City Parks. Recreation. end Community Sendces fl.~e.*.~...~, pwrl · ~.Hv I~mh#~ Wmka Department: RDA - ~ioulh Sen Francisco Redevviopme~l Agency; SSFUSD · South San Froncl,co Unified School Dlaldc! IDENTIFIED IMPACT ProJecf Imlmcfs: Year 2010 Year 2010 Signalization Needs with Project. The added Prelect traffic could result in signal warrants being mai at Ihe following additional Intersections: RECOMMENDED MITIGATION structure lo allow for expansion if and when needed. MONITORING Type of Monitoring Timing Responsible Action~ Requirements~ Agency~ Note: Establish a post-BART station::'~:i~ iii~ :; completion BART station parking monitorlng i.~: (field count) program as a RedeveloPment i ?i ~ Agency po/icy'at .~.o more than Intervals for the life of the redeveloP~!~:ii!!i??:?:i~- 34. · Hillside Dr./Hkkey Blvd. extension Signalize CIP FClP PWD 35. · El Camino ReaL'Macy's residential access driveways. Signalize CPA PPA ECDD CAE · City Advocacy Effol.t; CIP = City Capita! Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Approval; IPC = Individual Project Plan Check; PDR = Individual Project Design Revle1~; RPI ~: Redevelopment Project Item; SOM= Speglallzed Ongoing Monitoring ARk .- Annual ReA Itatu, lelter lo SSFUSD lot lite of redevelopmeftt plan; BSC = Prior lo BART Statioft Completion; BSP = Du~tng BART Station Pll~lnhlg procesx; FCIP · Include In Clly'a Ff~lure Flve-Y®al' CapllM Improvement Plan; NCIP = Include In Clty'a Next Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; OMP = Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA = Prior lo Final ~Approva 4dual Pfol~ltll; PPA · Prior 1o Preliminary Approval el Individual Pr~' '21 .. Prior Io the year 20'10 ECDO. . ol~omic end Community Developmenl Depm'tment; FD · City Fire I:k ~l; PD · Cl~ Police Oepal.tm~lt; PRCSD · CIIy Pl~kl. Recreation. er ~unlly Servleel I)epartmeetl; PWD · Clly Publlo Wmka Depal.tmeftl; ReA - ~oulh Salt Francisco Redevelopmen! Agency; $SFUSD · South Sen Franel,eo Unllled School DI,tl.k:! IDENTIFIED IMPACT Year 2010 Intersection Deficiencfes with Project. The following Intersections would experience adolticnal significant Impacts by the year 2010 due to increases in traffic associated with the project facilNated growth In the project area: RECOMMENDED MmGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing nequir;r~.ents~ Responsible Agenc~ El Camino Real/Hi(kW Blvd.-PM: from COS E (w~hout prolect) to LOS F (w~h p, olect) Irnpmvements needed for year 2010 conditions without project would provide acceptable operation. 37. Hi(kw Blvd. extension/El Carnino Real- PM: from LOS B (without project) to LOS E (w#h project) Add (stripe) one additional lane to WB approach on Hickey extension (result: PM LOS D) CIP FCIP PWD · Hi(kw BlvdJJunipero Serra Blvd.-PM: from LOS D (wtlhout project) 1o LOS E (w h pm ) Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions without project would provide acceptable operation 39. · El Camine Real/Wesroorough Blvd. (F without project to worse F with project) Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions -- without project would provide acceptable operation. 40. · Hickey BlvdJI-280 NB ramps (E without project Io worse E wilh project) Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions -- without project would provide acceptable operation. CAE · City Advocacy Effort; CIP :: City Cml)Itel Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Approval; IPC = I~dlvlduel Project Pbn Check; PDR = Individual Pro~ect Dealgn Rev~11~; R~ · Redev~opmmlt Project Item; SOM · Specialized O~golng Monitoring ARL I AIIIlUll RDA ItlluI le~ Io SSFUSD for #ge of redevek)pment plan; BSC. Prk~r to BART Stetkm Coml~etk~fl; BSP · Dudng BART Statkm Pllnnlng I~l~ell; FCIP · Include In Clty'e Fuluro Flve-Yel~ CruStal Improvement Plan; NCIP · Include kt City's Neat Five-Year Cmpllal Improvement Program; OMP · Ongoing Monltorblg Program; PFA · Prior ~ Final Apprmml of ktdMdual P~o~ecle; PPA · PHor ~ PrM~t~tery Approval o! Indh4dual Pro.cia; P21 · PHor Io the yesr 2010 ECDD · C~y Eceftemk= amJ Commtmlty Oevelepment Oepertme~t; FD · City Flfe Depmlme~t; PO · City Ponce Depmlvmmt; PRCSO · City Pa~a, Recreat~n, and Community Set.cea rkm.~tm,ml: PWD · C~1¥ Puh~e Wmka Deperlmem: RDA · Soulh San Francleco Redevak)pmen! Agency; SSFU~D · South S~n Francllco Unified Scho~ [~atHct IDENTIFIED IMPACT · Avalon DrJJunlpem Serra Blvd./I-280 NB olframp (E without project Io worse E with project) RECOMMENDED MmGATION Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions without project would provide acceptable operation. MONITORING Type of Monitoring Timing Responsib, le Action~ Requirements~ Agenc~ 12. Mission Rd. and Oak Ave. Driveway. New esidentlal development along these h~o rexes ~uld result in numerous, closely spaced Iriveways and associated obstnJ~lon of through raffic by frequent turning movements; i.e., ;igniflcant operational and safety Impacts. Minimize number of new Mission Rd. and Oak Ave. driveways; space driveways at least 150 ft. apart, pref. 250 ff. apart. Located new diweways on east and west side of Mission directly opposite one anolher, or offset by at least 150 ft. CPA PPA ECDD t3. Chestnut Ave. and Grand Ave. Driveways. If Jriveways serving new residential development ]long Chestnut and Grand are not sufficiently ~eparated from the Mission/Chestnut or Grand/Oak ntmsectlons, significant safety and operational New residential driveways should be separated from these Intersections by at least 150 feet. CPA PPA ECDD 44. El Camino Real and Hickey Blvd. Driveways. Approaches on these routes to driveways/roadways serving the Macy's and Harmonious Holdings/Garden Mart sites would expedenoe significant safety impacts if adequate right turn lanes are not provided. Provide adequate right-rum deceleration lanes on these driveway/roadway approaches. CPA PPA ECDD ' CAE · City Advocacy Effort; CIP = City Capital Improvement Plan item; CPA = Condition of Project Approval; IPC = Individual Project Plan Check; PDR = Individual Project Design Review; RPl · RedevMopment Pro}ecl Item; SOM= Specialized O~tgolng Monitoring "ARk. Annual RDA It"tut letter to SSFUSD for fife of redevelopment plan; BSC = Prior to BART Station Completion; BSP = During BART Station Planning procesa; FCIP = Include In City'a Futue'e .... w Capital Imprmmment Plan; NCIP · Include In Clty'a Next Flve-Yeor Capital Improvement Program; OMP · Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA · Prior Io Final AI)pfovel of i I PfoJeda; PPA · Prior to Prellmlnmy Approvil of Individual Projects Prior to the year 2010 · ECOO · C#y EcMt~.,k: end Commtml~y Development DepMtmimt; FO · City Fire Depertt ........ ~ · City Polk:e Department; PRCSD · CIIy Parka, Recreation, and C~ Serv~cea DepMtWHmt; PWD · City Publlo WoH(I Department; ReA · South ~Mt Froncl~o Redevek)pmen! Agency; SSFUSD · South Sen Fran¢lico Unified School Dlllr~cl IDENTIFIED IMPACT 45. AcCeSS tO new commercial development on lhe Wye Motel site off of El Camino and Hickey Blvd. would also present signiflcanl safety Impacts. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Provide a raised median on El Camino adjacent to Ihis site. Lcoate driveways sewing the site at a min. of 200 It. from the El Camino Real/Hickey Blvd. Intersection; also ensure that adequate sight distance is provided for SB El Camino traffic to the El Camino driveway access to this site (hillside at north end of parcel). Also provide a right-turn deceleration lane on each driveway approach on El Camino and Hi(key. · MONITORING Type of Monitoring 'Timing Responsible Actlen~ Requirements~ Agency= CPA PPA ECDD 46. Project Pedestrian Impacts. The possibility of pedestrians from future apartment development on Ihe Macy's site wanting lo 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 the BART station commerclat area could create slgniticant safety h,eacts. Discourage pedestrian crossings on the Hickey extension with special roadside edge and median design methods; consider fencing along high school Mission Road frontage. RPI P21 ECDD 47. Construction Period Impacts. Truck traffic associated with project-related construction/ demolition aclivltles could cause substantial disrupllon to AM and PM peak commute traffic flows. Conventional construction period traffic restrictions am descrE~:l on EIR page 184. IPC PFA ECDD CAE · City Advoc.cy Effort; ClP · City Caplt. I Improvement Plea Item; CPA = Condltkm of Project Approval; IPC · Individual Project Plan Check; PDR · IndlvJdu·l Project Design Review; RP! · RedevMopme~t Project Item; SOM· Specialized Ongoing Monitoring ARL · Annual RDA mtatua letter to SSFUSD for fife of redevelopment plmn; BSC · Prior to BART Sl,,llon Complellon; BSP :: Dudng BART Station PI.tuning proceas; FCIP = Include In Clty'a Future Five-Year CapllM Improvement Ptan; NCIP m Include In Clly'a Nexl Five-Year Capital Improvement Program; OMP · Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA · PHor Io FIn.l ~Approvll of IndMdull PfoJect~; PPA · PHor to Prell·leery Appromil of Indlddual ProJectl; P21 · Prior to the year 2010 . ECOD · City Econo·la ~md Community Development Department; FD· City Fire Depart·em; PO · City Polk:e Department; PRCSD · City Parka, Renreetion. and Community SM~Cai Oepmlmmtt; PWD · City P~. bile Works I)epartmenl; RDA · South San Frencleeo Redevelopment Ageney; SSFUSD · South San Franclsoo Unified School District IDENTIFIED IMPACT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type of Mon#oring Actk)n~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements= Agency= NOISE 2010 'Base Case' (without Project) 48. BART Retained Cut or At. Grade Option. The at-grade or retained cut BART option would have signifloant adverse effects on maximum noise k~ve~ k~sk~ ~jaceN resldeN~l un#s and would create noise dlstuFoances and reduce environmental quality at South San Francisco High School, Los Cerfltce Elementary School, Orange Memorial Pa~k, the Francisco Terrace Tot lot, and the linear pa~k planned by the City along the SPTCO right-of-way. Implement the subway option. RPI P21 ECDD Project Impacts ff~r 2010 with Project) 49. Traffic Noise. Project facilitated new housing along the frontages of El Camino Real, Hickey Boulevard, Mission Road, Grand Avenue, and Chestnut Avenue would be exposed Io traffic- related average dally noise levels at or above the Cily General Plan identified threshold (65 dBA CNEL) Mgg~ing mitigation needs. Project-specific noise abatement measures and compliance with state "Title 24' noise compatibility standards for multifamily residential developmenl should be required as a condition of residential approvals In the project area. IPC PFA · ECDD 50. AJrcraft No/se. The project area is and will As a condition of approval, all residential projects IPC PFA ECDO CAE = C~ty Advocacy Effort; ClP = City Cl~l-I Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condltkm of Pro~et Approval; IPC = Individual Pro,ct Pbn Cheek; POR = Ind~Mual ProJeet Design Revk~w; RPI · RedevMopme~t P~o~t Item; SOM · Specialized OngoMg Monitoring ARL = An~u~ RDA atatul ~t~ to SSFUSO for #fa of redevek)pmen! plan; BSC = PHM lO BART Station Comp~on; BSP = During BART $~tk)n Wanning preeeas; FCIP = htc~ude In City's Future Five-YaM C~iMtM Imprevl:hlnt Plan; NCIP · In~lu~k, In Clly'a Next Five-Year C~pIIII Improvement Program; OMP · O~golng MonllMtng Program; PFA m Prim to Final Apfwe~ll ~luel ProJeela; PPA · PHor to PrMImblmy Approval of Individual Pre~"'-. D'~I · Prior to the year 2010 ECDO · _... _..,~mtle and Community De~Mopmmtt Oepmmont; FO. City Fire D~ : PO · City Police Oep~rlmenl; PRCSD · City Pa~a, Recreation, end - dry SM~Cei Oepmlme~l; PWO · City PubRe WMka Department; ROA · S~uth SMt Praneleeo Rerla~a~opmenl Agengy; SSFUSO · South S~n Franeleeo Unified SchoM Dlat~4c! IDENTIFIED IMPACT continue to be exposed to SFO-generated 'single- , event' noise levels from project area overflights lha! could Interfere with indoor residential activities, including sleep, if not adequately mitigated in the design of new project ama structures. RECOMMENDED MmGATION 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. Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements~ Agency~ .. 51. 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. STORM DRAINAGE 52. Local Stormwater Collection. Project- facilitated construction of impervious buildings and pavement on vacant project area properties would increase lhe 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 prolect 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 Project-related construction period noise impacts could be substantially reduced by Implementation of conditions and controls identified on pages 206 and 207 of the EIR. Construct an Improved, higher capacity channel section in the project area; or CPA PFA ECDD ClP FClP ECDD CAE. City Advocmcy Effort; CIP · City Capital Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Approvml; IPC · IndlvlduM Project Pbn Check; PDR · Indlvldmd Project Design Review; RPI · Redevelopmeett Project Il®m; SOM · Specialized Ongoing Monllorlng ARL · Annu.l RDA 8lotus letter to SSFUSD for life of redevelopment pbn; BSC · Prior lo BART St. don Completion; BSP · Dudng BART Sl~tlon Plmming precoem; FCIP · Include In City's Futur®~lv~Y.fr Capital Improvement PIon; HCIP · Include In Clty'8 Next FIve-Ye~r CapltM Iml)rOvel,:ent Prow.m; OMP · Oftgolng Monitoring Program; PFA · PHm, to Final Approvel of ~ ..... ~1 ProJect8; PPA · Pflor to Preliminary Approv. l of Indlv~dlml Project ~ Prior to the yver 2010 , · ECDD. City cc~rmdnle .nd Commlmlty Development C.p~b~.eflt; FD · City fire I)epsrt ..... D - City Police Oep~rlmenl: PRC~D. C~y Pl~l, Reer~tk)n, =nd C~ t -=_m,';Ic.~ Dep~tme. l; PWD · City PuMIo Wodcl Department; RDA · South ~4n Frlncl~eo Redevelopment Agency; SSFUSD · South Sen Frgmslleo Unified School District ~ IDENTIFIED IMPACT :reek. The deplh and frequency of local flooding vould Increase. These effects would be confined .3 areas already identified as flood prone. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Provide onsite stormwater detention facilities. MONITORING Type of Monitoring 'Timing ResponMble Action~ Requirement~~ Agenc~= · IPC PFA ECDD ~. Increased runoff from project area :levelopment could also worsen drainage problems ~n existing Iow capacity tributaw drainage systems in the project area, resulting in localized Impacts. MOst existing channels and culverts affected by the projecl development would be upgraded or replaced as development occurs. However, the McLellan, Wye Motel· County Center, and Oak Avenue properties would need special improvements. Replacement and relocation of existing storm drains and channels that now serve properties upstream of E! Camino Real and Mission Road may be necessary to accommodate anticipated peak runoff rates expected with project area buildouto IPC PFA PWD 54. Local Flooding. Portions of approximately eight project area parcels are located within the FEMA designated lO0-year flood plain. Three of · these are designated for the new BART station. Four are designated for new apartment or condominium development. New development within the designated flood plain nlJSt be constructed in accordance with FEMA regulations, with all residential floor elevations raised above maximum expected flood levels. IPC PFA PWD 55. Water Quality. Project-facilitated development All individual projects within the project area should IPC PFA PWD ' CAE · City Advocacy Effort; CIP · City Capital Improvement Plan Item; CPA ,- Condltk~t o! PmJec! Approval; IPC · IndlvMual Project Plan Che~k; PDR · Individual Project q.wlet; RPI · Redeve~opme~l! Prolect Item; SOM= SpeclMLzed Ongoing Monitoring · · Annual RDA Italue letter to SSFUSO for lite of redevelopment plan; BSC -, PI'kw lo BART Slllion Compieliolt; BSP · During BART Station Pl~lning l~oe®ll; F-ClP · IiI¢ltldt II1 ",m Flys-Year Capital Improvement Plan; NCIP · Include In Clty'l Next Five-Year Capital ImprOVl.'.Mtt Program; OMP· Ongoing Monitoring PrOgram; PFA · Pilot lo FInal '41vidual Project~; PPA · Prior to Preflmlnm'y ApprovM of IndlvlduM Project~; I)21 · Prior to Ihe tmmr 2010 · ,~mlo and Community Development Department; FD · City Fire Depaflm~tt; PO · City Police Department; PRCSD · City Paflm, Recreation, end ~_4 ...... unlly Sirvic~ '~, PuMIO Wod~ Oepertmeflt; RDA · Soulh Sac Prlncloeo flodavelojh/.a#l A~; SSFUSD · South San Franclaee Unllled S~:hoel DlotrJct IDENTIFIED IMPACT could result In Increases In'the production of urban po,utants carried by stormwater Into local surlace waters. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION be required to hcorperate 'Best Managemenf Practices" (BMPs), as Identified by the US EPA and the RWQCB, as a ~ondifion of local approval. MONITORING Type of Monitoring Timing Responsible Action~ Requlr,%t,entl' Agency~ 56. Project.facilitated constn,~ion aclivttles could also result In Increased temporary soil erosion and downstream sedimentation. As a condition of Individual project approvals, applicants should be required lo prepare construction period erosion and sedimenlallon control plans in conformance with City and San Malco Counfy Flood Control District standards. A NPDES construction permit must also be o~ained from the RWQCB. IPC PFA PWD WA TER 57. F/re F/ow Requirements. The 4-inch arm sewing the Wye Motel site lacks sufficient fire flow capacity. A new parallel 8-inch line approximately 450 feet long would have to be Installed In Hickey Blvd. to supplement lhe existing line. IPC PFA PWD 58. Domestic Water Demands. The net project- related Increase In average daily water demand would be within Ihe capacity of the City's water SUpply. : · No special mitigation is required, but vadous pro~ct-specilic water consewation measures am · recommended in the EIR. ~ CAE = City Advocacy Effort; CIP = City Capital Improvemmtt Plan Item; CPA ,, Co~ditlon of Project Apl~*OVM; IPC · Indivldua/ProJegl Plan Cheek; PDR. IndlvlduM Project Design Review; RPI · Redevelopmeltl PI'elect Item; SOld · Specialized O~goh~g Monitoring ~ ARL. m Annual RDA mtetua leller to SSFUSD for #fe of redevelopment plan; BSC = Prkw to BART Statkw~ Complutlon; BSP m IhHng BART Smlto. Planning proee~; r--ciP · Indmb In · veme~t Plan- NClP · Include In City's Next Five. Year Caplt~l lmp,-eva.:.enl I~'og~am;0MP · Ongolnn IMoflllor'-- n -- - - Clly's Future Fhm-Yeer Cepttsl Imp~o _, ................ · n_, .... I~. Prtorlo the vee 201o ---- ,,-u r,.~gram; PPA · Prior IO FIne/ -A.,,*.,-~,. .......... ~h,ldu~l P~o.lectl-'_ _ . PPA · Prior to vrellmlflme/Approval o7 mamuw~ rmr,~,-,~. _ .--. :--' _ ,,... __.1. ~ql~_f 21]__ .. ~_ I)epmtme~t; PWD · City Pub#o Wolff,,, Dep~rtmeflt; ROA · South Eton rtlna~'o n~ /.,m. -.u'---. ....... ., '"'~r,~_~.Unlflecl School Dla#4ct IDENTIFIED IMPACT SEWER 59. Wasfcwater Coffection- Trunk Sewers. The anticipated project-facilitated increase in peak wastewater flow rotes at project area buildout would require a significant portion of the remaining Mission Road trunk sewer capacity. 'he I.~e Ixobab~ does not have sufficient capec~ lo accommodate the higher flows from the project area in additio~ to peak flows from the sewer's much la~ger surrounding drainage area. RECOMMENDED MmGATION Before substantial additional development proceeds in the project area, complete an engineering analysis of Ihe Colma Creek trunk sewer line along Mission Road to determine any need for additional trunk sewer capacity and, if warranted, to establish a construction th'ne table and lair-share cost responsibilities. MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements= AgencyJ NCIP PW~ 60. Wastewater Collection-Project Area. The existing sewer line that crosses Cola· Creek behind the Macy's site does not have sufficient capac~y to accommodate anticipated project lacilitated development. However, construction of the subway or relained cut BART extension alternative through the project area would require replacement of this line with a sewer pumping station and force mains. 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 s~te. If necessary, a second gravity line, less than 400 teet in length, should be extended across Colma Creek to Ixovide a second connection to Mission Road. Alternatively, if BART is constructed first, the necessaq~ sewer replacement actions may m~igale this Impact. IPC PFA PWD POLICE AND FIRE PROTECTION 61. Project-facilitated development would bring The rate of additional police and tire calls per year SOM STR RDA ' CAE · City Advocacy Effort; ClP · City C-,pII-I Improvement Plan Item; CPA = Condition of Project Aplx'ovel; IPC = Individual Project Plan CheGk; PDR · Individual Project I)e~lgfl Review; RPI · Redevelopment Prolecl Item; SOM · Specialized Ongoing Monitoring ' ARL · Annual RDA alalum latter Io $SFUSO for life of redevelopment plan; BSC · P~er to BART Sl~dofl Complellon; liSP · Du~ BARTSIaIIon Plsnnlr~ ~; FCIP · Include Cily'l Future FIv~-Year Caplt~l Improvement Plan; HCIP - Include In Clly'l Next Rva-Veir Cq)llll ImprovL,.inl Program; OMP · Ongoing Monitoring Progrsm; PFA · I)Ho~ to Rnal Approval of Indlv~dull ProJecII; PPA · Prior Io Predmlnlry Approval ol Inclividua! Pro/ocli; P2! · Prior Io the ~ 2010 ' ECOO · City Economic: end Communhy Development DepiNlmonf; FD. City Fire Del~rtmefll; PD · City Polk:e Department; PRCSO · Clly Fides, Recreeflo~ end ComnNndly -e_lrV~ll DipB,~.inl; PWD · City Public WoH(i Department; RDA · South Sin Frond~co Rldlvllopmfd Agency; SSFUSD · South Slit Froncllco Unified School DilWk:t IDENTIFIED IMPACT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING Timing Responsible Requirements~ Agency~ corresponding increases in the number of residents requiring law enlorcemenl'and fire proleclion services. No special additional fire proleclion training, equipment, or apparalus would be required (no project-lacililaled development will exceed tour slories in height). PARKS AND RECREATION associated with the projecl area should be monilored by the two deparlmenls. Additional personnel and facilities should be provided as warranted by fhe monitoring resulls. ~¥' is 'a ~tine~dministrat/~.e!procedure.!or.il~e.= . fire departrr ants?identifying the need to g ve~ special consideration to future El Camino Corrfdor land use changes in their annual personnel and facilities planning. 62. 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. Construct mini-parks as the need develops in the projecl area to comply with Ihe Cily's 1/4 mile radius slandard; Require dedication of parkland or dedication of In lieu fees for the remaining share of the 25 acres of required parkland hal otherwise provided as described below: CPA PFA ECDD ~ .Note:: The RDA shouldp?epare a Idtter to ~... .. the PRCSD stating its expectation, that the.," ~. PRCSD will continue implementing, to the :. ~ extent poss~ble, its current program of neighborhood park and mini-park . · :~i:: Improvement, dictated by established city 'ii! standards and funded by established park fees, as needs develop in the project area, I ' CAE · City Advocacy Effort; ClP = City Capital Improvement Plan Item; CPA · Condition of Project Approval; IPC · Individual Project Plan Cheek; PDR · IndlvlduM Project Declgn Review; RPI · Redevelopme~! Project Ilea; SaM = Specialized Ongoing Monllorlng ~ ARC · Annual RDA statue letter lo SSFUSD for life of redevelopment plan; BSC = PHor Io BART Station Complellon; BSP'= During BART Stellar1 Plmming process; FCIP · Include In City's Fuluro Five-Yea Capital Improvemont Plan; NCIP = Include In Clty'a Next Five-Year CopIIM Improve,,,sut Program; aMP = Ongoing Monitoring Program; PFA ·Pder lo Flnll Approval of Individual Projects; PPA · Prior to I~ellmlnery Approval o! Individual Projects; P21 · Prior lo the veer 2010 mD.D · ?fy F~co?~_._lc ?.d .Co..?m.un _by Oevdoph,~nt Dep. lment; FD · Cl!y Fire .D~dment; PO · City Pollo® I~pertmenl; PRCSD · City Pmka, Recmellon, and Community Services tme~ ~ ~2ty Puo, c WOrKa LmpeHnlent; ROA · South ~n Froncmco Rede~ ~tt Agency; SSFU~O · South San Francisco Unified School District Page 21 14tPS fT, K~S1522tAflTMOMMMCHT. IDENTIFIED IMPACT RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Neighborhood Parks. Construct a neighborhood park in the project area or nearby on vacant and/or surplus school land at the Alia Loma or El Rancho school sites. Type of Monitoring Action~ MONITORING ' Timing ' Reaponslble Requirementat Agency~ CIP FClP RDA ,Note: : See above note.' Park c~$truction . · should be budgeted and sched, ule~.~to~.occ~' - before buildout of the project ar~,a..rea'ches ....' ~ approximately, half of the EIR-proJected:~ -':. ~ residential total; i.e., 50 percent of 3,216.. ~ unlts-,~ approx~ ,600 units, ' ~- ' Community Linear Park. Require project-specific land dedications and improvements necessary to implement Ihe planned linear park along the line of the former Colma Creek. IPC PFA ECDD CAE · City Advoclcy Effort; CIP · City C~plt.l Improvemen! Pl.n Ilem; CPA. Condltkm of Project Approvel; IPC · Indlvlduel ProJ~:t Plan Check; PDR · Individual Project Oe~lgn Review; RPI - Redevelopment I~o~ect Item; SOM · Speclellzed Ongoing Monitoring ARL. Anfluel RDA Illlul blt~t' to $SFUSO for life of redeveinpme~l plan; BSC · P~er 1o BART Stalinn Complellon; BSP · Oudng BART Station Planning I~e~; r-cIP · Inel~4e In City'~ Future Fh~e-Yecf Capltel Improvemenl Plan; NCIP · Include In Clty'e Necl Five-Year Cap#al Iml~ovement I~og~em; OMP · Ongoing Monitoring I~egrom; PFA · Prle~ to Find Appro~l of Indlvlduel Projects; PPA · PHor lo I~ellmine~ Appro~l o! Indlvlduel Pro.:ts; P21 · Prior Io the yeer 2OI0 ECDO · City Eeohomle end Com~unily Development Departmenl; FO · City Flro Department; PO · City Police Departmmtl; PRCSD · City Pe~e, Recmellon, end Cemmunity Depe~tme. t; PWD · City Publle Winks Department; RDA · South San Ffenel~eo Rede~elopmen! Age~ley; SSI:USO · Seuth San Fren~leeo l. inllled Seheel EXHIBIT A REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EL CAMiNO CORRIDOR GENERAL PLANAMENDMENT 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 consideration by 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 Projecu Area so that the Project Area may be developed in confo~nance 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 CEQA guidelines 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 commert period closed on March 17, 1993. On January 30, 1993 the Notice of Completion of the DEIR was published in The Enterprise Journal. ~3103P.P50 o~,] $/9~ - 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 City's 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 Mateo's 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"); 63103P.P$O 0~1S/92 -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 Cit~,, 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 1 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.P$O 06/15/93 -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 ~I~P.P$O 06/1~ -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. Environmental Effect: Increased Residential Density on McLellan Nursery Propertv. 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. Finding. Not applicable. 2. T.and Use Impact #2 a. Environmental Effect: Macy's Site Apartment DeveloDment. 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. 6~103P.PSO o~'~s/~ -5- b. ~itigation Measure(s). None Required. c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Not applicable. 3. Land Use Impact a. Environmental Effect: Cumulative Impacts. 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-Inducin~ 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. 06/1~ -6- c. Monitoring Program. 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 DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the General Plan Amendment, including design standard policies, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in A.4.a. B. URBAN DESIG~ 1. Urban Design ImDact #1 a. Environmental Effect: McLellan Nursery 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 Highlar.ds/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 proper~y 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. developers. c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future 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. Findin,. 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 ~1~P.P~ 06/1S/9~ --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 a. Environmental Effect: 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. developers. c. Mitigation Responsibilitv. Future 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 ImDact $3 a. Significant Environmental Rffect: Visual I~pact in the Mission RoadJCounty Center Area. The potential -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 roofllnes 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 planting strips should be installed as part of project-facilitated development along the east side of Mission Road, in accordance with "boulevard street" reco~nendation page 104 of the DEIR. developers. c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future d. Monitoring Program. Component $4 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment i to this Exhibit is hereof 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 63105P.PSO 06/1 $/F~ -9 - monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in B.3.a. above. 4. Significant Urban Design Impact $4 a. Environmental Effect. Visual Impact - BART Hickey StatioB. 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 Measure(s). 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. ~I~P.PSO 06/lS/~ -10- Urban Design Impact #5 a. Significant Environmental Rffect: V~sua~ Impact of Mission Road Layout. 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. Mitigation 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. Mitigation Responsibility. 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 Litigation measures with BART. 6. Urban Design Impact a. Significant Environmental Effect. Visual Impact 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. ~itigation Measure(s). 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. 63103P.P50 ~/ls/~ - 11- c. Mitiqation Responsibility. Agency, and future private developers. BART, City, 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. Findinq. 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. ~OUSING. POPULATION. AND EMPLOYMENT No significant adverse housing, population, or employment impacts are identified. D. TRANSPORTATION 1. Transportation Impact a. Significant Environmental Effect: 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. 63103PJ~vO 06/1S/~3 -12-- b. Mitigation Measure{s) Area of Impact Mitigation E1 Camino Real/Mission Road (Colma) --AM and PM: Signalize B) (result--AM and PM E1 Camino Real/Westborough Dr./Chestnut Ave.--PM: LOS F Add second left turn lanes on Westborough and Chestnut approaches (result--PM LOS D) Westborough Dr./Junipero Serra Blvd.--PM: LOS E Restripe northbound Junipero Serra approach to provide two left turn lanes, two through lanes and one right turn lane (result--PM LOS D) Hickey B1vd./S.R. 280 northbound ramps (Daly City)--PM: LOS E Signalize (result--PM LOS D) Hickey Blvd./S.R. 280 southbound ramps (Daly City)--PM: LOS E Signalize (result--PM LOS C) Chestnut Ave./Hillside Dr.--PM: LOS F Signalize (result--PM LOS B) The EIR traffic analysis also indicates that signals are needed under current traffic conditions at the following intersections: Area of Impac% Mitiqation . Mission Road/Grand Ave. Signalize · Chestnut Ave./Grand Ave. Signalize Hickey Blvd./I-280 northbound ramps (Daly City) Signalize Hickey Blvd./I-280 southbound ramps (Daly City) Signalize Franci ~co. Mitigat{on Responsibility. City of South San 63103P.FSO o6ns/~ -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. Findina. 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 ~igh School Vicinitv 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. Mitigation Responsibility. South San Francisco Unified School District/SamTrans/City of South San Francisco. d. Monitoring Program. Component $17 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above-described mitigation measure. e. Finding. To the extent the above mitigation measures are within the jurisdiction of the City and/or Agency, the mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. City/Agency advocacy of adoption of the above measures by the appropriate agency will reduce the incidence of jaywalking in the 63103P.PSO o~,'~$/~ -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. 3. Transportation Impact #3 a. Significant Environmental Effect: Year 2010 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. Mitigation MeasureCs). Area of Impact Mitigation E1 Camino Real/Westborough Blvd./Chestnut Ave.--AM: from LOS D (existing) to LOS E; PM: would remain LOS F Add second EB and WB left turn lanes as recommended to correct existing deficiencies (result: PM LOS still F); extend Oak Ave. from Mission 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 Blvd.--PM: from LOS C (existing) to LOS E Add additional lanes to SB E1 Camino intersection approach (result: one left/three through/one right turn lane; PM LOS C) Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra Blvd.--PM: from LOS D (existing) to LOS E Add one additional lane to the WB Hickey approach (result: one left/two through/one right turn lane; PM LOS D) Mickey Blvd./I-280 NB ramps (after signalization)--PM: LOS Add one additional lane to the NB offramp approach (result: one left/one shared left- through/one right turn lane; PM LOS D) ~estborough Dr./Junipero Serra Blvd./ 1-280 NB onramp--PM: LOS E (existing) to LOS F Add one additional lane to NB Junipero Serra approach and one additional lane to WB 63~03P.PSO ~ls/~ - 15- Westborough approach (result: PM LOS D) Avalon Dr./Junipero Serra Blvd./I-280 NB ramps--PM: LOS D (existing) to LOS E Add one additional lane to NB offramp approach (result: one 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 Dr. Signalize, provide left turn lane on SB intersection approach (result LOS B) Hickey Blvd. extension/E1 Camino Real Signalize Hickey Blvd. extension/Mission Rd. Signalize "New Street" (BART station)/E1 Camino Real Signalize, provide left turn lane on SB E1 Camino Real approach to New Street (result LOS B) "New Street" (BART Station/Mission Road) Provide all-way stop sign control Francisco. Mitigation Responsibility. City of South San 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. 4. Transportation Impact #4 a. Significant Environmental Effect: Base Case Operational 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: BART Driveways on Hickey and E1 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 o~,~s/~ -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 Intersection. Provide a left turn lane of the southbound E1 Camino Real approach to New Street. Mission Road/BART Parking T,ot 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 Stop. 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. Evergreen 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. Findina. 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 6~103P.PSO 06,'1S/9~ -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 #5 a. Significant Environmental Effect: Year 2010 ~edestrian/Bicycle Deficiencies 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. ~inding. 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 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 ~I~P.P$O ~/1~ -19- residennial areas east of the station. Overflow parking 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. Mitigation 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. Mitiqation Responsibility. South San Francisco. BART/City of 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. Findinq. 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 ProJec~ facilitated growth in the Project Area: b. Mitigation MeasureCs) . Impact Mitigation Mitigation ResDonsibility E1 Camino Real/Hickey Blvd.- -PM: from LOS E Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions City ~3103P~0 o~'~s/~ -2 O- (without project) to LOS F (with project) Hickey Blvd. extension/E1 Camino Real--PM: from LOS B (without project) to LOS E (with project) Hickey Blvd./Junipero Serra Blvd.--PM: from LOS D (without project) to LOS E (with project) without project would provide acceptable operation. (result: LOS C) Add (stripe) one additional lane to WB approach on Hickey extension (result: PM LOS Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions without project would provide acceptable operation. (result: LOS D) City, Agency, future developers City E1 Camino Real/Westborough Blvd (F without Project to worse F with Project) Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions without Project would provide acceptable operations City Hickey Bird/I-280 NB ramps (E without Project to worse E with Project) Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions without Project would provide acceptable operations City Avalon Dr/Junipero Serra Bird/I-280 NB offramp (E without Project to worse E with Project) Improvements needed for year 2010 conditions without Project would provide acceptable operations City In addition, the following intersections would result in signal warrants being met or approaching the warrant levels. ~I~P..PSO o~/~s/~ -21- Intersection Mitiqation Mitigation ~esponsibilitv Hillside/Hickey Blvd. Extension E1 Camino Real/ Macy's Residential Access Signalize City Signalize City New Street/Mission Signalize if City Road warranted. Provide left turn lane on Northbound Mission Road approach c. Monitoring Program. Component $34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit are hereby incorporated by reference as the monitoring program for the above-described mitigation measure(s). d. Finding. The above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Adoption of these measures will improve the level of service at the above intersections as noted above. Based upon the information and analyshs in Part IV.D. of the DEIR, the finding is made that the adoption of the above mitigation measure and monitoring program will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in Section D.7.a. above. 8. Transportation Impact a. Significant Environmental Effect: Other Roadwav Operational and Safety Conditions. Project facilitated development could result in obstructions of through traffic by turning movements into new driveways along existing streets within the Project Area. b. Mitigation Measure (s). Minimize Mission Road driveways serving new residential uses. Space driveways, at a minimum, 150 feet apart from each other and from the Oak Avenue intersection. Driveways on opposite sides of the road should be located opposite one another or offset by at least 150 feet. ~I~P.P$O 06/~ -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. future developers, BART. City, Agency, 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. Findino. 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 Impact a. Significant ~nvironmental Effect: Project Pedestrian and Bicvcle 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 ~I~P.PSO o~/ls,~ -23- 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(s). Discourage pedestrian crossings on the Hickey extension with special roadside edge and median design methods; consider fencing along high school Mission Road frontage. BART. Co Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency,. d. Monitoring 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 signifLcant environmental effect described in Section D.9.a. above. 10. Transportation Impact #10 a. significant Environmental Effect: 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 s~reets could present parking impacts. Construction truck impacts on streets in the vicinity of E1 Camino High School may also present safety impacts. b. Mitigation Measure(s). 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, o6/15/93 -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 ResDonsibility. future developers. City, Agency, 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. NOISR 1. Noise Impact #1 a. Siqnificant Environmental Effect. 2010 "Base Case" (without 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. Mitigation Measure(s). Implement the subway option. c. Mitigation Responsibility. BART, City, Agency. ~I~P.P$O o~1~ -2 5- 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 Jurisdiction of the City and/or Agency, the above =itigation 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 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. developers. c. Mitigation Responsibility. Future 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 nitigation 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. ~I~P.PSO 3. Noise Impact #3 a. Significant Environmental Effect. Aircraft Nois~. 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. Mitiqation Responsibility. Future developers. d. Monitoring Program. 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. ~itigation Measure(s). (1) Construction Scheduling. 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). 63JO3P.PSO 06/~S/93 -27- (2) Construction Equipment Mufflers and ~aintenance. Properly muffle and maintain all construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines. (3) Idlinq Prohibitions. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. (4) RquiDment T.ocation and Shield'ing. 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 indLvidual project sponsor should be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule notices). Ce future developers. Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency, 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. Findinq. 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 (Aluernatives) and VII (Statement of Overriding Considerations) below. ~tl$/~ -2 8- STORM DRAINAGE. WATER. AND SEWER FACILITIES BTORM DI~,II~GE 1. Storm Drainage Impact #1 a. Significant Environmental Effect. Local 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. future developers. Mitiqation Responsibility. City, Agency, 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. Findina. 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 a. Significant Environmental 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 631. 03P.PSO o6/1~/~ -29- 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. ~itigation Measure(s). Replacement and relocation of existing storm drains and channels that now serve propertles 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. future developers. Mitigation ResDonsibility. City, Agency, d. Monitoring Program. Component $53 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment 1 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 will avoid or substan~ially lessen the significant environmental effect described in Storm Drainage, Section F.2.a. above. 3. Storm Drainage Impact #3 a. Significant Environmental Effect. Local 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. developers. c. Mitiaation Responsibility. Future 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.P50 o6/15/9~ -30- e. Finding. 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 Rnvironmental Rffect. Water Ouality. Project-facilitated development could result in .- increases in the production of urban pollutants carried by stormwater into local surface waters. b. ~itigation 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. Ail 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.PSO o~/~ -31- 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 pe_--mit 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 techniqaes and maintenance practices designed to permit the effective, on-going removal of non-point source pollutants from the site's 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. Ce future developers. Mitigation ResDonsib~lit¥. City, Agency, o~$/~ -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. ~inding. 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 ~e obtained from the RWQCB. c. Mitigation Responsibility. RWQCB, future developers. City, Agency, 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 wi11 avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect described in Storm Drainage, Section F.5.a. above. 6. Storm Drainage Impact #6 a. Rn¥ironmental Effect. 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.P~ o6/15/~ -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. Mitiqation Measure(s). None Required. c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Not applicable. WATER 7. Water Impact 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 Proqram. 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. Rnvironmental Effect. Domestic Water Demands. The net project-related increase in average daily water deman~ would be within the capacity of the City's water supply. b. Mitigation Measure(s). No special mitigation is required, but various project-specific water conservation measures are recommended in the EIR. 6~ 03P.PSO o~$/~ -3 4- c. Mitigation Responsibility. Not applicable. d. Monitoring Program. Component ~58 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment 1 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 a. Environmental Effect. 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. ~itigation Measure{s). None Required. c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Not applicable. Sewer Impact a. Environmental Effect. Wastewater Collection- -Trunk Sewers. The anticipated project-facilitated 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 o~,15/~ -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 analysis 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. landowners. Co Mitigation Responsibility. City, Agency, 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. Finding. 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 Impact $3 a. Significant Environmental Effect. Wastewater Collection-Project Area. The existing sewer line that crosses Colma Creek behind the Macy's site does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate anticipated project facilitated development. However, construction of the subway or retained cut BART extension alternative through the Project Area would require replacement of this line with a sewer pumping station and force mains. b. Mitigation Measures. More detailed engineering analysis of the Macy's sewer line capacity should be required as a condition of future residential development on the Macy's site. If necessary, a second gravity line, less than 400 feet in length, should be extended across Colma Creek to provide a second connection to Mission Road. Alternatively, if BART is constructed first, the necessary sewer replacement actions may mitigate this impact. Developers. c. M{t{gation Responsibil{ty. Future ~I~P.P$O o6/1s/~ -36- 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. Departments. Mitigation Responsibility. Police and Fire d. Monitoring Program. 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. ~I~P.PSO ~1151~ - 37 - 2. Police and Fire Services Impact a. Environmental Effect: The project- facilitated undergroundlng of BART would not create any unique or significant impacts on the provision of local police or fire services. b. Mitigation Measure(s). None Required. c. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Not applicable. RECREATION 3. parks and Recreation Services Impact #1 a. Significant Environmental Effect: 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 a neighborhood park in the Projec~ Area or nearby on vacant and/or surplus school land a~ the Alta Loma or E1 Rancho school sites. City, Agency, future developers Community Linear Park. Require project-specific land dedications and improvements necessary to implement the planned linear park along the line of the former Colma Creek. City, Agency, future developers. d. Monitoring Program. Component #62 of the monitoring program set forth in Attachment I to this Exhibit is ~I~P.P~ o~,ls/~ -38- 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 signif~cant environmental effect described in Parks and Recreation, Section G.3.a. above. SOUTH S;~l~ ~CISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Impact South San Francisco Unified School District a. Significant Environmental Effect: ~roJect- 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.P$O 06,qS/~ -39- Increase fees (the District could raise its development impact fees to the maximum rate allowed by law). 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 Responsibility. District. d. Monitoring Program. 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. Finding. 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 #1 a. Rnvironmental Effect: Project-related geotechnical impact concerns include the construction limitations and foundation design requirements that may apply to soil and geologhc 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. Mitioation MeasureCs). I= 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 63103P.PSO e~,,,ls,,~ -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 Program. 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 Oualit¥ 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.PSO 06/] 5/93 -- 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.l.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 '91 Clean Air Plan goals. The '91 Clean Air Plan encourages "cities and counties to promote high density, mixed-use development in vicinity of mass transit stations." b. Mitiqation 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. Mitigation Responsibility. Not applicable. d. Monitoring Program. Not applicable. e. Finding. Not applicable. J. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFR 1. Vegetation and Wildlife Impact #~ a. Rnvironmental 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. Monitor{ng Program. The City shall require as a condition of project approval landscaping plans which comply with the above mitigation measure. d. Finding. ~e above mitigation measure and monitoring program are hereby adopted. Replacement of any mature o(~,~ ~ -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 RESOURCES 1. Cultural Resources Impact a. Fnvironmenta] Effect: Native 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(si. 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. Findinc. Not applicable. 2. Cultural Resources Impact ~2 a. Rnvironmental Effect: 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 63103P.PSO 0~'~5/9~ - 4 3- prior to construction, monitoring during grading or trenching, and proper documentation of resource finds, no significant impacts would occur. b. ~tigation Measure(s). No additional mitigation would be required beyond the evaluation, monitoring, and documentation procedures described above which are incorporated in the Genera~ Plan Amendment. c. ~onitoring Program. Not applicable. d. Finding. Not applicable. 3. Cultural Resources Impact a. Rnvironmental Effect: ~od McLellan Nursery Compan~. 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 proper~y 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 and 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 ~I~P.PSO ~/l~ -44- 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 Redevelopment 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 63103P,PSO 06/~S/92 -4 5- remain as they are today. No new demands on public services or facilinies would be created. (b) Finding. Based on the information contained in Chapter VI of the DEIR, -.he 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 than the 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 Project Area would remair.. 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 condominitmproposal would also be anticipated. (b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Rffects. 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 ~I03P.PSO o6/1s/92 -4 6- 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. Population. 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 Macy's 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. No~se. 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 Facilities. 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. 6310:~P.PSO 06/15/9~ --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~ls and Geology. This 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 q~ality 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) ~indina. 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 condithons 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 No General Plan Amendment (a) Principal Characteristics. This alternative would include the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the area withoun 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.PSO ~/ls/~ -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 neighborhoods. Housing. Population. and EmDloyment. 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 and 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 projected E1 Camino Real noise environment. Storm Drainage. Water. and Sewer Facilities. This alternative would place less additional demand on existing water and sewer infrastructure systems. Storm drainage impacts would not change significantly. ~I~P.PSO 06/1~ -49- Other 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 Ouality. 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) ~inding. 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. Alternative Four--Modified General Plan Amendment-- Reduced Densities (a) PrinciDal 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 following development characteristics: The McLellan site would not be granted a density increase (i.e., would develop at currently allowed densities of 8 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 proper~ies 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. 63103P.PSO o~,~s/~ -50- (b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating ~ffects 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 Desig~ 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. ~o!se. 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. ~I~P.PSO o~/ls/~ -51- However, this alternative would facilitate less of the air quality benefits associated with construction of high density residennial development near a BART station. Vegetation and Wildlife. This alternative would result in no significant change in identified vegetation and wildlife impact. (c) Finding. Based on the information contained in Chapter VI of the DEIR, the information in the FEIR, and the informauion 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 alterna~ive. 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. Alternative Five--Modified General Plan Amendment-- 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 selected Project 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 site's 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~/]~ -52- to 3,676 units, representing an 11 percent increase over the units that would be built under the proposed Project. (b) Comparative Impacts and Mitigating Rffect~. 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.. ¥isual 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. 63103P.PSO o~,/~s/~ -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 Wildlifg. This alternative would have vegetation and wildlife impacts very similar to the proposed Project. (c) Findln~. 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 problens and the impacts on public services. 6. Alternative Six--Modified Redevelopment Activities (a) Principal Characteristics. Under this alternative redevelopment scenario' the General Plan Anendment 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. Specifhcally, 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.) 63103P.PSO 06,'1S/93 -54-- (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 units 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. (¢) ~indinq. 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. (t) 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~,]s/~ -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, fewer housing 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 Agency's obJecthve 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 Projecn Area boundaries were selected to conform to the requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law. A change in the boundaries would most likely not conform to the CRL. VII. S~atement of Overriding Considerations. The Agency and the City Council have fully considered the discussion and analyses in the Record regarding the environmental impact~, 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~PJ~O ~l~ -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 15093, 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 ~3103P.PSO 0~/~ S/~ -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 co~unity, 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. owl~ -58-